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]
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
143 Comments(+Add)
Not to mention I would caution him from falsely accusing a pastor/teacher such as myself.
Joe,
I think you meant a Reverend/Pastor/Teacher.
I don’t see a problem with his generalization.
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.
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.
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”
“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.
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?”
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.
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.
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.
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
So much watching!
Where is the scripture to sustain all this watching?!
NT only, please!
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.
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
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
JohnD,
It may seem petty, but its indicative of a larger problem. One that Igs states well.
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.
“…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!”
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.
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…
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?
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…)
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?
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
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.
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
“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.
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
John,
Thank you for helping us keep things in perspective…
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…
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?
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.
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.
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.
M.G.,
I actually thought my post was pretty modern. Strange.
Did you vote for the $87 billion before you voted against it?
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.
–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.
Dang that iggy…
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.
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
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.
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?
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…
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….
And as far as I know I am still ordained. I really do have that certificate somewhere
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.
Oh COOL. He wrote in greek. That was pretty sly, clearly. lol, that made me laugh. Hahahaha. Good job.
Joe
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.
That’s much better, Dave – the Greek is so much more recognizable than the KJV…
I generally refrain from correction of grammar in blogs because I err so much. But it is a bit ridiculous to spell rediculous.
My bad. Way to take the attention off this ridiculous post that needs to be apologized for…
Unfortunately Ken never apologizes for any of the lies or negligent “research” he publishes.
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?
Clearly it was less about you and more about the difficulty to spell that word.
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)
kk…
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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”.
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.
I would love to see a theology rumble.
I will sit quietly by, in submission, and learn quietly.
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?
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?
You really aren’t paying attention, are you?
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.
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
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…
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
Joe C,
I am frequently wrong. When someone points that out to me I am able to grow. The same holds true for you.
Truth will win. That should scare all of us.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
Sheesh, some of these ODMs remind me of guys who live in their mom’s basement and call into sports radio.
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…
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)
Its already been done by multiple people, multiple times.
Will it include or exclude time-dependant words/concepts? If it includes them, then you can save your time to work on something else…
Hey, wow – I get to use the glossary…
“I am NOT a Calvinist”
HT: Rick
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?
Chris L,
I am a Lutheran and you just lied about me. How come it is okay for you to lie about me?
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
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…
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.
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…
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.
Dear Modernism,
Congratulations on your recent total victory over the LCMS. Please be gracious in your victory.
Sincerely,
Tim
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.
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.
So you can say he isn’t a Christian? I’d really like to know why you need to know.
Um Joe C. He was talking about me (I am Joe Martino).
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…)
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.
Oh you mean about the being wrong thing. I know he was talking about you, and reffered me to you, but I was saying…I just haven’t SEEN him be wrong yet, and that should make us take reflection on ourselves as to why we dig in so hard.
Tim,
This is one the things that fascinate me about Post-Mods. There is an open aversion to propositional truths.
Let me ask you this. Does your bank work from a Modern or Post-Modern frame work when they calculate the balance of your check book? Is your bank arrogant when it states with confident certainty that you have $812 dollars in your checking account?
Am I arrogant and modern when I state with certainty that Abe Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth in the Fords Theatre on April 14, 1865.
If post-moderism was correct wouldn’t it be impossible for us to know with any certainty how much money we have in our bank accounts? Wouldn’t I have to be humble by saying that I am uncertain that Abe Lincoln was shot by Booth and that if people want to believe that he was assassinated by Elvis in 1903 in Lockerby Scotland that is a valid truth for them?
Seems pretty silly doesn’t it? Living the rest of your life as a Modern thinker then switching to Post-Modernism when dealing with ’spiritual’ truths. It just doesn’t work does it?
I don’t recall writing anything anywhere close to derogatory about propositional truth.
Really the difference from which all differences stem between moderns and post-moderns is that post-moderns don’t view modernist methods of finding truth as the only methods of finding truth.
I do find it interesting that you’ve abandoned all pre-text to being pre-modern (and really a pre-modern would have problems with the origins of Lutheranism to begin with).
There’s a reason that Spurgeon wrote against modernism so much, because there are many anti-spiritual assumptions built into many of its more common forms.
