If You do not Agree with Ken - You Might not be Saved!
In his article “A Storm is Coming“Â brother Ken Silva plays the trump card. He says that those that are being deceived are not saved, that is why they cannot hear his words. God is a stranger to them and therefore Ken’s words are rejected. He says:Â
“The children of their father the Devil also follow him because they know his voice. Can you see that this would mean God is a stranger to them and that’s why they cannot hear what we are telling them.”
And in the very next paragraph he says, “Keep in mind that if we are teaching people from the Bible and they respond in anger or fear, you now know the reason why. And no, we will not know for sure whether they are saved or not, but because of this backward time in which we are now living my brothers and sisters, we are going to have to turn away from prevailing views of “love†and instead – “judge righteous judgmentâ€
The lava flow you see is the incredible pride connected with this teaching. The reason some cannot hear what Ken is telling them is that they are not saved. Warren, Bell, Hybels, Graham, and all the rest are not saved. So instead of preaching the gospel to them Ken rebukes them with words they cannot hear because if they were saved they surely would agree with him. The self serving “spokesmen for the remnant†settings in which they place themselves INSURES that no one will listen, even when they might be legitimately used. Although I am one who sees a falling away, I am also one who knows there are probably some who I would not see as saved who are.
Think about it, if I am not saved and I read his article am I going to say, “Wait a minute, the reason I do not agree with Ken is that I am not saved!â€. When you leave presenting a calm, confrontational, and Scriptural argument about truth you must now play the “unsaved†card which is the Siamese twin of the “God’s insight†card. I am a seer so I can see that you are not saved. And the reason I know this - you don’t agree with me. There must be a deeper Greek word for arrogance that applies here.
October 4th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
hubris isn’t strong enough huh?
October 4th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Well Chris, do you want to go read how people reacted to the prophets in the Old Testament or to Stephen when he preached after being falsely accused and arrested. Were the prophets and Stephen arrogant and all those angry people simply misunderstood? Have you ever considered that what Ken is telling us the truth? If you refuse to consider that then I would suggest that the mantle of arrogance resides in your court.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
October 4th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
The OT prophets and Stephen had a bit of something called ‘divine inspiration’ on their side…
With Ken, on the other hand, we have bushels and bushels of lies, slander and fallacious logic - none of which I see listed in the fruits of the spirit…
Have you ever considered that the Tooth Fairy exists in a artist’s colony in the center of the earth?
The Spirit does not lie. The Spirit does not slander. The Spirit does not employ false and unloving techniques in trying to persuade. That’s three strikes for Ken here, which has nothing to with arrogance and everything to do with Biblical discernment (instead of what passes for such on CR?N…)
October 4th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Mike, I think Ken is right on many points, that contemporary American pop-evangelicalism is probably beyond repair, that there are some disturbing trends in the Emerging Church movement, and some streams of the EC are heading in directions that Christians ought not to be heading. But to say that unless you agree with what Ken is saying then you must not be saved, without qualifying it, is plain wrong.
Ken has called Dan Kimball a semi-pelagian. That’s a pretty big accusation. He leans Arminian, but the man is no heretic. Compare Ken’s attitude to Dan with Phil Johnson’s attitude. Both disagree with Dan, but there is a world of difference between them.
October 4th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Mike - My post indicates that Ken does have some truth, however, who can tell who is saved and who is not? Didn’t Jesus command us not to pull up the tares lest we accidently pull up the wheat.
To say Rick Warren or Rob Bell or even Joel Osteen are not saved is based upon divine insight that none of us have. It is over the top and Ken should at least stop saying certain people who are being deceived are probably not saved. The man living with his father’s wife was saved, so Rick Warren isn’t.
We all get carried away sometimes, that is being very carried away.
October 4th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Mike I’m not certain why you’re directing your comment to me. I was merely responding to Rick he asked for a stronger greek word for “arrogance” the actual greek word for arrogance is “hubris”. I was trying to be funny. Albeit a miserable attempt.
But since you questioned me directly I’ll bite.
In regards to Stephen:
Equating Ken with Stephen is truly “hubris”. Equating me to Stephen would be “hubris x 10″.
I’ve yet to see Ken exhibit the fruits of the spirit in his corner of the blogoshpere. For review those are; Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulnees, Gentleness, and Self-Control.
In the words of Iggy…BE BLESSED!
