Ken Silva’s Internet Para-Church of the Remnant
Source: Verum Serum
Comments: John and Scott are some of the highest class bloggers out there, with incredibly insightful commentary on the “discernment” ministries like AM, CR?N and Slice. Having noticed the return of Slice, they have taken to dissecting “Pastor” Silva’s involvement, his roots in the CRBC, and his general lack of accountability supplemented with a healthy dose of ‘infallibility’.
Great - and accurate - summation of the current state of CR?N, Slice and AM
Quotes:
I came across this article today featuring Ken’s latest attack on Rick Warren. And to be perfectly fair, I think Ken may have a point in this case. Warren should excercise some discipline, if he’s really in a position to do so. That said, Ken is not Warren’s pastor. He’s barely anyone’s pastor. And, frankly, the idea that Ken is in a position to advise Rick Warren on how to run a church is just laughable.
Why laughable? I’m glad you asked.
First, the suggestion that half of the people who’d been there as the church dwindled from 100 down to 13 were insufficiently committed seems odd to me. If you’re attending a church of 13 after 80% of the members have abandoned ship, I don’t think commitment is really a problem. And yet, Ken describes those who left as weeds. In the scripture, weeds are those destined for burning. It’s not a light thing to label someone a weed.
We got a first hand account of how this weeding took place from one of Ken’s remaining members who said:
With people from our Church bristling under teachings against blatent [sic] disregard for Truth, Ken had to delve deeper into what caused all of this.
So in the case of his own church, people who “bristled†under Ken’s teaching were weeds. The assumption by both Ken and the person quoted above is that anyone who could not abide the pure truth of Ken’s teaching is, quite literally, destined for hell. That’s certainly one way to look at it. Is there another way?
There is nothing wrong with a pastor being supported by his flock, but this gets to the core of the problem. Who is Ken’s flock? As the quote above shows, he sees AM as an online church. He admits himself that this is a strange idea. Indeed it is. For someone so determined to do only what is spelled out in the Bible and to do nothing that is not, where is the Biblical support for an online church?
What Ken is really trying to get off the ground is an internet based para-church minstry. There are many para-church ministries in the world, some of which I appreciate. In Ken’s case, however, the goal is not to support the church but to separate people from it, at least from the large section of it of which Ken does not approve.
Join a real local church and give your money to someone who can actually serve you, hold you accountable and do all the things that real churches do. Hey, join Ken’s church if you’re so inclined! But don’t support a fake church like Apprising Ministries whose only purpose is to bash pastors of real churches. Even if he doesn’t call it an online church, be wary of any ministry that appeals for money but resists explaining itself to critics. So far as I can tell, Ken Silva’s Internet Para-Church of the Remnant is accountable to no one.
Excellent article!
May 14th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
I read the Verum Serum piece, and followed some of the links to some of the commenter’s blogs which Ken has replied to, and I am almost beginning to think that Ken Silva is the alter-ego of a bored Bible college student somewhere. I mean some of his replies sound like they are straight from the “Lark News” or “Landover Baptist” page.
May 14th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Looks like Ken’s church is down to 5 or 6 people, not just 5 or 6 families.
“Elizabeth,
Thank you for asking. My church, Connecticut River Baptist Church, is but 5-6 who meet in the home of one of its members so they cannot financially support me.
Both websites are fully integrated auxiliaries under the guidance of CRBC’s leadership, which is one of the ways they help.”
May 14th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
The Reviews are in!
Ken Silva says: “John Sexton has truly crafted an outstanding piece of fiction. A superb and spellbinding story! As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t like that ‘Ken’ either.”
May 14th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Ken,
Your critics may be your best friends and your best friends you enemies…
What i mean is that I think you are a “likable” guy… otherwise i would just have given up on you. I have battled people of pretty great stature that preach Grace and then hand out damnation… talk about “bait and switch”.
This is the “Ken” we see you as… as you represent yourself to us. If you don’t like that “Ken” either, don’t mock it… take a close look at yourself as give some thought as to why we see you as that “Ken”…
My prayers for you are sincere even if you do not think so. I have been in a similar position as you are… maybe even worse. Yet, I see that if God had grace enough for me… you are no problem at all! LOL!
So, just take some time to humbly seek God as to how you are coming across to people… are you just rationalizing things to justify it in your own mind, or is there something deep that God must deal with. That is not easy as I face the person I am in the mirror every day. In that I can believe the lies of Satan, or rest in Christ. I can seek to edify and uplift and encourage and nurture, or I can accuse and condemn and judge others… only then having to look in the mirror and see that I am often those very people I stand against.
Everyone will make it to heaven with bad doctrine, no one will make it without Jesus Christ. I encourage you to minister to the lost instead of attacking the sheep… even if you think them wolves. God always has a better way to drive the wolves away… He is the Great Pastor…
Blessings,
iggy
May 14th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Ken says I created a work of fiction, but more than half my post was made up of his own words taken from his own site. Everything in blockquotes is Ken speaking.
I’m not sure how I can be credited for inventing anything here. All I did was take the time to compile it.
May 14th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
The gigantic shift as to how to discern Biblical truth continues on its mercurial path and there can be no more important serious discussion in these days. But people like Ken and Ingrid have become so bombastic and self absorbed that the essence of the dialogue becomes them and not God’s truth.
