Ken Silva: Worst Researcher Ever? (UPDATED)
In this post Silva writes:
For those who may not know, Chris Lyons is the leader of the self-proclaimed “Watcher of the Watchdogs” website CRN.Info.
The problem is nowhere on this website has any single writer much less all of us proclaimed ourselves the “watcher of the watchdogs”. We’ve noted in the past that Silva has had problems with producing accurate research, but how does this one get past him? We even have a cool little search bar where he can search almost without effort. Now true, the latin across the top of the site poses the question, “who will guard the guards?”, but that’s a long way from a declarative statement of self-proclamation that we are “the watcher of the watchdogs”.
But its ok, we’re the forgiving sort, all we ask is that Silva issue a correction and an apology as is fitting of anyone bearing the name of Christ who has made a mistake.
_______
[Update by Chris L.]
Wow! You’re gone most of an evening and look what you miss…
I do find it … odd … that Ken has quoted me saying something I never said. It’s not the first time he’s lied about me (or anyone else, for that matter), and I’m pretty sure it won’t be the last time, either.
When I look at the other folks he commonly lies about, I figure I’m in pretty good company.  While the “Worst Researcher Ever” title probably belongs to an old lab partner of mine from high school (Dan, I hope you’re not reading this), Tim’s alternate title selection “is Ken a researcher at all?†would probably be more accurate…
[end of Update]
December 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Not to mention I would caution him from falsely accusing a pastor/teacher such as myself.
December 6th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Joe,
I think you meant a Reverend/Pastor/Teacher.
December 6th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I don’t see a problem with his generalization.
December 6th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Rick,
Its not a generalization. Its a quote. A quote that doesn’t exist. Its indicative of his complete and utter incompetence as a researcher.
December 6th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
You gotta give them credit, they know how to circle the wagons and go after someone. Chris L seems to be their new favorite whipping boy.
December 6th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
I think that a more accurate description of what we (not me per se) do here is an “attack on systemic theology”. With a particular emphasis on “poisoning the body”
December 6th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
“Ken Silva: Worst Researcher Ever?”
Are the emergent Researchers again struggling with orthopraxy? So you feel Ken is a poor researcher and so you accuse him of being the worst ever? If Ken must apologize for calling Chris L the leader of this site and claiming that you are the self-proclaimed watchers of the watchdogs, then shouldn’t Tim Reed have to apologize for implying that Ken Silva is the worst researcher ever? BTW, you guys are the watchers of the watchdogs — anyone who reads this site knows that!
Back to the claim of Tim Reed that Ken is the “worst researcher ever”… In order to make such a claim, Tim would have had to make a judgment on every previous researcher in human history. This is absurd. Maybe you should call Ken’s 4-grade teacher and tattle on him.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Clearly,
Note the ‘?’. Its not a declarative statement, its a judgment left up to the reader.
The problem is that Ken didn’t state “they are the watchers of the watchdoggies” he made the false statement that it is a self-proclaimed statement, when clearly it is not. A few seconds of research on his part would have revealed that.
So perhaps the question isn’t “is Ken the worst researcher ever?”, but rather “is Ken a researcher at all?”
December 6th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Chris L himself defines the phrase as “Who will watch the watchmen” here.
Watchmen, watchdog; I think it’s pretty much the same thing brother Tim.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Then perhaps Ken shouldn’t be using quotation marks, and I fail to see in that article where Chris L self-proclaimed himself the watcher of the watchmen.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
I would hesitate to use the qualifier “ever” since I don’t know who’s coming down the pipe.
There could be worse researchers.
I just don’t know.
I know a couple of seventh graders whose research ability is comparably bad.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Perhaps we’re all missing the point that these “Watcher” ministries NEED people to watch them, because they stand outside any normal accountability. They just fire at will. Someone needs to watch the watchers. That’s how Christians are supposed to operate.
Joe
December 6th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
So much watching!
Where is the scripture to sustain all this watching?!
NT only, please!
December 6th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Clearly,
Just email me your first grade teachers phone # and I’ll call him or her and ask them if they are the worst teacher ever because evidently they failed to teach you the difference between questions and statements. And you’re a grad student now? You’d think you get those basics down.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Chris didn’t, you didn’t, I didn’t. What Chris did was provide a forum for all of us to discuss and respond to some of the inanity that is out there in the name of truth. I just think maybe you’re letting Ken get under your skin just a tad on this one.
I for one am absolutely delighted that they are responding to Chris in writing. The light of truth always seems to get the self-righteous up in arms.
Peace
December 6th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Wow, those that defend Ken miss that Ken is stating Chris L calls himself this… Ken is putting words into Chris’ mouth and stating a lie that Chris has stated these words.
What Ken is doing is lying… pretty simple.