October 4th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
This line has me puzzled…”the Lord instructs us the true Christian “is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at My Word†(Isaiah 66:2).”
I don’t mean to be disrespectful in any way…but I have seen very little humility in the ranks of the Silvanites.
Peace!
October 4th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Mike,
I’ve asked this question before, and I’ll keep asking it until I get an answer: Why do watchdoggies always use as their justification for acting the way they do the example of OT prophets, and occasionally NT apostles, but never actually obey the commands to peace, and being free from slander that come from those same OT prophets ant NT apostles?
October 4th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
I would hasten to add that when I strenuously presented my case that MacLaren’s endorsement of certain books was wrong on every level I was accused of being like Ken. So it isn’t just the watchmen that let their emotions get the best of them.
Combative, confrontational, but respectful discourse must be observed without questioning the credibility or the salvation of others.
Just a thought.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Chris L.,
Really? Look closely at Stephen’s sermon just before he was stoned. He simply gave the history of the Jews from the O.T. then accused the people of being stiff-necked and rebellious against God. Then He was cast out to the city and stoned. The only “inspired” part I saw there was when he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father, but that was as he was being stoned.
Correction and the exposing of false teachers and false teaching is something we must do. It is ordained in scripture that we do this. I suggest we all pray about that and ask God to show us the truth here. I believe the answer will be very clear that we only have one standard and that is God’s Word. If a preacher or teacher or writer uses the Bible as his source then he must adhere to the highest standards of exegesis and context. Anything less and you get the humanistic teachings that I will condemn and warn others about no matter who throws stones at me and my friends.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
October 4th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Mike,
Using that standard - scripture - I think that probably the most apt one in this case would be Jesus’ comments to the watchdoggies of his day:
Somehow, I don’t see this self-selected office of “watchman” anywhere in his teaching. Certainly, we are to be on guard for error, but CRN and its ilk go far beyond this, attempting to do the work set aside by the Lord for himself - separating the wheat from the weeds…
October 5th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Mike,
I don’t think that anyone here would disagree with you when you write “the exposing of false teachers and false teaching is something we must do.” That is exactly what Rick has been doing in this post. He has exposed false teachers on his own blog and here he has also exposed the false teaching of those who declare fatwas on whom our God will save and and whom he will not save.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Exposing those you percieve as false teachers and suggesting certain lines of thinking are heretical or dangerous is one thing.
But saying that what you and your camp say are the voice of God exclusivley? That the only reason people have issue with what you say and do is because they have issues with God? That’s a whole other bag entirely.
Whenever a pastor or leader says that what they say is God’s only true and authoritative voice, it’s time to leave that congregation/group or club. That’s always been one of my markers, ditch before your leader sets themselves and those likeminded up as the only true prophets (by saying you’re the only ones with light speaking according to the scripture), that your interpretation is the only “narrow path”.
Once you leave the platform of addressing specific teaching and raising questions as to the truth or falsehood of other teachers and move on into setting yourself and those who are likeminded with you up as the only stream God’s Word and Spirit flow from, then it’s usually a short drive from there to a cult.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:56 am
A good word Kevin I.
By the way, is that Kevin I (as in an intial) or Kevin the First as in King Kevin?
October 5th, 2007 at 9:59 am
As an initial, maybey down the road I’ll spawn a Kevin II and then will change it to the title
October 5th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Rick Frueh said:
“Mike - My post indicates that Ken does have some truth, however, who can tell who is saved and who is not? Didn’t Jesus command us not to pull up the tares lest we accidently pull up the wheat”
If we as Christians don’t know who is and isn’t saved, who are we going to preach the gospel to? Joel Osteen used the same argument on Larry King to avoid answering questions on the salvation of those outside of Christ. If Christ commanded us to preach the gospel then surely we should know who is and isn’t saved before we preach it. No point preaching the gospel to those already saved. We also know from scripture that there are many who profess Christ but know him not. Because of our limitations as humans we can only judge by the fruits of those claiming to be Christians. i do agree that we have to be cautious not to confuse an immature Christian with an unbeliever.
As for the parable, you have interpreted it wrongly. Jesus asked the angels not to pull them out before the end of time, not us. We are commanded to point out error and separate ourselves from false teachers/preachers because a little leaven leavens the whole lump.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
abe - I appreciate your thoughtfulness. Paul, in addressing the Corinthian church, urged them not to treat the man they were about to turn over to Satan as an abject unbeliever, he warned them he might be a believer which indeed he seemed to be.