Melodramatic themes, personal attacks, creative hyperbole, adolescent comments, and a self righteousness that is unbecoming of any true and humble follower of the Lord Jesus much less one called to preach (not Ingrid). You can find any Scripture you want and pluck it out from among the inseparable support of all the rest and claim you are a “John the Baptistâ€.
And even in the midst of a civil discussion I’ve seen these bloggers point out misspellings in an attempt to demean others via an eighth grade schoolyard approach which sometimes elicilts a like kind response. Some of us are husbands and fathers and grandfathers and most conspicuous of all we are believers and followers of the Great Shepherd. But it seems as if some cannot even be adults.
I personally believe there are genuine believers in all of these different movements but I strongly disagree with many of the directions that may lead to a collapse of the authentic gospel itself. But, my voice will not be heard if I speak with pomp and as if I am looking for a fight rather than redemption and reconciliation.
It is possible to know the truth and still be decieved about yourself. Just listen, the object lessons are growing.
May 14th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
“It is possible to know the truth and still be decieved about yourself.”
Right Rick, now look in the mirror.
May 14th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Q. Where is the scriptural support for pastors being those who stand in front of a congregation in a building?
A. Nowhere to be found.
As I said on a previous post. The “five fold ministries” are for the body. The fold is bigger than your building.
Henry I have actually heard more emergent types claim that they are John the Baptists, than any of the discernemnt bloggers. The ec types also love to talk about the “dangerous places” they go, blah blah blah.
Also this blog is more guilty of sophomoric attacks regarding spelling errors and the like.
May 14th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Chris P,
You’re right about the scope of the five fold in principle.
But is there anything to the idea of the integrity of the local church’s autonomy–a baptistic distinctive?
I know you are a vehement critic of the RCC. Do you see the five fold ministry as a universal authority, just not organized like Rome?
I’m not familiar with EC types claiming the John the Baptist mantle. Could you provide documented examples? (I ask this not to be contentious, but because I’ve never seen or heard those claims. However, if Brian McLaren is the whipping boy on this one, I’m not interested. I don’t really read his books, have some disagreements with some of his public claims and no matter how much you guys pound on it, he doesn’t speak for me–a person who gladly has relationships within the larger sphere of the emerging church–or many others. Other examples are welcome.)
Lastly, regarding sophomoric attacks on spelling…
“more guilty”? Who cares? Demeaning is demeaning. Someone does it once or multiple people do it to the same person or whatever, it just doesn’t matter about quantity. That seems a little bit like obfuscation: “Yeah, you do it too. In fact, you do it more! Nah, nah.”
Again, I’m not trying to be contentious, I just don’t think you’re last assertion really matters. Henry was addressing it in general, not assigning it to a particular group.
Anyway: My real questions:
But is there anything to the idea of the integrity of the local church’s autonomy–a baptistic distinctive?
Do you see the five fold ministry as a universal authority, just not organized like Rome?
I’m not familiar with EC types claiming the John the Baptist mantle. Could you provide documented examples (sans any tired McLaren bashing)?
thanks.
May 14th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Many reformed (MacArthur) would prefer four fold offices, the pastor/teacher being one not two. They are gifts to the church universal but as far as authority it would fall to the elder body which should be particular to the local ecclesia.
May 14th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
HenryRick,
Would you then generally hold to the idea of local church autonomy too?
I’m still interested in hearing what Chris P.’s take is on these questions.
May 14th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
“They are gifts to the church universal as far as authority it would fall to the elder body which should be particular to the local ecclesia.”
Sounds like the Pharisees and the rabbinical system to me.
May 15th, 2007 at 5:18 am
Yes, the particular local body would have autonomy, but in the early church it seems that churches did have some interdependence as far as authority. It probably opperated as one elder body helped another in a difficult situation, but there is no Scriptural teaching concerning this.
What was to be avoided was a centralized authority whether it be one man in a particular church or an umbrella body of elders with one man coming to the top. As this illustrates that is how the higherarchy started in the Roman Church. Authority is a very delicate responsibility and it must be exercized with humility and accountability. Even then it tends to assimilate to the most verbally expressive, gregarious, or forceful personality within the elder body.
May 15th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Everyone but those that contribute to Slice/CR?N can see Ken’s flaws as a communicator and logician, but how about a humanizing Ken Silva trivia game? Or maybe a new post called, “The Coolest Things About Ken Silva”…
What Major League Baseball Hall of Famer did Ken’s dad (Ralph) coach in high school?
As a side note, Ralph is still coaching (along with Ken’s brother) at the high school where Ken used to be the Study Hall Monitor. Does his dad and brother attend Ken’s church? Are they two of the five remnant?
May 15th, 2007 at 9:29 am
PTDW,
Humanize Ken? I think he displays his human qualities very well…
I have tried to just talk to Ken but he is not open to me at all… as one can tell he makes comments on how much beneath him I am all the time… so how about the humans Ken is hurting or demonizing… people who love Jesus like me…. that he claims to be reaching out to, yet seems to really think I am nothing compared to the richness of Ken.
