Ken Silva’s Internet Para-Church of the Remnant
John on May 11, 2007 at 12:08 am
Slice is back as of May 3rd. It seems Ingrid created Christian Research Net, put Ken in charge, then moved back to her old URl without him.
I came across this article today featuring Ken’s latest attack on Rick Warren. And to be perfectly fair, I think Ken may have a point in this case. Warren should excercise some discipline, if he’s really in a position to do so. That said, Ken is not Warren’s pastor. He’s barely anyone’s pastor. And, frankly, the idea that Ken is in a position to advise Rick Warren on how to run a church is just laughable.
Why laughable? I’m glad you asked.
Last year, this blog spent an extended time arguing with Ken over his language, tone and methods. One of the things that became clear after two months of discussion was that there are many troubling signs in his life and minstry, both online and off. Ken is literally making a career out of bashing well-known believers, but what do we actually know about him? Read the rest of this post and you’ll have a much better idea who Ken Silva is:
As you know I am also pastor of Connecticut River Baptist Church (CRBC), which is a small church of about 8 members that is currently meeting in the home of one of our members. This church was once a fellowship of some 100 members in the 80’s that had shrunk to 13 or so by the time I was called a little over a year ago. My stand against PDL then caused us to lose around half of the remaining members–including our largest financial supporters–and would find us being shunned by both our state and regional associations.
Elsewhere, Ken is more specific about his tenure at CRBC:
When I came in [to a church of 13] we would then lose another 6 through God’s weeding process as He turned us into a church while I preached what the Bible actually says and through my standing against the things that I am now writing about at AM.
This is an interesting comment in many ways. First, the suggestion that half of the people who’d been there as the church dwindled from 100 down to 13 were insufficiently committed seems odd to me. If you’re attending a church of 13 after 80% of the members have abandoned ship, I don’t think commitment is really a problem. And yet, Ken describes those who left as weeds. In the scripture, weeds are those destined for burning. It’s not a light thing to label someone a weed.
We got a first hand account of how this weeding took place from one of Ken’s remaining members who said:
With people from our Church bristling under teachings against blatent [sic] disregard for Truth, Ken had to delve deeper into what caused all of this.
So in the case of his own church, people who “bristled” under Ken’s teaching were weeds. The assumption by both Ken and the person quoted above is that anyone who could not abide the pure truth of Ken’s teaching is, quite literally, destined for hell. That’s certainly one way to look at it. Is there another way?
Look again at Ken’s comment and this time notice the structure of the sentence I’ve made bold. “We would lose…through God’s weeding process…while I preached.” This is something we’ve seen repeatedly with Ken, to the point that it seems to be a genuine part of his thinking and not the result of simply typing too fast. There is an assumption in this sentence that what Ken did was what God did and what God did was what Ken did, almost as if the two are identical. That’s certainly something for all of us who follow the Lord to strive for, but is it something any of us have really reached? More specifically, has Ken?
So with the bristling and the leaving from his own church, Ken turned his attention to the internet. His plan was to create an “internet church” that would be a refuge for the remnant seeking shelter from false teaching. I think there are some problems with this which I’ll get to later. That aside though, we very shortly find that Ken’s internet church is not going very well. He writes:
[F]or whatever reason, people who had said they were going to assist in this venture never did, and virtually all of those who initially supported our work have since fallen away.
And things aren’t going much better back in the real world where:
I have not been asked to come speak in any capacity whatsoever at any churches in this local area! Not even one church of any denomination in this entire seeker friendly area for the whole year after sending information to them concerning this work which also handles general apologetics, pulpit supply, non-Christian cults, etc.
Ken’s big break was when he was asked to join Slice of Laodicea as a regular contributor about 6-8 months ago. As this post and others probably indicate, his tenure at Slice has also caused a strong reaction. About that reaction, Ken recently wrote:
[A]s pastoral advisor and contributor to Ingrid Schlueter’s very much in discussion Slice of Laodicea website, what’s being said about it is indeed very close to me. Let me point out that we are well aware that there are a growing number who feel it has become a “hate site.”
I think a large part of the reason for the growing number of people who think so is Ken’s addition to the site. I haven’t seen them, but I’m told that some of the regular commenters at Slice have been pleading with Ingrid to reconsider Ken’s appointment. I think that would be wise, though I don’t expect she’ll do it.
Looking at all of the above, some people would add it up and think it was time to take a new approach. But not so with Ken. Every downturn is justified as sharing in Jesus sufferings at the hands of unbelievers. Criticism is deemed invalid because it comes from those who have been corrupted by false teaching (i.e. those who don’t side with Ken). For instance, the next paragraph after the one above reads:
Make no mistake here in this particular article I speak strictly for myself when I categorically state that in my particular view this is quite correct, Slice is a hate site. We absolutely hate sin.
So, once again, it’s a very Godly kind of hate. In fact, it’s just like the kind God himself has and, by implication, if you — dear reader — were only more spiritual you’d agree.
One of the great things about truth is that it’s still true even if no one believes it. I love the story of Martin Luther who stood up at the Diet of Worms and refused to recant his position with the words “God help me, here I stand. I can do no other.” Luther was right. His stand was important. But Luther’s accusations about the church of his day were backed up by his own scholarship and that of his associates (Melancthon). Luther was only too happy to explain the scriptural basis of his views and to contest for them, believing that through reason and argument he could sway others to his position.
This is not the situation I’ve found with regard to Ken. When questioned about specifics, he usually avoids answering or simply avows that he has no repsonsibility to do so:
As a messenger I am responsible to deliver the message as accurately as I can. This is I have done in over 350 articles this year at Apprising Ministries. The messenger is not responsible to “interpret” the message. I am to deliver it and then leave it between the hearer and my Master. This I have also done.
As an example, at one point in an ongoing discussion, I spent some time trying to pin Ken down on his view of big churches. He made some sweeping statements on a Slicecast (Slice’s podcast) which he would not retract or explain. To force the issue, I transcribed what he’d said verbatim. In response, he accused me of having poor reasoning skills and finally settled on a modified statement as follows:
By and large – if not always – those who have big ministries/followings have them because they tell people what they want to hear and are but meeting their “felt needs.”
Now, there are all sorts of problems with this assertion, many of which I pointed out to Ken. But on a more personal level, I think this is important for this reason: Given Ken’s history, we can see that a) he really believes this and b) he would undoubtedly find it difficult to believe anything else. This view allows him to portray his own ministry (causing people to bristle) as a success rather than a shambles.
When forced to step beyond his role as proclaimer, Ken often sounds agitated. He has a tendency to attack those who disagree with him as blind and/or unwise. He did so on this blog several times. For instance, in a long online discussion on this site he wrote to one individual:
There are none so blind as those who just will not see.
Then a bit later (this one was aimed at me in particular):
Your love for men and their empty “scholarship philosophy (see-Colossians 2:8) has blinded you and you are unable to hear what is being said spiritually.
And again later:
[F]or one who is a believer in Christ I do have to admit that you’re spiritual blindness amazes me.