We all make assessments, but to openly make absolute pronouncements about people’s salvation, including ones who profess Christ, is not only dangerous but indicates a divine revelation that God does not promise anyone. However, even in pointing out error and false teachers we must display the mantle of humility.
God gave Paul a thorn in the flesh to keep him humble because of his many revelations from God Himself. How much more should we be careful to be “clothed with humility”? The greatest man born of women said, “I must decrease and He must increase” I am not sure we are seeing that displayed in many corners of the evangelical world.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Wow - talk about mixing metaphors and twisting scripture all at the same time!
First off, here is the parable in question:
There is no hint whatsoever of angels being commanded in this parable! As usual, with Jesus parables about the Kingdom of God, we have God as the owner of a field and the listeners (people) as His servants.
Now you’re becoming as pragmatic as Rick Warren is often accused of! We proclaim the message of the gospel AND the kingdom to all. While we are to be on guard vs. error, we are never - ever - commanded to determine who is “saved” and who is not. Ever. Unfortunately, when we treat the gospel as only being about the eternal, we end up with silly arguments, like yours above, and we end up ignoring the kingdom…
October 5th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
By the way, Chris, I have made the Old Truth blog once again along with CRN and AM. Wow, even you Chris cannot claim that notoriety! The “Jesus weeping over Jerusalem” thing. They misrepresent Ken’s post and misrepresent the reason for saying what I said. Sarcasm to destroy is OK but when it is used to illustrate something that doesn’t align with their thinking it is disrespectful.
Oh well, I look at that like professional wrestling, entertaining but usually not real. By the way, Jesus weeping over Jerusalem really does have some implications, no?
October 5th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Matthew 13: 24 - 43
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
36
Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels . As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
good seed = wheat = saved
bad seed = tares = unsaved
reapers = servants = angels
I thought it was pretty obvious from above. Its the angels that are going to gather up the saved. But the point of the parable is that God allows the tares to be for a while lest those who are in Christ are rooted out. And at the end of the age when the wheat are bowed down by their fruit they are easily distinguished from the tares. A parable usually addresses one point of truth and we shouldnt read into it more than what it is intended for.
As for you second point,
all i was trying to say is that it is necessary to make a judgement on who is and isnt saved. if its pretty obvious then wouldnt you? arent those out of Christ lost? wouldnt you preach the gospel to them? if so arent you making a judgement there? i dont see whats wrong in judging that one isnt saved when its obvious by their fruits that they arent. i would do the same for those who call themselves christians but behave otherwise. here i would be careful not to mistake an immature one with a deceived one, as i have stated before.
Rev 2:2
I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars.
A judgement made on false apostles by the church at ephesus, not by one of the apostles. I would assume they were questioning their salvation also. Because 1John says “they went from us because they are not of us”. Paul asks us to beware of the false prophets that come as an angel of light. It requires discernment to judge and separate ourself from them. A false teacher atleast as far as i understand is the same as an unsaved coming in sheeps clothing.
Those who believe in the gospel are promised eternal life through Christ. So i would assume that the gospel is about how we spend eternity either in heaven or in hell as stated in the word of God.
As you might have already guessed, i dont agree with what rick warren, joel osteen etc; are doing because their fruits arent according to how a true servant of God should be. But then everyone is entitled to an opinion and we will be judged on the final day. Better to find out that we arent saved here than to find out then. i would rather point out that one isnt saved and be proven wrong here than to know that they might not be saved and be proven right on that final day. but as i have already stated all things to be done in love with the goal of reconciliation.
Probably the misunderstanding might be because i lumped two different things into one single para. my mistake.
October 6th, 2007 at 6:23 am
“but as i have already stated all things to be done in love with the goal of reconciliation.”
And with that statement you have legitimized your entire view. I may not agree with all yoyr particulars, but I can fully embrace and discourse with a brother who strongly takes issue with those things you mentioned but remains in the Spirit of Christ.
Thank you Abe, we will speak again!
October 6th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Rick,
We are currently seeing the self-destruction of a group of Calvinists who left our church. The doctrine just doesn’t hold water Biblically.
Especially telling is the line on Ken’s website where he calls you a “former friend”. As we hold one another accountable, we should be reproving and rebuking in love, not merely exposing. Talking about folks in such a way on a website for all the world to see makes me shiver: I certainly am glad God will judge me on the merits of Christ, and not by the requirements of Ken Silva.