I guess i was shocked to here Ken had a earthly father!
LOL!…
Really, I think Ken is too insecure to actually let anyone know him… especially those he thinks are his enemies. It is sad to me… If Ken learned to actually love others as the bible commands I think God would use him in a mightier way.
Blessings,
iggy
May 15th, 2007 at 9:34 am
PTDW
Not sure where you’re goin mentioning Ken’s family. While it’s probably a valid question, I say let’s leave his family out of anything we discuss here. I know I, personally, would go ballistic if my brothers were brought into anything has heated as the debating here.
May 15th, 2007 at 9:55 am
What does Ken’s extended family have to do with the gospel and Biblical truth? Especially if it is used to agitate him or attack him. Stay on point guys. Love covers a multitude of sins.
May 15th, 2007 at 10:15 am
You aren’t interested in the legitimacy of his “church” and his God annointed role of pastor/teacher? Don’t have a politically-correct knee jerk response to ‘family’ comments when it is on point vis a vis the numbers of his flock.
Plus, I really did think it was cool that his dad coached a MLB Hall of Famer. People on this blog have made psychological diagnoses on Ken; I think doing research on the man is very much in the scope of understanding of the man and, hopefully, him seeing the light.
For instance, did you know that Ken recorded a solo folk/rock album and sent a copy to this MLB HoFer? Or that a quote is attributed to Ken in reference to the HoF player saying,
“There was that regal kind of way he walked, like he knew he was somebody. He inspired me in my own life with that walk,”
Using Ken & Ingrid’s methods, shouldn’t we delve into this baseball player’s written quotes and find where Ken’s man-centered love and idolatry of a sports figure is part of the American Idol Apostate Church of Man-Centered Deceit?
Still on point,
PDTW
P.S. - Carlton Fisk!
http://www.redsoxdiehard.com/players/fisk.html
May 15th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Interesting………
The sedevacantist catholics like to drag pictures my wife and I off of our ministry, website and post them up for ridicule. Apparently there are those who are just like those medievel miscreants.
I will not drag McClaren into it, as he would never claim John the Baptist-like ministry. Too much fire and brimstone for the likes of the warm and fuzzy gospel.
In 5 years of visiting emerging blogs and leaving comments ( and being banned), as well as my own writing and research, I would have to dig through quite a bit to find exact quotes, but I think you knew that. You will just have to take my word for it. If you can’t ……oh well. Call me a liar.
The Canadian emergent blogs are the worst offenders of claiming to be subversive, going where no man has gone before, i.e. into the danger zone, claiming to be the voice of one crying in the wilderness, yada yada yada. Of course it’s okay for them to make such a claim but not CRN.
As for four-fold/five-fold ministry; I believe the bible teaches that there are elders and deacons in a given locality/city.
Paul wrote to the church of Corinth, Ephesus, churches of Galatia etc.One city/one church.
Pastors are only mentioned once. Elder oversite is the NT model. apostles, prophets etc are a different calling. I do not endorse the many who are claiming apostleship on tbn or wherever, charlatans all. However there is apostolic and prophetic ministry as well as evangelists, pastors/teachers.
We must discern what is scripturally apostolic and prophetic not the “Elijah List”, gag.
Rome’s unbiblcal abuse of the apostolic, caused a dramatic turn to cessationism. I am not cessationist, however, I am not going to debate that now.
In the 3rd to 5th centuries, the union of church and empire was completed. The papacy and magesterial rule are empirical traits. Practices such as persecution and pogroms that once were used against God’s people, were then used by those claiming to be God’s people, against the real church and the jews.
Rome and its structue is an abomination and it has nothing to do with the one true church. A pope as vicar of Christ is un-biblical. So I obviously do not endorse the roman system of leadership.
Those who have the Spirit discern by the Spirit. The church is able to discern who the leaders of a given area are.
I will be away for the next three to four days so don’t think I am avoiding the debate.
May 15th, 2007 at 10:18 am
It is disturbing that the people left in his church might actually be his family members. Still, we are just speculating. If you have questions of that nature, perhaps you should call Silva.
May 15th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Wow.
3 things:
HenryRick, I agree that force of personality can dominate an elder board–or force of complaining. If such a dynamic is in play in an elder board, do you think it should disqualify the elder in question OR at least raise serious doubts as to the qualifications of the dominator?
Ken,
I don’t understand how your comment about pharisees connects to this issue.
PTDW,
“Using Ken & Ingrid’s methods” is precisely the problem.
May 15th, 2007 at 10:39 am
another nathan:
And so we demonstrate their silliness with Ken’s name attached. I get the feeling that Ken has never walked a mile in anyone’s shoes but his own (though he looks to walk like Carlton Fisk.)
May 15th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Chris P.
Thanks for your responses.
I’m not really familiar with the Canadian blogs, but one. It will provide me with some interesting reading. I wouldn’t call you a liar–you have a completely different experience than I in your internet surfing.
I think such language of claiming a prophetic mantle is generally overwrought and needs to be used carefully, advisedly and definitely not in the middle of an argument trying to justify ones position. In my view, this applies to anyone of any stripe.
I agree with what you said on the 5 fold ministry, tbn (gag me, too!) and the tragedy of Christendom–church/state being indiscernable from each other.