And here’s his collective codemnation of everyone involved:
[A]ll the long-winded man-centered scholarly blether from you guys has proved absolutely nothing spiritually and now we can pray for the Lord to give you guys eyes that see.
We take heart that since this is within the will of God that 1 John 5:14-15 gives us hope that He will be merciful to you.
Ken is also fond of quoting Matthew 22:29 in arguments, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.” He did that here. Are we being weeded? Is Ken about to write us all off as unworthy and destined for the fire? This seems to be his pattern.
What Ken lacks in tact, he more than makes up for in confidence. As Scott memorably put it Ken has “a COSTCO-SIZED pallet of spiritual guts.”
I fully realize I am branded as an extremist, harsh, unloving – a kind of spiritual “chicken little” – and I have absolutely zero credibility in Emergent circles. No problem to me, if I were them I’d see me this way also.
It’s also clear he realizes the stakes of being wrong:
[I]f I have misspoken my ministry will die. And this would be rightly so.
I would say that, looking at the evidence, it has died several times. I believe it is dying again on Slice. Ken, however, remains convinced his position is right in line with Jesus to the point that even his statements of humility come out sounding like arrogance:
“the Word contains more for me to learn.” By the way, people who hold my correct Biblical position aren’t saying the Bible doesn’t.
He attributes this wisdom to age and experience:
It truly is a sad indictment upon the Emergent movement where supposed Christians are so arrogant as to brazenly disregard what is said by a pastor-teacher called by Christ to instruct them in at least a tangential way.
And this is absolutely the last time I am going to say this: I do not imply that I speak directly from God in the sense of inspiration, I am not saying I am the only one teaching correctly, and I am not above being held accountable by other of my peers as to what I teach. That said however, as one who has been a pastor for nearly as long as many of those so foolishly challenging me have even been alive. It is a shame that they apparently do not have enough wisdom to think that there’s a good chance I’ve had just a bit more time on this planet to seek God and acquire knowledge from Him than they have.
So it’s not that Ken is above being held accountable, only that he’s above being held accountable by any of the actual people who disagree with him, including me, Scott, Amy, Chris, ex-members of his church, leaders of the SBC, other pastors in his town, ex-supporters, other bloggers, and kids who take him to task on Slice — but that’s all. Nevertheless, Ken assures us that in theory there is someone to whom he could be accountable (though in practice we’ve yet to identify such a person).
Even as those who disagree with Ken are labelled and anathematized, those who agree with him are “the remnant” of the true faith:
I can truthfully tell you that as Jesus brings more people into our lives He reminds us that time is short, and that He has many in this remnant who are recognizing each other as our Great Shepherd brings us into contact.
And here again:
Interestingly enough, with so many people feeling as if the Great Shepherd is calling out a remnant, scattered though we may be all over the world
And Ken, of course, is a shepherd to this remant:
As I mentioned in “For Our Readers,” the direction we have felt the Lord take His Apprising Ministries has been toward a kind of an online “local” church with an “Internet “ pulpit through which our “congregation” could then be in touch with the remnant that is literally scattered all over the world.
And again:
the readership of AM has been steadily growing each month. Because there is no “fluff” among these writings this…speaks to the hunger of our Great Shepherd’s remnant for real Truth from the Bible.
Most of the above quotes come from Ken’s letters appealing for funds. These appeals are quite numerous, especially considering he has only been blogging for about a year. Ken states that aside from pastoring and blogging, both he and his wife work. So what does he need money for? In his first appeal explains it is meant to provide him with a chance to do “full time” ministry:
I am not anxious to return to my secular work in the local high school. Christ is no longer having me evangelize there, one can see in the Spirit He is through with it. Jesus has had me there for four years now, even coaching the football team and this Nineveh just wouldn’t repent. It is rapidly becoming a human cesspool now. It is so sad to watch. And the burden that He has now placed in my heart is to be available to devote myself completely to CRBC and AM.
And again:
[W]e do covet your prayers as we seek the direction of God in this venture to be pastor of this Internet pulpit fulltime.
He makes a more strongly worded appeal here:
Perhaps people don’t realize that for me to do this type of research and writing requires a great deal of sacrifice for Donna and myself. We both work fulltime jobs in the secular world and then come home to attend to the details of the ministry until well into the evening most nights. For those who may not know we are the only ones directly involved in AM and we receive no outside funding from any agencies. So money comes out of our own pocket for me to have the books and resources I need to properly write against the false doctrines of the Emerging Church movement.
I’ve nothing to lose at this point to ask you to consider the rarity of a man who produces the volume of writing the Lord has enabled me to in the few months AM has been on line. But I can’t help but wonder if it’s worth the sacrifice of time and money if there are more important works that need the support of the Church. It matters not to me, but the assistance is certainly not coming here, which brings us to this critical point. Please join us as we seek the Lord as to whether AM is necessary to the Body of Christ, or would His Church be better served if we were to begin steering people elsewhere?
There is nothing wrong with a pastor being supported by his flock, but this gets to the core of the problem. Who is Ken’s flock? As the quote above shows, he sees AM as an online church. He admits himself that this is a strange idea. Indeed it is. For someone so determined to do only what is spelled out in the Bible and to do nothing that is not, where is the Biblical support for an online church?
What Ken is really trying to get off the ground is an internet based para-church minstry. There are many para-church ministries in the world, some of which I appreciate. In Ken’s case, however, the goal is not to support the church but to separate people from it, at least from the large section of it of which Ken does not approve.
Join a real local church and give your money to someone who can actually serve you, hold you accountable and do all the things that real churches do. Hey, join Ken’s church if you’re so inclined! But don’t support a fake church like Apprising Ministries whose only purpose is to bash pastors of real churches. Even if he doesn’t call it an online church, be wary of any ministry that appeals for money but resists explaining itself to critics. So far as I can tell, Ken Silva’s Internet Para-Church of the Remnant is accountable to no one.
Category: Religion & Faith |
[...] one reason I would ever quit blogging is what I read when I learn about other bloggers. Case in point, in his own words, courtesy of Verum Serum, Ken Silva tells you about himself and his … This is a journey into the TR mind that needs to be [...]
May 11, 2007 @ 3:24 am[...] The one reason I would ever quit blogging is what I read when I learn about other bloggers. Case in point, in his own words, courtesy of Verum Serum, Ken Silva tells you about himself and his … [...]
May 11, 2007 @ 3:53 am[...] is always a delight to see the guys as Verum Serum speak up on one of the dark corners and pretty much clean the floor with them with their dry humor and spot-on [...]
May 11, 2007 @ 8:50 amMay the Lord bless you Brother John. However, in regard to your interesting fantasy here you write:
Any chance that there are ministries you have said are good ones, O I dunno, such as Stand to Reason on your blog roll over there who have radio programs each week or so and which happen to make regular “appeals” for funding, often weekly?