October 6th, 2007 at 7:19 am
A good word Caroline and one in which I take encouragement.
Thank you.
October 6th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Abe,
Point taken on angels=servants (one should be careful when writing on the fly - I frequently forget that). The underlying point, though, that it is not our job to separate the wheat from the weeds, still stands, though.
What exactly is is that Warren has done in which his “fruits arent according to how a true servant of God should be”? Having known a number of people from Saddleback and an even greater number whose first contact with the church as an adult was via PDL, and who are not mature Christians, I’m struggling a bit with this. Is PDL, itself, pretty basic and thin, when standing on its own? Yes, I would agree. If it is treated, like some churches have treated it, as a standalone, 3-step program to growth with no follow-up, then it can do more harm than good. Is this Warren’s fault, though?
Is the entire point of the gospel ‘being saved’ in the final day? Is the gospel nothing more than an eternal fire insurance policy, for which we are the insurance agents, to make sure that the policy is filled out correctly to the last jot and tittle? If so, then your position might hold.
If, however, the gospel is not just about the future, but also about how we live today, then all should hear about it - the saved and unsaved - so that all the world may know that our God is the one true God! Theological error does not necessarily equate with damnation (unless you really want to add to the gospel by arguing that holding the wrong view on eschatology, braiding of hair , cultural translation of orthopraxy, etc. leads to damnation). I say proclaim the gospel to all men, and let those who are saved be blessed in the affirmation of living in the kingdom, and let those who are not have their hearts softened by the Father. It is not for us to decide which is which…
Agreed.
October 6th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
The way parables work is that they emphasize only one point of truth. So there is always the danger of reading into them more than what is intended. The point Christ was making is not that we should wait till the angels come and remove the tares but that we as believers are in an unbelieving world and that the saved will be distinguished by the fruits they bear unlike the tares. this goes along with the other parables in mathew13. they all talk about the saved bearing fruit and growing. at least thats what i gather.
And if what you said, that it isnt our duty to pull out the tares, was true then consider
Rev 2:2
I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars.
Why does Christ commend the church of Ephesus for trying the false apostles and proving them to be so. They weren’t prophets and neither were they apostles but ordinary church members who did the right thing but testing and pointing out error and those who brought them in. And Paul explicitly mentions us to beware of false preachers in order that we separate from them lest like leaven their false teaching leavens the whole church. if something is patently wrong then its always better to correct it. And there does comes a time when false teachers refuse to repent. In such cases we separate and warn others of their heresy. But it does require a lot of discernment to make sure we dont fight over minor details of little consequence.
What i dont like about preachers like warren, billy graham is that they dont preach the full counsel of God. the gospel starts at law, sin, wrath of God and death. the bad news always comes before the good news. otherwise there is no need of the gospel and Christ. we need to show people as they truly are in their sinful condition so that their need for a savior becomes obvious. instead we cajole and plead people to accept Christ making him to be some sort of a cure for all our problems. and when our selfish desires dont work out they go back to their former ways. and all this while they have deceived themselves into believing themselves as christians. the goal of preaching the gospel is to cause people to despair and see their hopeless condition. it is at this point where many preachers fail. just say a mechanical prayer and you are saved. but this isnt true. without repentance there is no salvation. and we dont repent because of our fear of hell / desire to go to heaven but because we have sinned against a holy God and because sin is exceedingly sinful. But i never heard either warren/graham dwell on the subject of sin and repentance but they sidestep it quickly to go to the love of God which is so pleasing to everyones ears. Now why would they do that? Isnt it because they themselves dont know or they fear men lest they be offended. Either way they are to be held accountable. Christianity has become more mechanical nowadays. Another thing i dont like about warren is his church growth/seeker sensitive churches. the churches must consist of only believers and they are to feed the sheep of God not entertain the goats as one said. The church of God should reflect the reality that the church is a spiritual body joined with Christ. So it consist of only regenerate members. we need discernment here also. and if they show the necessary fruits then we accept them else we dont.
You ask
“Is the entire point of the gospel ‘being saved’ in the final day? Is the gospel nothing more than an eternal fire insurance policy, for which we are the insurance agents, to make sure that the policy is filled out correctly to the last jot and tittle? If so, then your position might hold.”?