It would be like me saying, Ken, the self proclaimed, “God of all creation and the incarnation of all that is good” spoke today on behalf of the Lucifarian league of fools…
Ken has never stated that he is “God of all creation and the incarnation of all that is good”… so it would be a lie for me to state he said that in quotations.
iggy
December 6th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
JohnD,
It may seem petty, but its indicative of a larger problem. One that Igs states well.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
I really wish I could add something of value to this post, but to me, Ken Silva does not exist.
And actually…
…that has made life easier. I sometimes wonder if we shouldn’t just back off a little on such an easy target. The bullseye is hash by now, with so many easy, direct hits.
It’s like critiquing the Shrine Circus for its artistic merits, you know? “I get it. The popcorn is stale, the elephants old, and the pretty ladies not so pretty. Yep. Got it.”
The alleged Ken Silva is…yep. Got it.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
“…such an easy target. The The bullseye is hash by now, with so many easy, direct hits.”
…and then Supertramp begins to sing:
“Take a dream on a Sunday
Take a life, take a holiday
Take a lie, take a dreamer
dream, dream, dream, dream, dream along…”
“Dreamer, you know you are a dreamer
Well can you put your hands in your head, oh no!
I said dreamer, you’re nothing but a dreamer
Well can you put your hands in your head, oh no!”
December 6th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Julie,
I do not go to any of Ken’s sites anymore, yet he still comes to mine on occasion with pot shots and put downs…
I wrote a thank you note to Matt Slick who interviewed Doug Paggit and was actually nice about it. Ken stopped by to say i was “tooting my own horn” as i had linked to some people so that when Matt read the open letter he could go to the sites of the people I recommended him to interview.
Ken seemed to take offense that I stated Matt (who had actually known Walter Martin and was actually mentored by Walter was not like that other guy who bought some tapes and claimed to be mentored by Walter…
Ken’s full and truly insightful comment was this…
Nice huh?
So, I would like you Julie, also totally ignore Ken except to stand for truth and stand up to people who condone Ken’s continuing and active sin.
So far from my interaction with Ken and his following henchmen… these verses ring true of them.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Ken,
Here I thought that, for once, you weren’t lying the last time (September 12, 2007, 3:35 pm) you claimed you weren’t going to post here anymore.
I suppose I’m not surprised, though.
Your post above is a pretty good example of your own blindness, though, and fairly concise evidence why you were put on moderation in the first place…
December 6th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
I know that isn’t Ken because he said like 9 times now that he’s not coming back and surely a man like him would keep his word. Wouldn’t he?
December 6th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Sorry I beat you to the punch this time Joe, but I couldn’t resist.
The IP address and such seems to really be Ken, and (contrary to DT’s assertion) it appears we’ve not banned him (though I’m sure no apology will be forthcoming).
Perhaps he’s taken a liking to my post on the dimensionality of time and this is an alternate Ken from a different timeline (though it really wouldn’t work that way…)
December 6th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Chris, That’s funny. I forgot all about Todd Upchurch coming here and spreading his lies. Yes, Todd I’d like you to explain how it is that Ken’s comment got through when he was banned? Oh Todd?
December 6th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Maybe he’s a cybernetic organism sent back from the future to destroy Chris L in the past so that he won’t start a ‘rebellion’ against the Reformation Movement, which leads to the eventual destruction of all cybernetic legalism organisms everywhere.
Get to the choppah.
Joe
December 7th, 2007 at 12:02 am
So Chris, Tim,
Let me ask a question: Who does watch the watchmen, aka, the Ken’s and the Ingrid’s of the blogosphere? Do we here at CRN.info?
Come on guys. I think we do and if we admit that we do, then to some extent, we are “self-proclaimed”, aren’t we?
Let’s not fall into the same “straining at gnats” kind of criticism that our friends over at Slice and CR?N.com have a penchant for. There are bigger issues to address like your excellent post here
Just my two cents and probably all that it is worth.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Supertramp.
If the song is sung irreverently, would that be irreverent?
All the church is doing is laughing these days. When are we going to get serious about hell?
Quote from “O Holy Night” and I’ll listen.
/sarcasm
December 7th, 2007 at 12:42 am
“Quote from “O Holy Night†and I’ll listen.
/sarcasm”
I’ll quote from O Holy Night, if no one else will.
” . . . Truly he taught to love one another/ His law is love and His gospel is peace . . .”
My favorite part of the song. Something we should think about.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:00 am
merry I will join in joyous refrain!
I just hope the watchdoggies don’t try to claim we are preachingthe “social gospel” with all that freeing slaves singing… you know those watchdoggies hate social justice…
iggy
December 7th, 2007 at 6:13 am
John,
Thank you for helping us keep things in perspective…
December 7th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Martino,
I used the word “imply” which is quite different than a statement. You can use a question to imply a point — Jesus did it quite often in the Bible. Thanks for taking an interest in my education — Lord willing, by the end of the year I will finish my program.