And…
Then John, I’m afraid that your “research” leaves much to be desired. Just as with the other information, which I have personally made sure was readily available, so also I have spoken very openly about how my online ministries, Apprising Ministries, Christan Research Net and Symphony of Scripture are structured. :-)
May 11, 2007 @ 9:04 amDefine “church”, not “local church”, but “church”.
Where in the bible does it say that a “church” MUST be made of wood, stone, & iron? Last I checked it was an assembly of people known as “The Body Of Christ”.
I run a “Para-Church” Ministry, and an “Online Church”. As called upon me by the Lord. Whose authority far exceeds man’s.
#1. I do not ask for money, will not accept money, and have stated that if the Lord wants a “ministry” to survive, He will do so on His own.
#2. I at all times tell folks that they should be attached to a “local church”, and if in need of help finding one, I will be glad to help scour the internet and yellow pages to help the person find one. My online church is in no way a “substitute” for a local church, but nothing more than a worship service online for those who are in need of one for one reason or another.
#3. I am not an “ordained minister”, nor do I see the biblical basis to why one should be “ordained by man” to carry out the “Great Commission” as outlined in Matthew 28:18-20
Yes, there are scam artists out there, and they should be judged by their fruits, but be careful to make sure and not make blanket statements that you cannot back-up with the Word of God. There are some of us out there that are nothing more than “voices in the digital wilderness” who seek only to preach the Gospel Of Jesus Christ.
The internet is quite the “missions field” indeed, and should be treated as such. And since it is such an unusual “field” with many differing types of “challenges”, it takes a much different approach to seek out, and minister to those in need.
I don’t approve of Mr. Silva’s tactics, but please remember that the Lord works in many different ways, through many different people, and even the vague insinuation that a “Para-Church” ministry MUST be done through a local church smacks of “control issues”. There are many such ministries that serve the Body of Christ in a Godly way, and should be recognized for such.
May 11, 2007 @ 10:42 amKen, though I shouldn’t be surprised by your failure to respond to this post, I am. Of all the charges leveled against you, your only response is “other people ask for money too.”
Amazing.
May 11, 2007 @ 12:16 pmThis article is extremely sad and I find myself weeping for the lost because if I was not a Christian and I read this stuff I wouldn’t want to know Christ.
I simply have three things to say:
May 12, 2007 @ 6:23 amKen – grow up. You’re an adult now so take responsibility for your own life – you’re not ready to take responsibility for anyone else’s life.
The Daily Way – You’re walking a dangerous road. An internet church can only be a para-church organisation and you should see it like that. It doesn’t make it any the worse – just see it as supporting the church not being church.
When Paul wrote Ephesians he was writing to the church at Ephesus – not one building but a whole load of small groups based in homes and in temples. But get this, they met face to face to worship God, pray and to meet each others needs. Church will always be primarily local but global.
John – I bless you for your grace and concern not to ridicule Ken.
Richard…
I do indeed see it as “Para-Church” as I stated in the beginning of my comment. I might not have been clear that the “Online Church” is “Para-Church” as well. And for that I apologize if some might have misuderstood.
And I do agree that ALL CHRISTIANS should be a part of the “local church” if they are able to, and even a “shut-in” can still contact a local pastor and get involved from home.
My main beef is that so many folks do more begging for money, and less relying on God for Him to sustain their ministry, ans He sustains our lives. And it is through those various forms of relying on man, and not God, that gives Christianity a bad taste in the mouth of many.
May 12, 2007 @ 10:50 am[...] Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Exhibit A of what can happen to you if you start taking this blogging thing too seriously and letting it go to your head. Ken Silva is pastor of a small church in New Hampshire who has a blog called Apprising Ministries. It seems like his church and his blog have not been doing too well lately. I will let Ken tell you all about that himself, courtesy of the good people over at Verum Serum. [...]
May 12, 2007 @ 11:10 pm[...] Source: Verum Serum [...]
May 14, 2007 @ 1:27 pmThe gigantic shift as to how to discern Biblical truth continues on its mercurial path and there can be no more important serious discussion in these days. But people like Ken and Ingrid have become so bombastic and self absorbed that the essence of the dialogue becomes them and not God’s truth.
Melodramatic themes, personal attacks, creative hyperbole, adolescent comments, and a self righteousness that is unbecoming of any true and humble follower of the Lord Jesus much less one called to preach (not Ingrid). You can find any Scripture you want and pluck it out from among the inseparable support of all the rest and claim you are a “John the Baptist”.
And even in the midst of a civil discussion I’ve seen these bloggers point out misspellings in an attempt to demean others via an eighth grade schoolyard approach which sometimes elicilts a like kind response. Some of us are husbands and fathers and grandfathers and most conspicuous of all we are believers and followers of the Great Shepherd. But it seems as if some cannot even be adults.
I personally believe there are genuine believers in all of these different movements but I strongly disagree with many of the directions that may lead to a collapse of the authentic gospel itself. But, my voice will not be heard if I speak with pomp and as if I am looking for a fight rather than redemption and reconciliation.
It is possible to know the truth and still be decieved about yourself. Just listen, the object lessons are growing.
May 14, 2007 @ 4:20 pm“It is possible to know the truth and still be decieved about yourself. Just listen, the object lessons are growing.”
Yes Rick, and just look in the mirror because the truth is showing.
May 14, 2007 @ 7:55 pmI’m just curious as to what full-time job Ken works at that allows him so much online time during the day in which to visit and post comments, and follow-up comments, and follow-up-follow-up comments, on as many blogs as he does. Seriously. What kind of job allows that on company time?
May 14, 2007 @ 8:33 pmJulie,
I work fultime for the Lord so what I do IS company time.
O and *wiping a tear from my eye* thank you so much for your heartfelt concern as I do the job Christ has given me to do.
*wink* But just so you can rest, I’m ok. :-)
May 15, 2007 @ 10:21 amJohn,
While I think you have a point with Ken’s writings, I’m not quite sure you’ve taken a discerning look at Rick Warren’s beliefs. We’ve sparred over this on HotAir, but I know what Orange County churches are like, and many of them are far from Biblical. Rick Warren’s church and beliefs are essentially a social gospel. He is strong on charity and very weak on the Gospel, which is why he is so well respected by unbelievers. Your defense of Warren is unwarranted. I urge you to buy Bob DeWaay’s excellent ‘Redifining Christianity’ and read it.
Careful criticism of other believers is fine IF we’ve pulled the plank out of our own eyes. That criticism should not be coupled with defense of Rick Warren
May 15, 2007 @ 11:22 amKen, I’m not sure why you need to respond so sarcastically (unless that isn’t your intention), but my understanding was that you had an outside, full time, secular job; it ties into much of what this post is talking about. This would mean that you wouldn’t have all day to dilly dally on the internet. If this is not the case, perhaps a simple explanation (think “soft answer turneth away wrath”) minus the sarcasm would be sufficient. I was neither concerned nor accusatory, but curious.
May 15, 2007 @ 1:01 pmPRCalDude,
I’m an employee at a SoCal church that is a daughter church of Saddleback. So I think I know a bit about SoCal churches as well too.