If a person believes in unconditional election he is a Calvinist according to Frueh’s Exhaustive Theological Dictionary. You only need one point and you wear the moniker. No malice, just reality.
Tim,
That statement is a propositional truth claim!
How do you plan to go about proving the truth of this propositional statement?
As I understand postmodern philosophy, Chris, it is not the certainty of dates or bank balances – verifiable information – that they question.
Where the pomo may question is this –
Is the $812 you have in your checking account due to your hard work and savings, your good fortune, your squandering of resources, or something else? How exactly should that $812 be spent?
When Booth shot Lincoln, did he do it over slavery, the Civil War, itself, or out of a belief in some sort of southern ‘manifest destiny’?
In general, it is valuable to accurately portray a philosophy you are discussing, and probably one of the biggest “sins” in modernists (myself included) in defining “postmoderns” is a cartoon version of “propositional truth” that is a straw man, in reality.
In ACTUAL postmodern thought, there are some similarities (and some stark differences) with the Hebrew context in which Jesus lived and taught. In this area, pomos may have a hand up in understanding cultural context of the Bible better than mods. At the same time, there are traps there, as well.
I can’t believe you guys are arguing over terms men invented. That’s the biggest funny, coming from you two. LOL
Joe
Chris R,
I realize you’ve been fed the line that propositional truth is kryptonite to post-modernism. Please read what I actually wrote:
That statement isn’t exclusionary, as you seem to be making it out to be.
Also I did edit my previous comment because I hit submit on accident, so there’s an extra couple of lines in it. I didn’t expect you to be on it taht quickly.
All I can say is: wow.
To all of it.
Chris L,
One of the mistakes that some Mods have made is divorcing Jesus from his historical context. Some have a tendency to create a clinical Jesus. But that does not reflect the majority of Modern scholarship by any stretch.
However, what I’ve seen Pomo’s do is use narrative and culture as the hammer for smashing sound biblical doctrine and coming to the conclusion that we can’t know any Biblical truth with any certainty. They use them as a smoke screen to justify false teaching and changing the Biblical message.
Joe C,
This discussion is thoroughly modern in its assumptions.
Hey guys, some input from a fundamentalist moran. Until we can live and embrace the “love your neighbor as yourself” or “Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, and strength” or “Whosoever does not forsake all cannt be my disciple” or “Esteem each other better than yourself” or “Be ye clothed in humility” or sveral others, we do nothing but raise theological dust.
LOL….I am thoroughly tired of this conversation.
Let me try to HUMOROUSLY sum up everything:
Ken lied. Chris R is right about everything. I’m an apostate though I am neither post-modern nor emergent nor new evangelical, so is everyone else disagreeing with the ODMs, and monkeys fling their poo at each other just like we’ve been doing here.
LOL Joe
Tim,
I’ve already stated that I am not a modern. I am pre-modern (this doesn’t mean that I don’t subscribe to some of the tenants of modernism). Spurgeon had good reason to write against the Moderns. It is not without its errors. However, the opposite error to an error is never the solution.
Just a side note, but the Jesus Seminar is distinctly modernist. To wed Christianity to a particular worldview is kind of silly.
Also, with all due respect, you’re not a pre-modern. All of your tendencies that you’ve exhibited have been modernist, I’ve pointed out just a few here.
Joe C,
I think I’m right AND YOU THINK YOU ARE RIGHT. So What!?! When did that become a crime?
We’re all grown ups here right? Then stop acting like I am whacked because I have the courage of my convictions.
You obviously think you are right and you don’t see me complaining how, “Joe C thinks he’s right about everything.”
I actually ASSUME that you think you’re right otherwise you wouldn’t be talking with me. If you didn’t think you were right then you’d have nothing interesting to say except, “golly I don’t know what to say because I think I’m wrong.”
Stop faulting people for thinking they are right because by doing so you are faulting yourself.
Joe C,
I think I’m right AND YOU THINK YOU ARE RIGHT. So What!?! When did that become a crime?
We’re all grown ups here right? Then stop acting like I am whacked because I have the courage of my convictions.
You obviously think you are right and you don’t see me complaining how, “Joe C thinks he’s right about everything.”
I actually ASSUME that you think you’re right otherwise you wouldn’t be talking with me. If you didn’t think you were right then you’d have nothing interesting to say except, “golly I don’t know what to say because I think I’m wrong.”