Tim, you said “he made the false statement that it is a self-proclaimed statement, when clearly it is not”
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. You never had to say “We are the watchdoggies of the watchdoggies.” As a matter of fact, the watchdoggies themselves rarely call themselves that, but the fact is, they are watchdoggies in your eyes. This whole article is down-right rediculous…
December 7th, 2007 at 8:41 am
learly,
I beg to differ. I think that the individuals around here would shy away from considering themselves the “watchers of the watchmen.”
The key reason I think that is the use of the Latin phrase “quis custodiet ipsos custodes.” My Latin is rusty, but I was under the impression that it could be translated using either “watches” or “guards.” And certainly, as the phrase is universally understood, the context is power and control.
And so, as I see it, the argument is that the ODMs have set themselves up as the guardians of orthodoxy, but only as they define orthodoxy. And not only to they guard, they enforce as well, considering themselves worthy of the power to brand forever those that differ from them with silly and made-up names. Dissent has no place amongst the ODMs.
So the money question is whether this place here would seek for itself the same position, just one iteration away. Of course not! (Whether they accidentally fall into that position is another question, which should be addressed elsewhere.) The site exists not to simply provide a counter-weight to the ODM’s influence, but to counter the idea that any tom, dick or harry with a keyboard can launch indiscriminate, unaccountable, and ultimately baseless attacks, while at the same time shielding themselves from dissent or discussion.
So that’s why Ken’s description is so off the mark. And his cavalier use of facts is lamentable, considering he’d be fired from any secular newspaper within days of starting. Why do some Christians persist in eating it up?
December 7th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Clearly,
You don’t really seem to get it. If Silva had simply made a declarative statement that would have been fine, its his belief/opinion that is what we are, we’d be at most arguing about our respective conclusions. But that’s not what he did. Once he said that we are the “self proclaimed ‘watcher of the watchdogs’” he was describing reality, and the reality he described never happened.
Notice I didn’t write Ken Silva, the self proclaimed “worst researcher in the history of the world”, had I done so it would have been a lie, just as what he wrote is either a lie, or some really really poor research.
Really at this point you’re either reflexively defending someone you generally agree with regardless of reality (as you watchdoggies do, and its the reason you have zero crediblity), or you really have no ability to grasp the simple truths at work here. I never took issue with what we are, I took issue with what Ken Silva claimed to have been said by Chris Lyons, that was never actually said.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Tim,
You don’t seem to get it. You guys are self-proclaimed watchers of the watchdoggies and you continually proclaim it with every post that you fire at Ken Silva, Ingrid, or anyone else. You don’t have to say “We are the watchers of the watchdoggies” in order for it to be “Self-proclaimed.” You, yourself proclaim this with every post.
You said, “I took issue with what Ken Silva claimed to have been said by Chris Lyons, that was never actually said.”
Maybe you should go back and read the quote again. The “self proclaimed” clearly modifies “website.” In this case “self-proclaimed” is an adjective; it is not the action being done by Chris L. His action is that he is (the leader).
Ken never said that Chris L claimed to be the watcher of the watchdoggies. BUT even if Ken had said that, with every post that Chris L made about Ken or anyone else, he was proclaiming his watchdoggy of the watchdoggyness.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Clearly,
Wow. It’s that kind of equivocation that gets people thrown in jail when they testify in court. (It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.”)
Are you postmodern? Derrida would be proud.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:18 am
M.G.,
I actually thought my post was pretty modern. Strange.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Did you vote for the $87 billion before you voted against it?
December 7th, 2007 at 9:31 am
I’m going with “chains shall he break, for the slave is our brother” — my favorite line.
Can’t forget “His law is love and his gospel peace”
Of course, Iggy took the whole refrain.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:37 am
–Wow. It’s that kind of equivocation that gets people thrown in jail when they testify in court. (It depends on what the meaning of “is†is.â€)–
A little more strange, since the person you pulled it “meaning of ‘is’” shenanigan didn’t spend a day in jail.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Dang that iggy…
December 7th, 2007 at 9:39 am
BTW, this illustrates so well why the truth isn’t found among the watchdoggies. The fact that you can state that saying “self-proclaimed” followed up by what was self-proclaimed in quotes doesn’t mean that Ken meant that anyone actually proclaimed it about themselves is the very height of Pharisaical lying.
For all the railing against post-modernism as playing with the truth, your writings look more like projection than anything else.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Clearly,
Please refrain from using only my last name when dealing with a pastor/teacher. I’m quite sure that I have my proof of ordination around here somewhere….ah there it is!