Rick Warren is an outstanding Christian pastor. If he has problems with his ministry in some areas, well, so does John MacArthur or any other prominent pastor you could name.
Charity is not a small part of the Christian message. To say that someone is strong in this area is to say quite a lot. As for Warren’s gospel presentation, I’ve watched it online. I see nothing wrong with it. If you want to show me the errors, please do so. I don’t see it. He does not dwell on hell, but neither did Jesus or the apostles in many cases. Paul, when preaching in Athens, mentioned judgment but not hell.
This fixation on hell and threatening people into salvation as “The Way of the Master” is unbibilical and wrong-headed. Many of these same people (MacArthur, Silva, etc.) criticize the Catholic church as another religion. They fail to realize that many of the abuses of the medieval church were founded in an excessive focus on hell and purgatory. Ironically, they have a lot in common with the historical church they believe was apostate.
Guys like Ray Comfort, Ken Silva and John MacArthur have gone way overboard in their criticism of a fellow Christian who is doing a lot for the body. I don’t agree with everything Warren does, but to claim, as Ken Silva has done , that the people in his church aren’t even believers (though I’m sure he’s never been to Saddleback) is absurd and arrogant.
Frankly, stirring up dissent in another pastor’s church is the work of the enemies of God’s kingdom. If these men had any real discernment, they’d knock it off.
May 15, 2007 @ 1:21 pmJohn,
I’m well aware that you work for a Saddleback church. This is the problem.
Charity is good when it’s combined with the gospel. When it’s just charity alone, as it is in this case, it’s a social gospel.
Warren’s presentation on the gospel is pretty good, until he gets to the part where he asks them to make a decision to believe by praying a prayer. It’s not biblical, and you find no Scriptural example of it. That’s not that I wouldn’t pray with someone who professed faith, but he’s telling them that they are saved, which does not necessarily mean that you are. You know you are saved if you find yourself walking as Jesus walked. He’s also telling them to ignore any doubts they have about their salvation, which is dangerous.
That said, if Rick stuck to Scripture like this, he wouldn’t be half bad. The problem is, he doesn’t. Much of the Purpose Driven Life was a lot of pop psych, quotations from worldly-wise people, and Scripture references taken out of ‘the message.’ He also doesn’t get to salvation until the end of the book. He talks about God’s purpose first. God’s purpose for those who don’t believe is hell. Let’s be frank. He’s got the cart dangerously before the horse, so he’s baited people into his program, but not talked about their sinfulness before God and their need of a savior first.
With regard to hell, the idea that we need to talk about hell all the time is a false dichotomy. No pastor I know of, including MacArthur, talks about hell all the time. If the text in question deals with hell, than that is what is dealt with.
The Roman church is not a Christian church. They do not believe in justification by faith at all. They believe in justification by faith AND their means of grace (eucharist, etc.) Paul pronounced anathema on any preaching that failed to properly represent the Gospel in this manner. Rome, on the other hand, pronounced anathema on anyone who preaches justification by faith. IT IS NOT A CHRISTIAN CHURCH. I say again: IT IS NOT A CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Let’s not pretend that the Reformation didn’t happen. The Reformation was about justification, not ‘hell’ or ‘purgatory.’
MacArthur, Silva, and Comfort are not even in the same category. MacArthur is universally respected in orthodox circles as being charitable and a careful exegete. Silva is relatively unknown and I’d never heard of Comfort.
From Saddleback’s website:
Where’s the repentence in their statement on salvation? Where’s the substitutionary atonement of Christ? All you hear is ‘by trusting in Jesus Christ as God’s offer of forgiveness can man be saved from sin’s penalty.” It’s not ‘forgiveness’ it’s pardon for our sins and the imputation of Christ righteousness because of Christ’s active and passive obedience for our sins. What about Christ dying for our sins and being raised for our justification? What about the cross? This quite a departure from his video presentation. Why isn’t there consistency in his ministry? What percentage of the time is Warren getting it right?
I agree that there are probably believers in Warren’s church, as there are in the Roman Catholic church. I don’t know the fruits of these people’s lives, so I can’t judge. I do know that, in reading the letters to the churches of Asia minor, God takes doctrinal purity very seriously, especially when it comes to the gospel. If Warren is being inconsistent there, and I believe he is, then he needs to repent and turn back. I’ve seen and heard him various different places, and he is not very clear on what he believes, unlike MacArthur. He also has a penchant for backtracking inconvenient statements that he’s made. This is not good.
May 15, 2007 @ 2:29 pmYou’re wrong about the Gospel presentation. There is nothing wrong with asking someone to pray or telling they they are saved afterwards. What do you think the apostles told the people who were added to the church everyday? That they might, maybe be Christians? That’s just silly.
This is typical MacArthur double-speak. He encourages people not to offer assurance of salvation to new believers despite the fact that — as he notes — we have an example of Jesus himself doing just that. So clearly there is nothing wrong with offering new believers assurance. Nor is the verse he offers (Rom. 8:16) meant to proscribe the practice.
This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Hell is not God’s purpose for anyone. You are directly contradicting scripture to say otherwise. (1 Tim. 2:3-4)
There is nothing wrong with presenting the Gospel in a way that connects with people. Are you claiming that unless hell and sin is the first thing out of someone’s mouth, they’ve failed? By that standard, Jesus was a mediocre evangelist.
Yes, the reformation was about justification, but the Catholic church at that time was completely obsessed with hell and purgatory. Their flawed understanding of justification was intimately tied to their theology of purgatory. So while they wouldn’t agree with your understanding of salvation, they’d be in complete agreement over the importance of confronting people with hell at every possible moment. It’s not a healthy fixation, nor a biblical one.
Not by me he isn’t. MacArthur strikes me as a sloppy and very uncharitable exegete. Not to mention an old fogey when it comes to worship.
It’s a four sentence summary! Repentance is implied in the statement “Only by trusting Jesus…” The verses in that excerpt all make plain the concept of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. A full understanding of substitutionary atonement is not a requirement for placing faith in Jesus (though I agree it would be something one should learn).
Furthermore, where is substitutionary atonement in Jesus’ discussion with the woman at the well? In Paul’s statement to the jailer in Acts 16? In the discussion Philip had with the Ethiopian in Acts 8? In Paul’s discourse in Acts 17? I’m not suggesting it was never discussed, but it clearly didn’t make the highlight reel.
Yeah, what about it? That was in the part you failed to excerpt, one paragraph above the part you did excerpt:
Not sure how you missed it.
Probably? How generous of you!
How about this…there are more believers in Warren’s church than in yours.
May 15, 2007 @ 3:42 pmIt isn’t what Warren says that is worng, it is how he defines those things. Which evangelical church would be against evangelism or worship or ministry, etc.? But Warren cheapens those things into an easy American package that enjoys a place in a well rounded western lifestyle. No sacrifice or self denying.