The gospel is more about being reconciled with God which is by his grace through faith alone in Christ alone than being saved from the fires of hell. The good news is that we are no longer condemened because by the sacrifice of Christ we are forever reconciled with God. The whole point of Christ coming to earth is save us for eternity. that i see as the bigger picture. this world is going to pass away anyway. and it is Christ who obeyed Gods law to the t and all we have to do is trust in him.
The gospel is primarily a testimony of what Christ has done. It isnt a way of life. The apostles didnt go about preaching you have to live so and so but they were witnesses to an event in history and asked people to repent and believe in the message. once regenerated however your lifestyle will also change.
Regarding theological error we need to remember what Paul said about the judaizers when they tried to add works to faith and thus change the whole gospel message. he called them accursed. the gospel isnt just ‘believe in Christ’ but also depends on what we know about Christ and his work. for example i can believe in a Christ who has 10 heads and 20 hands but that doesnt mean its the same historical Christ being talked about in the bible. but does that mean i am still a believer? no. some doctrines are so vital to the christian faith that denying them would make one an unbeliever.
if we are going to love our neighbor as ourselves then it behooves us to point out that one is eternally damned and is heading towards destruction. warning others of danger is a good thing. wouldnt you do the same if it was one of your loved ones?
James 5:19-20
Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
Gal 6:1
Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted
Have you ever read Christianity and liberalism - Gresham Machen? I highly recommend it. sorry for the long post. i wont be posting anymore. hope this answers your questions.
October 6th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Abe,
You have completely missed the point of both the parable and the difference between theological error and salvation (which are not synonymous).
The parable teaches that it is God who sets the separation of the wheat and the tares - that is, determines the saved from the unsaved.
Theological error does necessarily not equate with a loss of salvation, which is the heart of your (and the ODM’s in question) error.
Should we strive to discern the truth? Yes. Should we disfellowship when we arrive upon a difference of interpretation of scripture - particularly in non-essential manners outside of the basic gospel message? Probably not nearly as often as has been done in the history of the church.
What the Judiazers were trying to do was beyond simple theological error - it was teaching that one still had to convert to Judiasm in order to be part of the ‘chosen’ people of God. That seems to be a far sight different than churches who take Mark 1:4 more literally than others…
October 6th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Chapter and verse?
October 6th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Mike,
OK you have lost it… if you are equating Ken with the OT prophets… LOL!
Sorry that is to ridiculous to even take seriously…
Then to state this!
That is just blasphemous as can be and is total error and false teaching… you are stating Stephen did not speak under the power and inspiration of the Holy Spirit!?!?! If so how did he even see Jesus at the right hand of the Father!!! Then Peter did not speak while inspired also… and all those that were saved were false conversions!
You are teaching heresy there dear friend…
Now tell me that God was not on Stephen as his face shown the Glory of God… (Acts 6:15) and then prove that Stephen was not inspired as he was ” full of the Holy Spirit,” (Acts 7:55) Unless you think we no longer need the Holy Spirit because we have the bible now… which is again a false teaching!
For all the rhetoric… if this is your belief… repent.
Be Blessed,
iggy
October 7th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Iggy - Acts is an inerrant narrative but what those men said was not always inerrent. Stephen himself in his speech made an error when he said Abram left Haran AFTER Terah died which isn’t true.
What is true is that the tone and approach of many of the Old Testament prophets and seers was much more caustic than the early apostles in the New Testament. I do wonder if MacArthur (as an example) believes in prophets for today?
BTW - where were you Iggy? I just got back from the hospital. I still have a cast on my leg and a red line began to appear on my leg and we feared maybe a blod clot, I have already had two heart attacks. It is just and infection, praise His name.
To be honest with you, my family needs me but if not for that I am willing to go. I wonder if Chris would still let me post from time to time from heaven?
October 7th, 2007 at 1:27 am
I guess I lean to the textual error and that Terah lived only to be 145 and died before Abram left Haran….
I was at a Vineyard Regional in Great Falls MT since last Thursday… so i guess I missed a bit of excitement…
I am very glad that we do not have to figure out how to let you post from Heaven!!!! I am sure if it was OK’d by the Big Guy (slang for God almighty but still meant will all respect and love!) He’d found a way to let you post. LOL!
Hey, next time send me an email that you need prayer. I do cherish the friends I have so never hesitate to ask… I have seen a few miracles happen in my life… even in the last few days.
Hey, you might even be one of the privileged few to get my phone number if you wanted it.
Be Blessed,
iggy