***Please note that while I am ordained and I take that very seriously, the above comment is used to show how some use that position erroneously****
~Watching
December 7th, 2007 at 10:04 am
So, I once had a blog that did watch the watchdogs, but closed it and now just come here to irritate people in general…
So IF this site is the self proclaimed, “Watcher of the Watchdogs†then am I a watcher of the watchers of the watch dogs? or would that be someone like the writers at CRN that hang here and read you guys*…
iggy
*Note: I do have a degree of separation as I am only a commentor here and not a contributor or writer… you see I just hang around to annoy the cr*p out of those who write for CRN… that is my sole self proclaimed purpose that drives my whole life.**
**Note: Above was satire and this is a disclaimer to let those that read here that it is all meant in fun unless I meant it otherwise… just to annoy you.***
***Note: It just seemed like I needed another “note” as I have latent “modern” tendencies and sometimes just need “three points”.****
****Note: I just could not do it… I am so postmodern… actually I am moving on toward “performatism”*****… but that is another topic.
*****Note: Performatism is when style meets functionality and functionality has style. It is not the same as pragmatism and is considered to be what is after post-post-modernism… I am just trying to push out the boundaries for ya’ll.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Tim,
Great to see that you decided to bring up some Scripture passages —- let me add to the list.
Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Pastor Martino, shall we then understand you to be on Rob’s pastoral staff?
December 7th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Clearly,
(It took me a second to recognize the verse in spite of the KJV)
I would note that “judgement” in the context of the passage you are quoting is inclusive of declaring guilt AND sentencing.
However, that does bring up a good point - the difference between “discernment” and “judgement” is that the former only defines where guilt lies, but the latter declares a sentence based upon that guilt.
So technically, as with Mike Ratliff’s declaration of Rick Warren as “apostate” yesterday, perhaps we should no longer refer to ODM’s as ODM’s, but rather as OJM’s…
December 7th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Dave,
I don’t draw a salary from Mars. Can I still be a pastor to people? Can I still be a teacher?
Be Free….
December 7th, 2007 at 10:39 am
And as far as I know I am still ordained. I really do have that certificate somewhere
December 7th, 2007 at 10:44 am
διὸ ἀναπολόγητος εἶ ὦ ἄνθÏωπε πᾶς ὠκÏίνων á¼Î½ ᾧ Î³á½°Ï ÎºÏίνεις τὸν ἕτεÏον σεαυτὸν κατακÏίνεις Ï„á½° Î³á½°Ï Î±á½Ï„á½° Ï€Ïάσσεις ὠκÏίνων
Is that better Chris?
Sure Joe, you can pastor the people. I do it too.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Oh COOL. He wrote in greek. That was pretty sly, clearly. lol, that made me laugh. Hahahaha. Good job.
Joe
December 7th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Joe, I must admit I copied and pasted. My skills aren’t good enough to type in Greek yet. However, I can fumble my way through that verse, with the emphasis on fumble.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:54 am
That’s much better, Dave - the Greek is so much more recognizable than the KJV…
December 7th, 2007 at 11:07 am
I generally refrain from correction of grammar in blogs because I err so much. But it is a bit ridiculous to spell rediculous.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:10 am
My bad. Way to take the attention off this ridiculous post that needs to be apologized for…
December 7th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Unfortunately Ken never apologizes for any of the lies or negligent “research” he publishes.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:34 am
I’m sorry for coming in late here but I have to know if this is your response? I mean seriously, Chris L wrote a theological position paper and others totally debunked Chris L’s ideas and the only response you guys can come up with is Ken Silva lied about Chris L! Lying is a sin and what Ken did was wrong. But, I think the bigger issue here is that Chris L’s Elephant article lies and is un-true. He’s teaching things about God theology that are totally false. Who is commiting the greater sin here?
December 7th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Clearly it was less about you and more about the difficulty to spell that word.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Tim,
I want to continue our discussion about “credibility”. I think this post is the perfect example.
You guys are all up in arms because Ken Silva “lied” about Chris L being the leader of your theological gang. For the sake of the discussion I grant you that. As soon as I grant you that I say so what? The reason I say that is, not because I condone sin, but because there is a far bigger fish that has to be fried here. Thanks to all the heat about Ken lying I read Chris L’s piece about the elephants and read the articles about Chris L’s article. Then I chatted with some friends of mine who are also Theologians and ODM’s. Do you know what our conclusion was?
Chris L lied about God and God’s truth.
He did this by making it appear possible for two mutually exclusive truth claims to be true at the same time. By making it sound like he was taking the spiritual high ground by embracing uncertainty and somehow making it sound possible for all of these positions to be true.
Yes lying is bad. But it is time for someone to say that what Chris L wrote are the kind of lies that send men to hell.
This is why you guys have a credibility problem. Its because you strain a gnat (ken lied) and swallow a camel (theologians are like blind men touching an elephant)
December 7th, 2007 at 11:52 am
kk…
December 7th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Wow Chris R…wonderful expose of how Chris L was wrong.