Enjoy your trip whether for business, pleasure or both.
May 15th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Matt,
Surely you’ve interacted with Ken enough to know that he does not answer such queries except with God-inspired sarcasm and avoidance…and the signature smiley
Besides, Ken’s already participated in this thread. He’s free to answer what percentage of his flock is related to him biologically or through marriage (whereas one = 20%.)
May 15th, 2007 at 10:45 am
From what I’ve heard, he will return phone calls. Not that I have tried, but you could call him.
May 15th, 2007 at 10:46 am
I see your point, PTDW.
But tread carefully lest you give those you seek to correct reason to dismiss you out of hand.
Sometimes our tactics, methods, attitude and tone can make the truth a lie in the ears of those who hear.
May 15th, 2007 at 10:47 am
I still say such methods are suspect in anyone’s hands.
May 15th, 2007 at 10:54 am
OK, I thought it was obvious, but I wasn’t literally saying we should look for Carlton Fisk quotes about theology (not that there are any) to lay at Ken’s feet and call him an apostate. Such a process would be outrageously ludicrous…which is a Ken/Ingrid signature.
Irony, parody, wit…Bueller…anyone?
As Sgt. Hulka said so eloquently in “Stripes”, “Lighten up Francis.”
May 15th, 2007 at 11:07 am
an - a person’s personality should not disqualify him, but the body of elders should walk circumspectly as to the natural tendencies that can result from showing defference to dominating personalities. That is why being an elder is a serious business but sadly in today’s church world has even disappeared in many evangelical churches.
For instance, a two hundred member church could have at least ten elders, with at least three preaching and teaching on Sundays although not all full time paying positions. The qualifications for elders are listed in the epistles, but it is safe to say that the three distinct evidences should be a profound respect and love for God’s Word, a deep and obvious prayer life, and a sacrificial and even emotional love for the sheep.
May 15th, 2007 at 11:14 am
PTDW,
I didn’t think you were actually endorsing looking for Fisk quotes, etc.
“And so we demonstrate their silliness with Ken’s name attached”
That is the statement I’m responding too.
May 15th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Since it seems to be causing undue stress…and I’d never want to do that; no one from my biological family has ever attended, or have ever been members of CRBC. And the numbers also reflect attendance by those other than myself or my wife.
I’m so sorry to disappoint you.
May 15th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Thanks for the answer Ken. So I’ll put your church membership/flock down at seven.
Don’t you think that if God truly wanted you to teach/pastor, he’d put you somewhere where your church resembled NT characteristics instead of constant division, abandonment, and discontent with your pastorship/teaching? Does that not cause you to doubt your calling, or at least your methods?
You know, instead of asking for donations over the Internet to support your missives (in which I find little value,) I for one would buy a copy of your folk/rock album if it was available on iTunes or other medium.
Rock on!
May 15th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Ken,
I am glad to hear that you people are still with you… I attempted a church plant where I live and would get up to about 5 people, then I would have to work and be out of town for a weekend and everyone would be gone… poof! so every few months I would start from scratch.
I had no backing from anyone. I was ordained through an organization to be accountable to someone out there, yet was attacked by your friend here as that being a fraud. I had even looked into the SBC here in Montana and had some good friends (non emerging) that were encouraging me to and even offered to write letters of recommendation… I declined as I did not see it as a good fit with my Pentecostal leanings and the SBC a bit shaky still on what they think of tongues. (I know the official stance, yet I have met many who have experienced the gifts that the SBC officially states do not still exist.)
Anyway , I know that it is tough to get started, and also from experience I know it is as tough to start strong and see things dwindle… Yet, I always see another door, and that is how I ended up with the Vineyard church plant here in town… and the numbers have been growing steadily… So, even though I am not planting on my own, God called me to Billings to do a church plant and I am now doing just that.
So, again it encourages me that a fellowship of people can stick it out even when numbers have gone south…
Blessings,
iggy
May 15th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
PTDW,
“I’ll put your church membership/flock down at seven.” Put down whatever you like.
“Don’t you think that if God truly wanted you to teach/pastor, he’d put you somewhere where your church resembled NT characteristics instead of constant division, abandonment, and discontent with your pastorship/teaching?”
Well friend, I’d put it like this. Don’t you think that if God truly wanted me to change the methods He’s guiding me to use in this commission Christ has given me as a pastor-teacher then he’d send me someone who actually knew what they were talking about? And not someone like you who gives every appearance to me of being a mocker who is sympathetic to this semi-pelagian new evangelical pseudo-Christian religion. A counterfeit faith which is now cripping the American Christian Church by sowing its constant division, abandonment, and discontent through their man-centered pastorship/teaching.
“Does that not cause you to doubt your calling, or at least your methods?” Nope. Not in the least. The current state of the American Christian Church actually confirms to me the calling I have, and certainly the methods necessary for the particular task that guys like me have been given (Ezekiel 3:7-14).
O, and if you really wanted one of the 2 CDs I have recorded, then you would need only to keep looking because they have been available in various venues for years now.