Worship in Warren’s book can happen while you are taking out the garbage. I’m sure God is impressed with His place in multitasking. And the book places prayer in an incredibly insignificant role.
May 15, 2007 @ 3:52 pm1 Thess. 5 – Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.
Paul and Silas worshipped God in a prison where I suspect a little garbage removal would have been a welcome improvement.
May 15, 2007 @ 4:17 pmThe Apostles told people that if they believed, they WILL be saved. They never told them they ARE saved. There’s a difference between the visible and invisible church which only God can discern. Paul and Jesus also add this to the discussion of salvation:
2 Cor 13:5 “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? –unless indeed you fail to meet the test!”
Matt 7: 21″Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’”
This is a favorite passage of Arminians. Did Jesus die for the people now burning in hell? ‘All’ in those verses refers to ‘all kinds of people (every tongue and tribe and nation).’ This passage needs to be balanced with ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’ Was God’s purpose for Esau heaven? Was God’s purpose for Pharaoh heaven?
Jesus spoke on hell quite a bit, actually. More than anything else. But that aside, I never said that ‘hell’ and ’sin’ needed to be the first thing out of someone’s mouth. Sin obviously needs to enter the discussion, as it did for RW. If you’re going to blame me for that, you’ll have to blame him as well.
You seem very unclear on what the Reformers were actually about. You’re trying to argue Reformed doctrine with somebody who’s Reformed. Justification was the main issue. Calvin, Luther, Turrentin, Ursinus, and Olvianus spent most of there writing on soteriology. The Canons of Dort dealt with soteriology. Just look at the first question in the Heidelberg Catechism:
Moving on:
Ok. It can definitely be implied. But a four-sentence summary on justification is not adequate for ‘America’s Pastor’ who’s in charge of a church of some 20,000 people at his church alone. Why did the Reformers feel the need to spend so much time on this issue, and Warren doesn’t? Why the ambiguity in this day of error?
It hadn’t happened yet. Moving on:
To the jailer:
“32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.”
to the Ethiopian:
“35Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. ”
In the Areopagus:
“30The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
32Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.”"
Soteriologically, Jesus rose for our justification, a part that’s been left out.
I would certainly hope so. My church has about 100 members. How about this, “I’m sure there are many believers there.”
Fine. Don’t listen to MacArthur. Mohler, Sproul, and several others have been saying the same thing. I’m sure you won’t listen to them either. Nit picking is so unbecoming. Well, if you don’t like MacArthur’s new book, try this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Pagans-Pews-Peter-Jones/dp/0830727981/ref=sr_1_1/103-7331375-8586245?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179272659&sr=8-1
May 15, 2007 @ 4:46 pmYou missed the point. You can serve God in all circumstances and you can even praise Him, but you cannot mix the works of man when worshipping. The greek word is the kissing of the hand. You must concentrate completely on Him alone.
No watching TV and worshiping, no reading a magazine while worshiping, and no taking out the garbage while worshiping. And when the preacher is singing on stage and looking over the program also he is just singing, not worshiping.
May 15, 2007 @ 4:47 pmThis is a further demonstration that the evangelical community has no idea what sabbath worship actually is.
May 15, 2007 @ 4:48 pmI just wanted to note that Ray Comfort is generally cautious and shies away from criticizing specific leaders to the degree of Silva. et. al. I’ve heard him speak, and it was so painfully obvious that the man loves Jesus, loves people — he really has a heart for reaching people. He was not at all arrogant, which is how Silva comes across.
Oddly, there are a number of web sites/discernment people that speak out against Comfort because he won’t specifically list denominations or doctrines he “doesn’t like.” He used to (maybe still does) ask that people not discuss denominational differences, but just stick to a kind of basic Bible message, that the point wasn’t to get people into a denomination but into Jesus.
Unless that’s changed…I don’t know. Not that all this is important here, but I did want to make that note.
May 15, 2007 @ 5:10 pmSo, you’re a Calvinist who doesn’t believe in efficacious grace? The apostles did indeed tell people if they believed they would be saved. Therefore, if they believed… they’re saved.
No one is burning in hell unless the judgment has taken place. Has it?
So, let me get this straight. The passage that says “all” is limited in scope and the passage that mentions particular individuals by name is universal? That’s not balance.
Wrong. Jesus spoke about hell infrequently. Many of the usages are parallels of one another and, as I’m sure you know, there are three different words translated as hell, only one of which is hades.
This is the “What we believe” page on his website. It is not the sum total of his church’s teaching on salvation. Saddleback’s discipleship classes include a complete discussion of sin and God’s wrath. I transcribed part of it in a comment, but can’t find it at the moment. [Found it. Here's a sample of their teaching:
End Excerpt]
And yet Jesus was aware of it, was he not? He knew what was coming, did he not? And it had happened by the time of the examples I gave from Acts. And again, I didn’t say it was never mentioned, only that it wasn’t highlighted in scripture. You’re assuming it was discussed in detail. Scripture doesn’t say that.
I’ve read the entire Heidelberg Catechism. You’re either missing or ducking my point. Yes, I’m well aware what the focus of the reformation was. That doesn’t change the fact that the Catholic church’s botch of soteriology was intimately tied to their views on purgatory, hell and the treasury of merit.
An overemphasis on damnation was the very thing that Luther was trying to escape as a monk and part of his motivation for becoming a priest and theologian. He wanted some ground of assurance (there’s that word again) other than his own works. He was relieved to find that he didn’t have to rely on himself to escape punishment, but could trust in Christ and stop being constantly afraid of damnation if he failed to do the right things. Over-emphasis on hell has more to do with the failing of the medieval church than under-emphasis.
Your grasping. This is an accurate statement of the significance of Jesus death and resurrection, not a complete chapter from a systematic theology text.
Please provide a link to your church’s website so I can examine the “What we believe” page for doctrinal accuracy. I’m sure I can find things you’ve left out as well.
My thought exactly. How in the world is what I wrote about MacArthur “nitpicking” but what you wrote here about Warren is not? I demonstrated that MacArthur went beyond scripture and that he outright twisted scripture to make it say what it does not. You’ve not come close to doing that vis a vis Warren.
May 15, 2007 @ 5:23 pmWelcome back Henry! I’ve missed your thoughtful commentary here at VS. Ken…well…I guess negative attention is better than no attention at all, right?
May 15, 2007 @ 5:38 pmThank you, Tim, I will take the thoughtful part in its widest possible parameters.
May 16, 2007 @ 7:32 amHi Henry, Tim meant that sincerely. We have missed your perspective. I was beginning to wonder if you hadn’t relocated to Pennsylvania after all… Mind you, not that I haven’t considered the same.
On your comment (#23), isn’t it possible to do one thing mindlessly while being totally focused on another? I think of myself doing the dishes. I do that without any thought. I stand at my window, with my eyes starring blankly out into my yard, focused solely a certain verse (this week it has been Romans 16:17). I recite scripture, pray continuously, and listen for His guidance. All the while, mindlessly washing the dishes. It is only when the sink is empty, and my hands grasp at nothing, do I realize what is going on around me, and then end my prayer, and return my focus on the house. But for that 20+ minutes, I can honestly say I have prayed steadfast, and thought of nothing other than my Father.