I especially liked the part where you said “________________” is wrong because of “__________________”, and the part where you appealed to the authority of your ‘theologian and ODM friends” to show that Chris was wrong, instead of _______ verses in the Bible.
Come on friend, How can I take your stab seriously if you don’t show me HOW Chris L is wrong? His analogy with the Elephant is a good way to look at this issue. Predestination and free will both exist, can’t get around that, and they’re obviously NOT mutually exclusive. And time is a one sided concept for us humans, but for God it isn’t.
Once again you turn second order doctrine in to an issue of salvation. Unbelievable.
Let me help you be reminded of what saves a man:
“By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.”
Looks like Jesus and the Bible win again.
Love,
Joe
December 7th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
I’m gonna get slammed, aren’t I?
Whatever. I’ll use the ODM justification method.
“I’m being persecuted!! I must be right!!”
LOL humor guys, humor.
Joe
December 7th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Wow, Chris - what twisted logic. It’s no wonder Ken is so godlike in the realm of the Watchdoggies, where (lack of) logic is king! Why didn’t you just say “I asked some Calvinists about this, and they don’t like it, and since Calvinism is the gospel, Chris is blaspheming?”
Thank you, Joe, for pointing out what should have been obvious to Chris and his pals, who have bought into systematic thelogies on the same level as scripture…
I would note that I didn’t say that ALL ASPECTS of these systematic theologies are true, but rather that the common points of contention (primarily free will and predestination) need not be exclusive in their truth. This is primarily because the logic which forces the “paradox” is flawed in that it assumes that time, for God, is unidirectional and unidimensional. This is not new, and it is not a lie.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Joe C,
Chris L’s piece and the links to the articles debunking it are all available on-line and are in the public record for all to see. I don’t need to re-write them.
My point drives to a deeper issue. That is the nature of truth and how we can know what we know. The term “Christian Agnostic” fits here. (Ken Silva did NOT invent that term. Martin Luther used that term to describe Erasmus in his book the Bondage of the Will more that 400 years ago.)
Chris L’s piece, although sounding enlightend and spiritual is the a mentally lazy position that attempts to make it possible to hold two completely contradictory positions at the same time. Chris L does NOT use scripture to prove his position he uses a story about blind men and elephants and time and string theory. NONE of those are God’s Word. He has appealed to NON-BIBLICAL sources to establish a spiritual truth.
So tell me again Joe C, how the Bible ‘wins again’ in this case when Chris L built his argument on ‘Human Wisdom’ rather than God’s?
December 7th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Chris,
I chose not to include all of the Biblical references which support the systematic theologies, because they ARE readily available in all sorts of places, and they lead to arguments apart from the primary thrust of the article. I did reference that they exist, and I did note that these BIBLICAL arguments in favor of free will, in favor of predestination, in favor of prayer and petition which alters the direction of God’s will, etc. do not have to contradict one another.
I would think that when faced with a choice between
1) creating convoluted explanations on why scripture doesn’t mean what it says it means to try to justify a systematic theology; or
2) Assuming that scripture isn’t contradictory, but that our “systems” for explaining the contradictions are (and maybe always will be) incomplete when trying to describe the nature of God
I would assume that a serious Christian scholar would choose the former, which assumes primacy of scripture, rather than the latter, which assumes primacy of man’s systems to explain scripture. But you and Calvin’s boys apparently are bought in and sold out and Calvinism really is, for you, the gospel.
Another gospel, indeed…
There is no “debunking” on-line. Just straw men being attacked by sell-outs to systematic theologies which make God less than He is.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Nope. He took the Bible literally on ALL points, considering all positions that occur in the Bible. We can know THE Truth from the Bible, as it IS TRUTH. Therefore it is expedient of us to consider ALL points addressed in the Bible. I read those articles, and they’re just misrepresentations and accusations of what Chris L wrote about. Not good guys, not good. They’re also Calvinism is Gospel champion fests. I mean, I’m more Calvinism than Arminianism, but with that said, Calvinism isn’t the Bible. Not. Even. Close.
Pfft, and don’t act like you never wrote anything based on “human wisdom”, (I’m not saying Chris L did that here though).
The Bible, and Jesus, ALWAYS win. It’s just a fact. Take it for what you will.
You didn’t answer to the fact that you guys are elevating 2nd or less order doctrine in to something to determine whether someone is saved or not based on their belief or adherance to it. That’s a completely weak and untenable position. And I’m saddened any Christian would do that.
I think Chris’s point here is good:
And really, I mean, who here is denying the essentials of the faith? Salvation through Christ alone? Saved by grace through faith? Christ died for our sins, rose from the dead? Etc etc?
1 Cor 15:2-5, 1 Cor 15:2-5, 1 Cor 15:2-5, 1 Cor 15:2-5!!!
Who is denying these things Chris? Who’s trying to lead people to hell here?