May 15th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
This is the only thing I could find when I googled for Ken’s cds. It figures it would be about mediation.
http://www.silvamethodct.com/dynamic_meditations.html
May 15th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Matt,
*clasping my hand over my mouth*
O no! Now I outed…
May 15th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Ken,
Even though your comments above here are not aimed at me, for the record, I am in no way a Pelagian… I used to be, but after I found Grace it has been saved by Grace through Faith… I am saved, maintain, sustained all by Grace… and do not boast in my works, for from that comes only bad fruit.
But I do boast in my weakness as it is God Who does His works in and through me, in that it is God’s good fruit that he bears in and through me.
And as I am actually in this group you are attacking you might realize there are many of us that believe this way. Yet, you will only see the fringe or hear the loudest voice and still condemn all… including me… and not hear the Voice of the Spirit and head to the teachings of Scripture out of humility be a worker in the Church.
As far as the American Christian Church… that right there is the main issue… we are called to the Kingdom of God, not to be Americans… and to add Americanism to Christianity dilutes the truth of Christ to some sort of worldly political imperialist type of “religion”… and I will not settle for the less that God’s best… and will take all the “scorned indeed by the too-easily-satisfied religionist” like yourself.
I will not compromise for something lesser than what God has given us through Jesus Christ.
As far as the current state of the American Christian Church… it is because is has mix religion/politics/capitalism into a watered down gospel of “being good” set by people who push a pseudo-righteousness and do not seek the Holy Spirit’s guidance. They settle to point fingers at others than to work on their own heart.
Blessings,
iggy
May 15th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Ken,
As for confirmation of a calling, I believe they’re called “fruits”. Your tree continues to resemble a stump of a local church (CRBC) and your online tree is more bamboo than fig; one missive after another referencing your own work in a formula of blogtastic inbreeding. You cover a lot of ground but feed no one.
I’m not sure why you’re quoting the passage from Ezekiel, those are the words and approach of a prophet, not a pastor/teacher. So your “…methods necessary for the particular task that guys like me have been given. Ezekiel 3:7-14″ is a proclamation that you are now a pastor/teacher/prophet?
Also, does that mean Ezekiel is ‘a guy like you’?
May 15th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
How do you define “cripping?” Are churches like Saddleback, Mars Hill and Willow Creek “cripped” because they have 10K + members and are changing their communities and ultimately the world?
May 15th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Actually Ken, pondering this more, you really should drop the pastor/teacher and go with prophet instead. Pastors show an ability to shepherd and care for their flock. Prophets rarely choose their words carefully and are given messages that are palatable to very few.
I can see the draw of wanting to be a pastor/teacher instead of a prophet, people are supposed to love and respect the P/T, while the prophet is lonely and feared (or mocked.)
And let’s not forget the pastor/teacher is welcomed among the flock while the prophet is not welcome in his own town.
Lessee, what else? How bout the prophet claims to speak for God?
Yes, I think Ken Silva - Prophet is more appropriate.
May 15th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
PTDW,
Ah yes, your cleverness certainly does escape us even as it amazes us. I tell you what friend, I think I’ll just let Jesus call me whatever He wants to call me. His track record for judging the fruit of His genuine minsters such as I is much better than yours. Thanks anyway for trying though.
And Todd,
You really do have much to learn my young friend.
May 15th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
PTDW,
The problem with being a prophet is that the proscribed punishment for incorrect prophecy is death, and as often as Ken is wrong…
…I’m sure you get the picture - P/T looks better on the business card and doesn’t get you stoned to death for being the charlatan you are…
May 15th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Ken,
You wrote:
As for what He would want to call you, I think that - taken in context - most of Matthew 23 would fit that bill…
May 15th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Chris L,
Thanks for voicing my conclusion re: the p/t moniker for those that didn’t go there. Simply a theological/occupational/eternal case of c/y/a.
May 15th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Matt,
Nice try on the CD find, but I doubt the “venues” PTP Silva refers to are online ones since the quote was from 1999.
But Ken, if you’re reading (and I know you are) I’ll officially start the bidding at $50 for a copy of your folk/rock fusion. I’m hoping for a kindred vibe to “Let the eagle soaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrr….”
May 15th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
“You really do have much to learn my young friend.”
And yet you refuse to “teach” me by actually answering questions.
May 15th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
“And yet you refuse to ‘teach’ me by actually answering questions.”
One can only teach someone who is willing to learn from them. Otherwise I’d simply be a bunch of wasted hot air and as pompous as self-appointed “teacher” Chris L.
May 15th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Ken,
While I do teach on occasion, it’s never been ’self-appointed’. I’m not pompous enough to act as if my words are God’s (as some are unable to distinguish).
You noted:
I have learned from a good number of folks I would not have been “willing” to learn from - to not learn requires ignoring them.
The reason we haven’t learned anything from you is because your miss-ives and the accompanied sniping on here are relatively content-free. Kind of like puke-flavored cotton candy - bad tasting and no substance.
May 15th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
What color is the puke flavored cotton candy? Is that the blue one?
May 15th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Ken, how do you know my spirit? How do you know that I am unwilling to learn?
May 15th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Ken,
“One can only teach someone who is willing to learn from them. Otherwise I’d simply be a bunch of wasted hot air and as pompous as self-appointed “teacher ”
Really these words sound rather hypocritical out of your mouth…
iggy
May 15th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Chris L.