Would that not be considered worthy? (I am not being argumentative, nor sarcastic – which is sometimes hard to discern in written dialogue.) I am honestly asking your opinion.
As John mentioned 1 Thes. 5; “Rejoice always, pray continuously, giving thanks in all circumstances, for this is His will for you in Christ Jesus. ” I do take this literally.
I see my example as being different than “watching t.v. and worshipping, or reading a magazine and worshipping”, as I do not believe that you can have a focused mind on God while doing those particular things. Those things stimulate your brain, and do distract. You can not even have a serious conversation with another person while doing either of those, much less worship God. But, I do wonder what you would think about my example, and others that would be similar (and I think taking out the garbage would also be considered a time to worship. Who can not mindlessly drag a can down a driveway, all the while praising and thanking God for His bountiful blessings, and gifts?! Just the thought of having a can to drag down a driveway prompts overwhelming gratitude in my heart and mind. And I say this with all sincerity.)
And – PRCalDude, be careful about making negative generalizations (#24), it comes across as self-righteous and prideful.
May 16, 2007 @ 8:37 amFair enough. I apologize.
May 16, 2007 @ 9:48 amBlondie – I agree with the prayer part. We are commanded to pray without ceasing so there are obviously different levels of prayer. Some general all the way to fasting with intense prayer in a closet.
But worship is a different and more demanding act of reverence. You can pull a garbage can and sing priases to the Lord Jesus or pray or even meditate on His Word. But I believe the Scriptures declare that worship must be free from the works of man. Cain’s sacrifice wasn’t accepted because his works tainted it.
But if you want to praise Him you can do that at many different times. But worship indicates entering into the Holy Place and only His blood can come with you. He will not accept a distracted mind, and that is why the worship of God has been redifined to accomodate our cluttered lifestyle. He no longer is worthy of getting alone or even with the gathering of believers and stripped of any and everything we fall before Him with our mind, spirit, and body consumed with Him alone and in surrender and humility we worship him. Now we are finding convenient places to worship Him in conjunction with other activities. Reflects our culture, no?
Paul even recommends being single so that we may “attend upon the Lord without distraction” (I Cor.7:35) and that refers to service. How much more pure worship.
May 16, 2007 @ 10:48 amHenry,
I understand the difference you are making between praise and worship. I believe my example of the garbage can would be praise, but I stand by my example of dish washing as worship. Stay with me for a moment…
I am, unfortunately, at times more distracted at church than I ever am washing dishes. Although I am called to be free of distraction, it doesn’t always occur just because I show up. I may be be clean of thoughts and free of distraction when I begin, but then I might hear a person behind me sniffling, and my sensitivity turns my thoughts to ,”Do I have a tissue I can offer this woman? Does she need a hug? I must pray for her now“. That is the reality of it for me, the more people around- the higher probability for distraction. Whereas, at home, alone, standing at my sink, I can honestly worship Him without cease while washing the dishes. They may not end up being the cleanest dishes on the culdesac (aren’t you happy you don’t eat at my house?!), but worship was paramount.
So, although I agree with your distinction between praise and worship, I tend to believe that worship can happen in odd places. Of course, if that was the only time a person spent in meditation and worship, as a matter of convenience, that would be an issue. But, I don’t believe that adding it to an already existing repatoire is a problem, or deems it unworthy.
May 16, 2007 @ 1:26 pmI understand and we are close. Next time, put down the dish. (just kidding).
May 16, 2007 @ 1:51 pmIf you’re coming over for dinner, I’ll make sure Tim does the washing of the dishes. [wink]
May 16, 2007 @ 1:57 pmYes, Paul does suggest singlehood, but thankfully there was another option for those who found that being single was a root of distraction itself.
May 16, 2007 @ 2:04 pmYes, it is better to marry than to burn. Duh…Paul states the obvious. But even if married there are times when we can worship without distraction if we are willing to seek Him for those times and not only experience the glorious intimacy that attends those times, but be changed from glory to glory by laying at His throne the reward of His suffering…us.
May 16, 2007 @ 2:08 pmWell said.
May 16, 2007 @ 2:12 pmJohn,
I’m glad I waited until today to reply.
No, what I’m saying is that ‘believing’ is done though the Holy Spirit. Some ‘believed,’ but it wasn’t true belief. Look at Simon the sorceror, for example. He ‘believed’ originally because of Peter’s healing abilities, not because he realized his sinfulness and need of a Savior. We can be assured we’ve believed if we see that we pass the tests listed in 1 John and elsewhere.
Are you saying nobody is in hell right now? What does the Apostle’s creed say? What about the rich man and lazarus?
This point really doesn’t matter to me that much. I suppose it wasn’t his favorite topic, but he did speak about hell in Matthew 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 18, 24, 25, and alluded to it in other places. The greek word ‘Gehenna’ is also used explicitly for hell, and implicitly Jesus mentioned people being ‘thrown outside, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth’, or ‘into the outer darkness,’ or ‘into the fire,’ or into a ‘miserable death.’ I don’t know what more you want. I never said that preaching needs to be centered around hell. I said it should try to stick to Scripture.
Works based righteousness was the key. He knew he had no assurance of salvation on his own merit, despite what the Roman church taught (and still teaches). You’re making my point for me.
A statement of faith needs to be accurate enough to clarify a church’s stance on the heresies of the day and past days. Yes, the statement was accurate, but it didn’t resolve any of the soteriological implications of Jesus resurrection. Soteriologically, the Catholic church holds that Jesus is still in the grave.
Sure. My pastor holds to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Have at it.
You asserting that MacArthur twisted Scripture does not prove it so. Are you taking issue with his statement on assurance? Read the Westminster Confession. It’s doctrinally accurate. He was distinguishing between objective and subjective assurance. It’s not double-speak at all. Truth Wars? I didn’t find anything compelling about your exegesis. You just didn’t like MacArthur’s tone and it hit too close to home. His statement about Calvinism demanding dispensational premillenialism? For the record, MacArthur is not reformed. He’s a Calvinist in his soteriology. That’s it. We all had a good laugh about MacArthur’s statement and got over it. Minor points do not undo an entire life’s worth of solid work and preaching. He’s not reformed, but he sticks to the Bible. He preaches the gospel faithfully. His works won’t be burned in the fire.
Warren, on the other hand, is messing with the very issue of salvation. He’s also using man-centered marketing methods to grow the church and has made it clear that if people leave the church for adopting the purpose-driven paradigm, so be it. They’re ‘divisive.’ I’ve seen this model drive believers away from quite a few churches. Then there’s the whole flap about his visit to Syria, and the cover-up afterward.
May 16, 2007 @ 6:28 pmEven more Warren spin:
May 17, 2007 @ 5:37 pmhttp://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55723
I’m Arminian so you’re preaching to the choir with the idea that we can’t have assurance apart from behavior. I still don’t see a Biblical mandate to not offer any reassurance to new believers.