Stop faulting people for thinking they are right because by doing so you are faulting yourself BECAUSE YOU THINK YOU ARE RIGHT.
Tim,
Modernism it is ‘purist form’ excludes the possibility of ‘revealed knowledge’. It is a materialist world-view. Because I believe in revealed knowledge and the supernatural and in miracles, I am excluded from truly being a “modern”. That is exactly why I say I am pre-modern and a true Mod would agree.
lol…totally ignored the HUMOR part.
I think you need to calm down and take a break Chris R, you seem REALLY mad.
I was trying to be funny. I think I stated that in huge letters on purpose. Let me try again:
Let me try to HUMOROUSLY sum up everything:
Ken lied (JOKE). Chris R is right about everything (JOKE). I’m an apostate though I am neither post-modern nor emergent nor new evangelical (JOKE), so is everyone else disagreeing with the ODMs (JOKE), and monkeys fling their poo at each other just like we’ve been doing here (NOT A JOKE).
There, now repent for being so angry at me without reason. =)
Joe
PS, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I haven’t taken a position at all in this conversation…so can you really say I think I’m right or wrong? Both sides have been wrong and right at different points. I’m wrong lots, and like I said, the only reason I post comments here is because of one HUGE wrong in the past.
I don’t think I’m “right”, I have nothing to be “right”about, right now.
Joe
Joe C,
I repent.
This is simply not true. Some dominant forms of modernism do exactly that, but guys like William Lane Craig, Descartes, and Alvin Plantinga hold to theistic modernism.
A pre-modern would not argue the way you have. A pre-modern would only make arguments from authority. In fact the Reformation was in its simplest form a victory of the modern over the pre-modern. The RCC was busy asserting its authority while the Reformers were busy making what we would recognize as modernist arguments from scripture.
Like a breath of fresh air, you know? Alright Chris R, in this massive mess of comments, we all make mistakes, it’s forgiven, don’t think anything of it.
Joe
Point of order – The Jesus Seminar is apostate.
Continue.
Hey Ya’ll,
I’m not ignoring you. I had to do some real work.
Chris L, I’ll write my paper on Election.
Tim, You and I have a difference of opinion on the definition of Modern. But, according to your definition I am modern. I’m okay with your label because anyone who could put Descartes and Alvin Plantinga in the same sentence can’t be all bad.
Rick, You are right. The Jesus Seminar is thoroughly apostate. What do you think of the fact that McLaren and John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar share a lot of the same theological ideas? McClaren quotes him quite a bit in his new book.
So, I’m signing off for now.
And I don’t even exist, that’s how pre- I am.
Chris R,
This is a lie…
“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.†”
the real issue is how can you have a conversation when someone states out right lies about someone else then when challenged to show facts to back up those lies just calls you names like, “man-loving -semi pelagian” and never produces any facts.
It is not that we answer with “Ken is mean and unloving” though the facts seem to sway that way in his behavior, but that I have called for direct statements that prove the accusations against people… even Brian McLaren and not one of you guys has give a statement that proves your points…
To have a conversation one must respond to the questions asked and even with my dealings with you, you do not answer my questions but dodge them and tell me how you are not responsible for anyone but yourself… but still then never answer anything asked of you.
If you want to talk theology, we can do that but then let us start with the basic… do you or do you not see lying and slander as a sin?
If you do not as you have stated, other than it is “pettiness†as you called it.
I see it is a sin as it is in the same list as “homosexuality†so if one continues in a sin such as lying and makes is a habit I wonder if that person is a sincere believer or not.
I mostly wonder if a person who condones such said sin is also one or is under some sort of delusion that would allow them to justify their or another’s actions in slander and lying.
These people here at this site have consistently shown time after time where posts at CRN and SoL are not accurate and have only be faced with the attitude of “it is true because I state it is†or in the case of Ken Silva “it is true because I linked to an article on this from my other site.†(No these are not direct quotes but these are the actions that they show.)
So before you state a lie as above, make sure the truth can back it up…
Rick and Chris R,
“Rick, You are right. The Jesus Seminar is thoroughly apostate. What do you think of the fact that McLaren and John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar share a lot of the same theological ideas? McClaren quotes him quite a bit in his new book.â€
There were conservatives that were part of the Jesus Seminar that did not agree or like the outcome… Such as N.T. Wright who took part of it but is not in any way a “liberal” theologian.