I think the most damaging things about Ken is not what he says of others, but how those words reflect his true nature and what they tell others of himself.
Blessings,
iggy
May 15th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Ken,
Even though your comments above here are not aimed at me, for the record, I am in no way a Pelagian…
I used to be, but after I found Grace it has been saved by Grace through Faith… I am saved, maintain, sustained all by Grace… and do not boast in my works, for from that comes only bad fruit.
But I do boast in my weakness as it is God Who does His works in and through me, in that it is God’s good fruit that he bears in and through me.
And as I am actually in this group you are attacking you might realize there are many of us that believe this way. Yet, you will only see the fringe or hear the loudest voice and still condemn all… including me… and not hear the Voice of the Spirit and head to the teachings of Scripture out of humility be a worker in the Church.
As far as the American Christian Church… that right there is the main issue… we are called to the Kingdom of God, not to be Americans… and to add Americanism to Christianity dilutes the truth of Christ to some sort of worldly political imperialist type of “religion”… and I will not settle for the less that God’s best… and will take all the “scorned indeed by the too-easily-satisfied religionist” like yourself.
I will not compromise for something lesser than what God has given us through Jesus Christ.
As far as the current state of the American Christian Church… it is because is has mix religion/politics/capitalism into a watered down gospel of “being good” set by people who push a pseudo-righteousness and do not seek the Holy Spirit’s guidance. They settle to point fingers at others than to work on their own heart.
Blessings,
iggy
May 15th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
“you might realize there are many of us that believe this way.”
I did. You are semi-pelagian.
May 15th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Ken,
Do you even know what that means?
To believe in “free will” does not mean one is Pelagian or even semi-pelagian… I do not deny the original sin in the Garden and that was the heresy that Pelagius taught. I affirm the original sin… just not as defined by Calvin as in total depravity. There is a major difference between the two ideas… I recommend doing some studies on it before you call names that you have no understanding about meaning.
Have you ever read any Irenaeus? I recommend that you do. His teaching is pretty much a straight line from John the Apostle… besides the Bible Irenaeus has had the biggest (secondary) influence on me… and he was many years ahead of Calvin… or even Augustine.
If that is what you are referring to then you are so far out in left field… that you can say whatever as you do, not based on anything other than your own opinion…
Your idea of truth is “if Ken doth say, the Lord doth submit”… and that is a greater heresy than Pelagius… in fact that is the sin of the original Garden…
So either you are speaking in complete ignorance and without any care to learn the truth… and just slander and lie… then you are truly of your father… for he can quote scirpture to his own bend also… and disregard the truth of it.
Blessings,
iggy
May 15th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Ken always used big words that were probably never explained in the Walter Martin tape series. No wonder he has no idea what they mean.
May 15th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Semi-Pelagianism essentially teaches that humanity is tainted by sin, but not the extent that we cannot cooperate with God’s grace on our own. Semi-Pelagiaism is, in essence, partial depravity:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Pelagianism.html
G’night boys.
May 15th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Ken,
Uhhhh then I am not a semi pelagian… so you are just wrong as can be… even by your “proof”.
I teach one must come to a complete end to themselves and their own works… that the in essence “give up” and cry out to God for Grace.
There is no “cooperate(ing) with God’s grace on our own” It is all God’s grace from start to finish…
You are the one that teaches partial pelagian by your style of “obedience” that if one does this or that they are more acceptable to God… that is what you teach here all the time…
That is semi pelagian…
I rest in the obedience of Christ Jesus as taught in Romans 5:19…
I teach we must come to the end of our own will and exchange it for the will of God.
I teach that man is sinful, that “all have sinned and fallen short the Glory of God”.
There is no need for “partial depravity” the wages of sin is death… and we have been reconciled at the cross and thus forgiven… yet we without the Life of Christ are only dead forgiven men… so we must not resist the Holy Spirit and forfeit our salvation, but submit in Love… the Love that God gave us and respond to that love without our own works… by grace through Faith.
I would again recommend Heresies by Irenaeus… as that is what you are into and it is one of the greatest and finest treatises ever written on heretical teachings… especially the heresy of Platonism that you promote.
Blessings,
iggy
May 15th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
semi-pelagianism is just a term that reformed theologians like to throw at those who hold to free will.
But then again Ken doesn’t hold to Calvin’s doctrine (despite his publishing of “Why I am a Calvinist” Part one two and three) so it shouldn’t matter.
May 15th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
iggy,
Give Irenaeus a rest ok. I know well who he is.
May 15th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
I really doubt you have read him…
so admit you are wrong about me… as I have shown you what I teach… being unsaved and all…
Blessings,
iggy
May 15th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Nathan,
If a Calvinist read Irenaeus’ Writings on Free Will they would have to face that much of their teachings are heretical….
Such as when Irenaeus states:
“Men are Possessed of Free Will, and Endowed with the Faculty of Making a Choice. It is Not True, Therefore, that Some are by Nature Good, and Others Bad.
1. This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,”set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all.”