No one goes to heaven or hell before being judged. If judgment hasn’t happened, and I assume you don’t believe it has, then there is no one in hell. Matthew 25 has to come before eternal destiny.
There are several possibilities with regard to the rich man and lazarus. Most likely this is a parable since it’s not likely any such conversation between heaven and hell is possible and because Christ has just told four other parables in a row (or 5, I forget).
I’ve said twice already that I agree the focus of the reformation was salvation by faith. If it’s your point it’s mine too. You’ve ignored my actual point about the Catholic church’s overemphasis on hell twice. I’m not going to go for the hat trick.
We’ve come a long way on this point from your initial accusation that Warren had left out nearly everything. Now it’s accurate but “unresolved.” Fine. It’s not complete. I already said that. But again, this is a few descriptive sentences, not an online catechism. Show me where your church has placed the Westminster Confession online as a statement of faith. It’s an absurd standard.
Not even going to try to argue the substance are you? MacArthur’s work on those passages was shoddy and dishonest. Prove me wrong.
Are you aware that you just admitted a few paragraphs earlier that his statement of faith was essentially accurate. So where is the evidence he is “messing with salvation”? Did you even acknowledge the teaching on sin I transcribed? Show me the error? You haven’t provided any proof for your position. You’re just running on fumes.
The bottom line is that Warren has thousands of baptisms to show for his efforts and a thriving church that loves God and their neighbors. You have no warrant for writing those people off as false believers and the best you’ve got on their efforts to extend themselves to the world is to bring up Warren’s trip to Syria, which I’ll agree was ill-conceived.
But as you said “Minor points do not undo an entire life’s worth of solid work.”
Ken Silva started preaching and drove half of the remaining members out of his church. Why isn’t that divisive in your estimation? There seem to be two standards here…
When a few people leave one of Warren’s churches that’s evidence of something bad going on, but when a few hundred new people show up at one of his churches, that’s also evidence of something bad going on.
Catch-22.
May 17, 2007 @ 6:18 pmThis is actually self-contradictory: if a believer is brand-new, on what behavioral basis can you assure him?
This is one of the most astonishing statements I’ve heard a beliver make. The Westminster Confession is again helpful here:
*Luke 16:23-24; Acts 1:25; Jude 6-7; 1 Peter 3:19
The Catholic church emphasized hell in order to maintain power and to sell indulgences and other pagan practices. As I said, Jesus mentioned hell quite a bit as well. If justification were appropriately taught, what power would the Catholic church have by their emphasis of hell? Seems like a specious point to me, but if you want to believe that, go right ahead. There’s very little in Calvin’s Institutes on the Catholic church’s teaching of hell.
Let’s try a differnt tack. If I say, “there is one God,” this is a doctrinally accurate statement. However, Muslims believe the same thing, and so do Catholics. It’s accurate, but it not helpful in light of all of the false teaching and heresies in the world today.
Incidentally, Reformed and Presbyterian churches mention that they hold to the 3 Confessions or the Westminster Standards on their pages. Granted, these confessions aren’t as complete as Berkhoff’s ‘Systematic Theology,’ but they are definitely accurate enough to leave no ambiguity about the essential doctrines. Can Saddleback’s statement of faith do that? You decide.
I found very little of substance with which to even argue in your critique of MacArthur’s book, but considering Sproul, Mohler, Horton, and many others are echoing MacArthur’s sentiments these days, you bear the substantial burden of proof.
See the above. His decisionist view of salvation (i.e. pray a prayer and your saved) is horribly wrong. Some of Warren’s teachings are good. As far as running on fumes, I’m really just getting started.
Baptisms don’t mean that the people are part of the invisible church. I know people who were baptized and haven’t been to church in awhile and care little about it. I find it appalling that these people would tolerate Warren’s teaching. I agree that there are believers there, just as there are in the Catholic church.
I actually agreed with your points on Silva. I am no supporter of his. However, I find your criticism of Silva coupled with your support of Warren to be highly dubious. There’s a double standard.
Not in light of 2 Timothy 4:3
May 17, 2007 @ 9:38 pm“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,”
How about on the basis of his profession of faith to God before another believer. I’m sure you know Romans 10:10-11, or is that too “decisionist” for you?
Then stick around.
The Westminster Confession is not scripture. In this case it’s a poor interpreter. Paul frequently refers to death as sleep. To say otherwise is unbiblical and unsound.
No one can go to heaven or hell without first being judged righteous or unrighteous by Christ. The Great Judgment would be a bit anti-climatic if all the actual, you know, judgment had already taken place. What do you think Christ is doing in Matthew 25?
Right, so my advice is beware people emphasizing hell and making attempts to claim power over other believers (or other pastors). It’s a combination with a bad history.
Well, you’ve gone from a statement backed up by nothing to a statement backed up by name dropping. I guess that’s an improvement.
MacArthur’s statements about those passages were false and deceptive. If Sproul, Mohler and Horton have said the same, I haven’t seen it. [Sproul at least has a better understanding of eschatology than MacArthur.]
No, but they’re a surer sign than your feelings about Saddleback. And comparing Saddleback to the Catholic church is truly pathetic. Since this doesn’t seem to stick with you very long let me say again — you have yet to demonstrate any actual false teaching at the church. You have presented nothing but attitude. So when you say about Ken…
You two agree completely so far.
Where have I heard that before about this issue? Oh, I know! From Ken Silva.
Does it ever occur to you that a verse like that could be applied by anyone about anything at any time? Personally, I think it would be better applied to Dispensationalists.
Yeah, that about sums up the Left Behind craze.
May 18, 2007 @ 12:12 amJohn,
Here’s a critique of Rick Warren’s gospel, which pretty much sums up my assessments from reading the ‘Purpose Driven Life’:
http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/Articles/print_articles.asp?ID=112
The Westminster Confession never claims to be Scripture, nor even a rule for faith and practice, ‘but a help in both.’ When unbelievers die, they go to hell, just as the above passages state. At the day of judgment, they are re-united with their bodies, just as believers are, and cast into the lake of fire. This is what Jesus is saying in Matthew 25.
Rev 20:14Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
You keep asserting that I am emphasizing preaching on hell, but I’ve never done that. I think it would be unbiblical. I’ve only stated that Jesus mentioned it quite a bit. If you want to take issue with me, take issue with him. I’m really through with this straw-man you’ve erected.
I think one of your commenters responded to your post on ‘Truth Wars’ quite nicely:
Warren has changed the gospel. He has certainly become ‘all things to all men, (to avoid making himself a stumbling block), but has he given them the true stumbling block (Christ)? I don’t think so. There is indeed a warrant for answering cultural presuppositions, as Paul did on Mars Hill. But he did this in an apologetic sense towards presenting the gospel. He reasoned with the Jews from Scripture in order to prove Jesus was the Christ. Apologetics indeed needs to tailor it’s message to the culture in order to quickly get to the gospel. For Warren, tailoring the message is the end in itself.