Better yet, who among all of us is adding things to the blood of Christ to see who’s saved and who isn’t?
Joe
December 7th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Joe,
Plain and simple. Free Will (the ability to choose God) and Election (God Chooses You) cannot both be true at the same time.
That is what needs to be debated here. Not whether Ken lied about who the leader of the Watcher of the Watchdogs is.
My original point here was that this site suffers a credibility problem because they focus on shallow and silly issues. To use a non-Biblical example “The are busy stepping on ants while Elephants are marching by”.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
If these boys want to debate theology then lets suit up and get on the field and rumble. Instead of whining that Ken Silva is guilty of trash talking.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I would love to see a theology rumble.
I will sit quietly by, in submission, and learn quietly.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Chris R,
Ken lied. You can either give a half a crap about the truth, confront him with it, and then either applaud his apology and correction or distance yourself from him depending on his reaction.
Its pretty plain by your refusal to do so you have zero credibility especially when you write something like this:
Do you know what non-watchdoggies call that? Disagreeing. For example, I would say, “Chris R believes that getting infants wet is baptism, I disagree, he’s just making infants angry by soaking them down.” On the other hand a watchdoggie version of that would be “Chris R believes that getting infants wet is baptism, I talked to some friends of mine who have made up a bunch of titles for themselves and we all agree that Chris R is lying about God and those infants will go to hell.”
See the difference?
You and all watchdoggies only have as much credibility as a political candidate during campaign season. You back your party, and the people in your party, truth doesn’t matter, the only thing that matters is that you hold your party line.
Look at what JohnD said here. When was the last time you saw anything like that from a watchdoggie comment thread or blog?
December 7th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Chris L,
I would love to debate this issue you with. It doesn’t matter that ’scholars’ have looked at it and disagree. That doesn’t prove that they are both right.
Marshall your verses, call your witnesses. Let’s have a REAL theological debate.
I will defend Election you can defend the Middle ground. How about it?
December 7th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
You really aren’t paying attention, are you?
December 7th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Tim,
Are you hear to debate theology and real issues or are you using this site for venting all of the anger and hate that you have in your heart? I really want to know.
Every time I see you post and comment I see an angry man and I wonder what you are really angry at.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
You can’t defend election 100% the way you want to Chris R, with your particular theological strain of Calvinism. I’ve learned this myself over years of study and prayer,
As soon as someone brings in a free will verse (they exist you know), and you attempt to do mental gymnastics on it, you’re game is over. Chris L’s point will be proven.
Take your suit off Chris R, the Body doesn’t need anymore damning to hell today.
Jesus help us.
Joe
December 7th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Wow, Chris - just… wow.
Technically, though, you would be forcing me to try to argue an Arminian position and possibly an Open Theist one, as well, in order to then demonstrate the middle ground.
Tell you what - you can be Calvin’s champion, and go find one for Arminius and one for OT, and I will sit in the middle…
Really, though, you’ve become pretty ridiculous at this point…
December 7th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Chris R,
I haven’t posted in anger for weeks. Perhaps you’re just too used to reading watchdoggie miss-ives.
And if calling a Christian who lies to repentance isn’t theology, then what is?
December 7th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Chris R,
Interesting. According to you, on the one hand Chris L is “mentally lazy” because he concludes that predestination and free will are both true at the same time which certainly seems to be the position that the Bible takes.
On the other hand, by using “non-scriptural” analogies and “human wisdom” to prove his point, he is being somehow unspiritual?
So, I have to ask: how does one argue rationally and spiritually at the same time? It would appear, based on your logic, human or otherwise, that I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Tim,
Who cares if Ken called Chris L the leader of the Watcher of the Watchdogs?
If all you are going to do is complain about every stupid thing that an ODM says that ‘offends’ you then I was right in calling you people a bunch of whining little school girls.
A friend of mine who lives in New Zealand sent me the link to this video on YouTube. I recommend that you watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cle20lQg0Qs&feature=related
You guys here at .info are like the team that got all freaked out about Ken’s Silva’s Haka Dance and by doing so were unable to effectively play the game. The Haka is NOT the game. It is just the warm up.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
And I suppose ultimately that is the difference between us. You seem to view Christianity as some sort of vocabulary word game where you fill in the right words at the right time better than the people you don’t like.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
I see the similarity.
If any Christian is doing anything like Haka, in word or deed, well…that derails everything right off the bat.
But that was a sweet video. I hope the Pats come out and do that against the Steelers sunday night.
But the “game” to you guys is apparently, smash destroy and label everyone who disagrees with you as apostate and evil.
Chris R, when you disagree with someone this strongly…when this happens in your life…if you look at yourself honestly…have you ever ended up being wrong? Or are you always right? Now, I’ve only seen you post here for a few months, but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen you be wrong in large disagreements like this. I admit, my knowledge of you is severely limited though. But, that’s just a question for you and your conscience, so please don’t answer it here. I have to ask myself that all the time too. That’s why I’ve learned so much here, and distanced myself so much from the ODMs, because I was wrong.