I think that since Irenaeus was a direct disciple of John the Apostle, that his words should not be taken as lightly as the Calvinist takes them…
In fact, to counter Kens assertion that man is totally depraved…aside from that last quote… Irenaeus states:
“But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made [originally]. But since all men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it,-some do justly receive praise even among men who are under the control of good laws (and much more from God), and obtain deserved testimony of their choice of good in general, and of persevering therein; but the others are blamed, and receive a just condemnation, because of their rejection of what is fair and good. And therefore the prophets used to exhort men to what was good, to act justly and to work righteousness, as I have so largely demonstrated, because it is in our power so to do, and because by excessive negligence we might become forgetful, and thus stand in need of that good counsel which the good God has given us to know by means of the prophets.”
Yet, to understand that we are not taking any part of our own salvation he goes on to state:
“…man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God.”
the issue of free will is pretty much settled here… and the idea that God made some men to turn and some to burn as taught in Romans 9 is a tragic misrepresentation of Romans 9… it in fact is the opposite of what is being taught in that chapter.
Now I do see we own a debt to the Reformers… yet we owe a debt also to those who taught the truth many centuries before the reformers…
In that I do see as far a free will being taught in the scripture and historically…
I also see that if one follows Calvinism to it’s logical end… God has no free will and is subject to the “systematic theology” of Calvin.
I see that the Calvinist may be the pinnacle of the Platonistic heresy that was taught by Augustine that ran with by Calvin and perfected by the school of Calvinism…
It teaches Gnosticism… hidden ever so slightly, but if you know what to look for it is pretty much in your face.
Blessings,
iggy
May 15th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Ah iggy? Since when did the writings of Irenaeus receive the classification of Scripture? I couldn’t care less about what any man teaches unless it is in accord with Scripture.
May 15th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Nathan or Chris L,
Why does this comment thing seem to not work at times… I have been trying to post a reply… it seems to not post it and then I try to repost it is says i already did it… but it does not appear..
So, wat up?
iggy
May 15th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Ken,
I never said they did… if you ask that, then you should ask your friends the same about Spurgeon or Calvin…
I think though, Irenaeus speaks with a bit more authority than you or I do… and think him worthy to read.
He has some great insight in how to read Paul’s writings… some of which we fail in our many translations today…
I see you do not care to acknowledge the great saints of the past… and that is why your theology is very limited… and your understanding of the scripture even more limited…
And I agree wholeheartedly with this comment…”I couldn’t care less about what any man teaches unless it is in accord with Scripture.”
As that is what I think of you most often… =)
I think you need to realize you are saying that the words of a contemporary of Paul… and John… are not worthy to listen to… and that speak loudly of your arrogance.
I do not see any place that I quoted as not being in line with scripture. The scripture teaches man has a will…
Jesus was not born of the will of a man. John 1:13 states this, “Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
Also Paul teaches that man has a will… 1 Corinthians 7:37 states: “But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin–this man also does the right thing.”
Notice Paul is stating a man has control over his own will? That is free will there Ken… in Scripture.
Peter even confirms this in 2 Peter 1:21 “For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
I think that should be clear enough to prove the point… as you hold such a high view of scripture and its teachings…
Wanting God’s Best for you…
iggy
May 15th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Ken,
“Since when did the writings of Irenaeus receive the classification of Scripture?â€
I never said they did… if you ask that, then you should ask your friends the same about Spurgeon or Calvin…
I think though, Irenaeus speaks with a bit more authority than you or I do… and think him worthy to read.
He has some great insight in how to read Paul’s writings… some of which we fail in our many translations today…
I see you do not care to acknowledge the great saints of the past… and that is why your theology is very limited… and your understanding of the scripture even more limited…
And I agree wholeheartedly with this comment…”I couldn’t care less about what any man teaches unless it is in accord with Scripture.”
As that is what I think of you most often… =)
I think you need to realize you are saying that the words of a contemporary of Paul… and John… are not worthy to listen to… and that speak loudly of your arrogance.
I do not see any place that I quoted as not being in line with scripture. The scripture teaches man has a will…
Jesus was not born of the will of a man. John 1:13 states this, “Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
Also Paul teaches that man has a will… 1 Corinthians 7:37 states: “But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin–this man also does the right thing.”
Notice Paul is stating a man has control over his own will? That is free will there Ken… in Scripture.
Peter even confirms this in 2 Peter 1:21 “For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
I think that should be clear enough to prove the point… as you hold such a high view of scripture and its teachings…
Blessings,
iggy
May 16th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Iggy,
Wordpress sometimes has problems processing long URL’s when directly pasted into a comment. If you use the HTML tag to create a link, this issue goes away…
May 16th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Chris L.
That is ok, I think osmetimes I say mre than I need to… sometimes I need to give room for God to move…. = )
It should help me to learn not toe respond to every snort as I cast my pearls…. LOL!
Thanks though for the info…
Blessings,
iggy
May 16th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
oops that last post was on the wrong topic… it should have been on this one.
Chris L.
That is ok, I think sometimes I say more than I need to… sometimes I need to give room for God to move…. = )
It should help me to learn not toe respond to every snort as I cast my pearls…. LOL!