May 18, 2007 @ 10:28 amThat’s sort of the pot calling the kettle black at this point, don’t you think? Has MacArthur (or you) ever gone to Warren in confidence and spoken to him about his concerns in love? No, MacArthur published a book attacking him and other pastors. His associates at PyroManiacs regularly attack those they disagree with. Do they contact them privately first? I don’t think so.
I picked up the book at the Biola bookstore. The first chapter begins with a criticism of something said by Rob Bell’s wife. Not Rob Bell…his wife. Do you think MacArthur has spoken to Rob’s wife in love or any other way? I don’t. Has he even spoken to Rob? I doubt it.
As for MacArthur’s statements in the earlier post, he said:
Sorry, but customizing the message and adjusting the delivery to suit a philosophical bent and cultural tastes is exactly what Paul did on Mars Hill. He didn’t change the message, but he did customize it and wrap it in cultural touchstones for his audience. So when he says:
That’s not a mistake. MacArthur is too Biblically literate for it to be a mistake. He’s telling his readers a lie. You can’t do that in a book about Truth.
I don’t think that’s true and I think the sample of teaching on sin and holiness I transcribed above demonstrates that his teaching is orthodox and should be acceptable event to “the Reformed.”
His record of baptizing thousands of new believers and his church’s record of reaching out to others around the world all suggest that this is a real church. All of this is despite a constant stream of criticism from guys like Ken Silva, Joe Farah and MacArthur.
That said, I’ll read the link you provided. There are six men tearing apart my house with hammers right now (in preparation for construction work tomorrow). It’s a bit hard for me to focus at the moment.
May 18, 2007 @ 12:08 pmHeheh. Well if you don’t get on the phones with your Senators, those people tearing up your house are likely to be new democratic voters in the very near future.
May 18, 2007 @ 12:28 pmThese two reviews are more charitable (via 9 Marks):
One.
Two.
May 18, 2007 @ 2:53 pmYeah, it looks like it’s a done deal. I don’t know. I’m hoping a lot of these people are values voters who haven’t learned the fine art of grievance mongering yet.
May 18, 2007 @ 8:14 pmYeah, well ‘Don’t give up the ship’ as Decatur would say. They’re not values voters. They’re ‘raza’ voters. Call Feinstein and Boxer. It matters. The ship is taking on water. I’d like to have a country and avoid a civil war.
May 18, 2007 @ 8:32 pmJohn et al, thanks for the biog on Ken Silva, that helps clarify things for me. Blondie/Henry, thanks for the enlightening discussion on worship/praise whilst otherwise occupied – if I now take out the trash without praising God, I shall have to ask why. Tried the dishes thing, but impaled my hand on a paring knife, so I think that’s not for me!
I can’t believe that nobody has pointed out that what Jesus talked about most was the poor and needy, and how we should care for them. This is Jesus’ #1 priority in terms of how much time he spent talking on it, by a huge margin.
This links in with the comments at the tail end of the discussion. In as much as that was Jesus’ main priority, the political party in America that most closely ties in with his thinking on that issue (not all, just the main one) is the Democrats. As an outside observer I can’t understand the strong correlation in the US between Christianity and Republicanism, since the basic ethos of the Republican party is at odds with the basic ethos of Christ on this priority issue.
As for immigrants, as Christians you should be inviting them into your home (and not to do construction work, either!) not campaigning to send them back! And I’m not speaking at a far remove from the situation, as someone who lives in the East of England we have experienced a vast increase in immigration from Eastern Europe, most of whom have just been made legal by the expansion of the European Union. Simply saying ‘we’re full’ to people looking for a better life (people who, let’s be honest, have chosen to search for that where you live based on what they’ve observed of the life you guys have) seems quite a lot like ‘we don’t like foreigners’.
May 22, 2007 @ 2:02 amKeith,
I appreciate the lecture. I’m going to stick with my opinion, however, because I haven’t found your position compelling in light of what I see as the true Biblical response to the situation (Romans 13). I’ll leave you with a short essay I found on another blog:
You’ve got a problem with your own immigrants threatening jihad against England. See to it.
May 22, 2007 @ 10:47 amPRCalDude (is there something shorter I could abbreviate this to?) I had read that already on your equally interesting blog, although I know you’re not quoting yourself. Don’t know why I chose to comment here rather than there, probably to do with the other points to people here. I am, of course, familiar with the passage, but to me Luke 4:18-19 and Luke 14:13 seem to speak to us (Romans speaks to the illegal immigrants, IMHO). I mean our situation, I’m not trying to say certain bits of the Bible apply to certain people only. These passages, and, say, Matthew 19:16-30 are where I start to get the idea that Jesus was not all that far from what the term socialist is supposed to mean. I am aware of the emotional connotations that word has in the States, but am struggling to find a less provocative way to say it.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that if we concern ourselves only with criticising others for their actions rather than seeing where our actions fall short of God’s expecations of us, we do ourselves a disservice.
As I mentioned in my own post, I am only too aware of the immigrant situation in the UK. I choose not to be alarmed by it. Most immigrants here are Catholics and don’t go in for Jihad overly much, so the threat is somewhat exagerrated.
Finally, looking at that last paragraph above, do you not see any paralells with how North America became the white man’s in the first place? If I recall my history correctly, white men didn’t ask permission from the local population before marching in and declaring stuff theirs.
May 22, 2007 @ 1:29 pmKeith said: “…do you not see any paralells with how North America became the white man’s in the first place? If I recall my history correctly, white men didn’t ask permission from the local population before marching in and declaring stuff theirs…”
Don’t forget that the so-called “local population” immigrated to America from Asia over the Alaskan land bridge without asking anyone’s permission either :-) Sorry, I couldn’t pass up the enjoyment of getting in that little pre-historical jab.
But what I really want to do is take this comment and run with it down a somewhat different path from the previous conversation. It seems to me that there is a moral dilemma for the descendants of the original native American population. When the European immigrants arrived in America the local populations were living out of buffalo skin tents or mud huts and chasing animals around for survival. Today the descendants of those original native populations enjoy citizenship in the wealthiest most comfortable nation in the history of human existence. Most Americans don’t appreciate how great life is in America even for the most impoverished of its citizens until they travel to the third world and get a taste of what real poverty looks like. Oprah Winfrey made a great point months ago when she explained how some children in Africa have no hope of going to school but if it is discovered that there is a child not going to school in America then the police will show up at their parent’s house and say “here is a school, you had better get your kid in it or else”.
The free schools are just one example of the tremendous advances in America since the native populations lived in tents and hunted buffalo. Don’t even get me started on the roads and jobs and hospitals and local law enforcement who make America one of the most stable and safest places in the world to live and work.
So my question is this: Should the descendants of the original native Americans be angry that they lost some land or should they be grateful for all the advancements they now enjoy as a direct result of the waves of unauthorized European immigration?
August 1, 2007 @ 6:00 am