Joe
December 7th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Tim,
You are wrong. I do not view it as a vocabulary word game. Words are only the tools that we use to communicate ideas. Words have meaning but they are not the meaning themselves.
The Bible says there is a such thing as truth and there is a such thing as error and there are consequences regarding both.
I am not going to apologize that I believe I am right, because you think you are right too.
When we disagree with each other that is an opportunity for both of us to grow. I LOVE DIALOGING WITH SOMEONE WHO HOLDS A DIFFERENT POSITION THAN I DO. Not because I want to stick it to them but because I love the truth and I love other people.
The only reason I’ve been being soooo persistent with you guys is because I am 100% convinced you are debating the wrong thing. You’ve become obsessed with Ken Silva and his Haka Dances. So your sitting on the sidelines whinning and complaining about Ken. Come on guys. Man up! Get in the game and lets debate some real theology so that the truth can win.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
How can you possibly be so concerned about theology, and unconcerned with how that theology is played out in real life? Any scrub on the practice squad can read a playbook, and unfortunately that’s what the watchdoggies look like. You’re all real good at reading scripture, but you just can’t seem to put it together on the field. The way watchdoggies insist on conducting themselves insures that they’re wrong even if they’re right.
I’ll ask one more time: if calling a Christian to repentance over the lies they tell isn’t theology, then what is?
December 7th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Joe C,
I am frequently wrong. When someone points that out to me I am able to grow. The same holds true for you.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Truth will win. That should scare all of us.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Chris,
If you’re worried that we’ve not responded to the meat of Ken’s “miss-ive” and just to Ken’s hraka, then you might have missed this and this.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
I certainly said that it did include me, Chris.
But I’ve never seen you, Ken, or Ingrid admit you were wrong. That was my first clue there was a problem.
My entire prescense here is because I was totally barking up the wrong tree, and totally wrong in following the ODMs. I wonder how many other people have been led to do the wrong things too…
I pray they can snap out of it by God’s grace.
Joe
December 7th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Tim,
Calling sinners to repentance is critical. Just like I told Iggy, I think you should email Ken and lay out your case and call him to repentance.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Joe C,
Talk to Joe Martino about me. I have publicly admitted I was wrong in the past. It was Joe and his wife who called me out. Just because you haven’t witnessed something for yourself don’t assume that it hasn’t happened.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Perhaps another question to ask is, if Ken is gonna lie in his hraka, then why should’t we expect a whole lot more to come?
Chris - without using ANY time-dependent words, can you lay out a defence of predestination?
December 7th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Sheesh, some of these ODMs remind me of guys who live in their mom’s basement and call into sports radio.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Thank you for the laugh, Matt!
You, Brendt (three-sheds) and three other guys at work who hold a Calvinist theology (to some degree) are my constant reminder that it isn’t necessarily this theological view that creates jerks, but it is this theological view when combined with a misreading of Jude 3 that produces them…
December 7th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Chris L,
Tell you what. I will lay out an apologetic for Election on my site ExtremeTheology.com. I will have it done in the next couple of days. When I have posted it, I’ll come back and let you know. Then you can respond to it either here or at your blog. (BTW, I am NOT a Calvinist)
December 7th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Its already been done by multiple people, multiple times.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Will it include or exclude time-dependant words/concepts? If it includes them, then you can save your time to work on something else…
December 7th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Hey, wow - I get to use the glossary…
“I am NOT a Calvinist”
HT: Rick
December 7th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Matt B,
You said:
If Ken Silva had said that about Tim, or Chris L they would have had a fit and posted yet another Article showing how un-loving, un-kind and unChristLike Ken Silva was.
So how should I interpret your comment and the fact the Chris L thought it was funny?
Is this hypocrisy or is it something else? Just curious?
December 7th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Chris L,
I am a Lutheran and you just lied about me. How come it is okay for you to lie about me?
December 7th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Chris R said:
I didn’t say that at all. In fact, I very obviously qualified my statement with “I’ve never seen you admit your wrong, BUT…” and proceeded to ask you NOT to answer the question here, as it’s just for you and I to consider about ourselves.
And I also was talking about STRONG disagreements, like the ODMs are doing the ‘right thing’, would be a strong disagreement between the two groups of CHRISTIANS. Just had to emphasize that we’re CHRISTIANS, and not Satan.
I would interpret Matt B’s statement to a FUNNY comparison, with the emphasis that everyone KNEW it was humor.
“Ecumenical Church of Deceit”…doesn’t seem like much of a ‘joke’ to me.