Thanks though for the info…
blessed,
iggy
May 16th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Iggy,
As a NON-Calvinist I found your quote “I also see that if one follows Calvinism to it’s logical end… God has no free will and is subject to the “systematic theology†of Calvin” very interesting. Could you expound on that? And what is the hidden gnosticism in Calvinism? That only “they” can properly expound the Scriptures or something more?
Also, did you get those quotes from “Against the Heresies”? I was looking on CBD and that is the only Irenaeus book I could find written by Irenaeus.
Thanks,
May 16th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
HJ,
You can go to my blog and there is a link on the right that says people that inspire me. There is a link to Irenaeus writing on Free Will which is where I got the quotes from.
As far as expounding on my view of Calvinism. I am doing a series on “Why I am not a Calvinist”. So far I think I have down only three in the series and hope to go a bit further and explain more on how Gnosticism is mixed within Calvinism… starting with the idea God created some for hell and some for heaven. That is straight our Platonist dualism…
I also am doing a series called “Walking through Romans” and have taught in other places how Romans 9 is misrepresented by the Calvinist view to the point it refutes the very point that Paul is making…
There is a lot to cover and it would be too hard to just do a quick summary here…
I have closed comments because of the nasty remarks being made by one of Ken’s friends… but I do have my email on the Blog if you want to discuss more.
This is a topic that needs to be addressed… the Calvinist seem to think their Gospel goes back to Paul… yet, it seems it goes back to Paul filtered through Plato… and that is what Irenaeus wrote quite a bit against in “Against the Heresies”.
Blessings,
iggy
May 16th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Iggy,
Sorry to be dense but I could not tell which is your blog.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
HJ,
Click on Iggy’s name, and it links to his blog…
May 16th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
“I also am doing a series”
What was that saying, o yeah - “the blind leading the blind.”
May 16th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Iggy, you can moderate comments. I like people commenting on what my blog.
May 16th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Matt,
It was usually just moderating stupid comments like the one Ken just did… if it was not just a friend saying hi…
Mostly of the people contact me through email that have something worthwhile to say… they have read, though and took time to contact me.
I liked the comments, but when you have about 10 people from “certain” sites that have banned you yet feel they can monopolize your blog, it just got tiresome…
Blessings,
iggy
May 16th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Ken,
Can you ever say something nice? Something that edifies… as that is the purpose of you “title” and “calling”… I have never read where a pastor/teacher is to mock, put down, or otherwise demean another… yet, again you do say I serve a different God than you… and by your comments I thank God every day I do!
Blessings,
iggy
May 16th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Iggy,
didn’t you hear Ken’s incredibly biblical reason for mocking people? God mocks the proud, and since Ken is God, he gets to mock whoever he thinks is proud. It’s that simple… duh.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:03 am
Nathan,
Ken has no “biblical” reason to mock others… in fact he is going against his own calling…
Ephesians 4: 11- 13 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up
until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
Paul teaches very plainly that these gifts are given to the Body to:
1. prepare God’s people for works of service
2. To built up (the Body) until we all reach unity in the faith
3. to grow in the knowledge of the Son of God
4. To become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
Now seriously does that sound like Ken… who mocks and puts down, and writes divisive slander.
It seem he has no care of unity unless all believe just like he does… and he has not even decided if he is or is not a Calvinist yet! LOL!
So can we trust a pastor/teacher that seems to on one hand push Calvinism then say he is not one? Sounds a little double minded to me.
I have yet to be edified by Ken… unless you count cutting and pasting Oswald, Tozer and the occasional bible verse… but directly I have yet to be edified by him…
Now, don’t even get me going on Ken teaching others to become mature!!!!
Now, I am not meaning to demean him… yet the truth is there… his attitude comes across and though he claims not to be angry, he cannot have a simple conversation with out a put down or snide remark… no wonder people left his church… they needed a pastor/teacher… they already have an accuser of the brethren… I just wonder why Ken wants to help him do his job?
I really think Ken does not have a biblical understanding of Grace and Mercy as even as you have pointed out his biblical proof texting is shear… ignorance… He is like the Word of Faith teachers who claim their own words are Gods… and then contradict God’s word…only to justify it by another bad proof text… forget Rick Warren’s bad proof texting, Ken has him beat by miles.
Ken cannot even lower himself to ask for forgiveness if he has offended a brother and seems even less concerned if HE deems that person not one… which again shows that LACK of pastoral gift and a real indicator that he may not actually been called as he claims…
I do still hold out hope for him… I pray daily that his eyes will be opened to the full knowledge of the Truth that is in Christ Jesus. That he will fall on his face before God and acknowledge his pride… I sincerely believe that if Ken did this his TRUE ministry will bust wide open and he will see real victory from his teaching.
I know that this is tough, for I too was Ken once… and that is why I refuse to give up on him…
Blessings,
iggy
May 18th, 2007 at 10:08 am
a good assessment Iggy!
May 18th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
“Now, I am not meaning to demean him” Right. LOL
May 18th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Ken,
I love you with the love of Christ… I am being a friend and telling you the truth. Also, I have been where you are and believe me I will never return for that would be denying the true “doctrine of grace”.
Yet, you seem once again to only live up to what was written… sadly.
Be Blessed,
iggy
May 18th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Ken,
Do you believe you get to heaven by what you believe?
Just wondering,
iggy