So to say that it was all apostate gives the impression that anyone involved in it was also…
Now the real issue was also in the misreading of the results and the color code… the part that went wrong was that some took the things stated as Jesus did not state this, was not that He did not, but that the probability of His stating it was less likely that some other statements.
the issue was how they tabulated this in that it was by a “vote”… so in many cases since liberals out numbered the conservatives the vote was swayed considerably
Over all many conservatives did not agree or had a bit of remorse in taking part of the Jesus Seminar… but we should not paint them also as apostate for they did defend the truth.
So please do not castigate people with such broad swipes without some sort of understanding of the situation as it really happened.
On Brian McLaren, if you really study him you will find he seems very much inline with the theology of N.T.Wright… in fact it was through Mclaren I found Wright. For McLarne to wuote one person you may disagree with seems to over look that he also quotes many other people in which on might agree with. The issue is not that he is quoting a heretic, yet even some heretics have a bit of truth that some overlook and cast out without looking at.
It seems that there is no care for the baby when the bathwater is tossed out.
iggy
With the Jesus Seminar I toss out the baby, the bathwater, and the tub itself. I couldn’t find one nickel in that spittoon.
Rick,
I do not think the outcome of the Jesus seminar in and of itself was worth much, but there was some very good theologians in the mix… not enough of them but we cannot condemn them in with the whole… even some of them have remorse to an effect in the manner.
iggy
If I were to frame a debate between the two Chris’s, it would not be along the lines of election vs. free-will but more around the following questions:
1. What does the Bible actually teach regarding the core beliefs necessary for salvation? (And lest you think that this question implies an Arminian bias, the question could be rephrased as: What propositional truth does the Bible actually teach will be evidenced in the life of a believer that is brought to faith by the Holy Spirit?)
2. Is salvation applied to our lives at a point in our time or during a point in God’s timelessness?
3. What does it mean when James says that faith without works is “dead”, i.e., of no practical use? Does that also mean that it has no legal merit on the divine scales of justice?
4. To what extent will the practice of my faith also play a role in my eternal destiny?
5. When Mitt Romney says he believes that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind, does that indicate that Mitt is a Mormon Christian? Now that would be a fun question to address, wouldn’t it?
John – the practice of your faith may give some validity to your faith inthe eyes of men, but what will bring you to eternal life will be faith and faith alone. That kind of faith will be accompanied by some substantiating works, but only the “Lord knows those that are His”.
Now equally as important as faith is the object of that faith. Since only Christ saves all faith must be placed upon Him for salvation. That means that a pious and painfully sincere religious man places His faith on Mohammed and practices his faith to a greater commitment than the average Christian still dies unsaved. His faith was strong, the object of his faith was not.
Mit Romney believes in a false Jesus and a salvation by works. The Mormons have even made the family an idol which attracts the flesh but is an affront to God. The family has an important place in the body of Christ, but having a good and close family cannot save, and in the case of Mormons it is a substitute for true salvation.
Rick,
I hear you but I would like to see these questions really flushed out to their fullest extent. I suspect the answers might even show all concerned that we are more closely aligned with each other than we realize. At least I hope this would be the outcome. Maybe not.
And as far as Mitt Romney is concerned, like you said, only the Lord knows who are really his. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that Mormon ideology is consistent with Scripture. I’m just wondering out loud whether or not a “nominal” Mormon can have a saving knowledge of the one true Lord?
“I’m just wondering out loud whether or not a “nominal†Mormon can have a saving knowledge of the one true Lord? ”
John, anything is possible but the question you asked is more than dangerous. If a Roman Catholic gets saved he doesn’t always leave the Catholic Church but that doesn’t guarantee he isn’t saved.
But the Mormon faith is chock full of heresies, and it would seem miraculous to have a Mormon believe in the true Jesus and then continue worshipping the false one. Only God knows but I have my doubts. We can pray for him like most of the other conveniently religious candidates.
BTW – Bob Jones III endorsed Romney for president. If the originla Bob Jones was here he would remove his grandson for such an incredible compromise.
John D,
I will answer number 3 on my upcoming podcast.