Joe
December 7th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Chris,
If that was the worst Ken said about me, I doubt I’d find the energy to write something in reply…
Speaking of Ken, I’m still trying to figure out the post above from (December 6, 2007, 11:27 pm). I’m trying to reconcile it with a post at (September 12, 2007, 3:35 pm) from here.
I mean, the post says “Ken Silva”, and the IP address matches him. But I’m a bit boggled.
1) Todd Upchurch (DT) scolded us for “banning” Ken, and wouldn’t back down when we explained the difference between “banning” (which we don’t even have the capability to do on this site) and and “moderating”. Yet, there, above is Ken, posting from his same ol’ IP address (from which I assume he’s been quoting and linking to us for the past several months).
2) Ken expressly communicated that he was leaving and not commenting any more (the nth of several times he stated this). Now, surely if he has the title “Pastor/Teacher” (and maybe that’s changed, or it never really was), I would think that a Pastor/Teacher would weigh such rash words and count the cost of saying them, in the first place. Having said them, I would then think that he might either admit foolishness in making such statements and then breaking his word, or that he would have honored them.
Perhaps, though, someone else was using his PC and information to post Supertramp lyrics here, in which case, someone might want to warn him that his computer is being improperly accessed…
December 7th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
We’ve let most of his insults against us go without comment. Its the slander and lies that we point out, also the abuses of scripture, and insults against others. Oh, and I also get a kick out of how much stock watchdoggies put into titles, especially the reverend, pastor, teacher, President Silva.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Isn’t the Lutheran church basically Calvinist in doctrine? The ones I lived around always were…
As for the “I’m not a Calvinist” link to the glossary, I would hope you saw that more as a (lame) attempt at humor. No deception was intended, and you have my apologies if anyone took that seriously…
December 7th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Chris R:
I was referring to the tone of some ODMs comments. The whole, if you don’t like what I say, let’s take it outside and fight mano-to-mano.
I’ve never seen Chris L or Tim take this tone.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Dear Modernism,
Congratulations on your recent total victory over the LCMS. Please be gracious in your victory.
Sincerely,
Tim
December 7th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Chris L,
Lutherans are only 2 and half point Calvinists.
And so that you know, I wasn’t offended. I just wanted to point out your hypocrisy. Since, tone, is very difficult to convey via the internet, there was no way for me to know that what you said was intended as a joke so I took it at face value.
But, I think this reinforces my previous points about the fact that you guys constantly complain about the mean and nasty things Ken says while you say mean and nasty things. That is just silly. Who cares?!?!
So both sides are mean and nasty. Both sides sin. Rather than getting bent out of shape about it, let’s debate some theology. Let’s really dig into some deep ideas, if the charges that the ODM’s are bringing against Rick Warren, Rob Bell, Ken Copeland, Paula White, Brian McClaren, Doug Pagitt, and Bill Hybells are false then marshall your texts, bring your scholars, sharpen your observations, let’s debate these ideas.
Most of the arguments on this site thus far sound like this, “Rob Bell isn’t a Universalist because Ken Silva is mean and unloving man.” How on earth can anyone have real conversation about Rob Bell’s teaching when you base the truth or falseness of someone’s statement based upon how much they sounds like or agree with Ken Silva?
Sheeesh.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Tim,
That was a strange comment about modernism. BTW, I don’t consider myself to be modern. I think of myself as pre-modern.
Do you consider yourself to be Post-Modern? I’d really like to know.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
So you can say he isn’t a Christian? I’d really like to know why you need to know.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Um Joe C. He was talking about me (I am Joe Martino).
December 7th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Chris,
There are a number of things I let slip by without offense (spoken, or otherwise), but there are a number of things written (primarily, but not solely by Ken) that can be taken no other way, and that - if they were not intended to be offensive - can be pretty easily corrected.
I’ve not seen that here, and I would give a number of examples, like this
or this
or this
or this
or this
or this
or this
or this
or this
or this
or here
or this
And on and on…
And not all of these are even in “response to” Ken…
However, there are some which both point out the ungodly methods Ken uses, and then specifically refutes the point he was trying to make.
Like this
Or this
Or this
Or this
Or this
(NOTE: This is a random sampling (not statistically, but not a concerted/exhaustive search) of articles here. Certainly some of the articles could have (and should have) not been written my me and several other folks, as well. I would say those are in the minority, though. As for Ken, I’ve seen him once admit the possiblity of his own error, but I’ve yet to see it admitted in practice…)
December 7th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Chris R,
You are modern through and through, every single point of Calvinism requires a modernist sensibility to be built on. Your offer of debate in which ideas expressed in propositional truth are exchanged is very modern. BTW, most influential writings of Lutheranism are extremely modern. Just look at the way Lutheran thought has created a theology of law and grace, the creation of two categories into which everything is sorted, and its not found in scripture except by building several propositional truths on top of each other and making inferences based on those propositional truths.
As to what I am, I never gave it much thought. Which probably rules out modernism.