A Few Words on Richard Abanes and Repentance

Richard Abanes says: “Ken Silva’s stubbornness is to blame.”

Richard Abanes says: “Taking sides” is to blame.

Richard Abanes says: “Everyone else” is wresting scriptures to “advance an agenda”.

Richard Abanes is presently engaged in a vain attempt to justify his reprehensible, unjustifiable and un-Christ like behavior all around the Christian blogosphere.

Richard Abanes is in denial.

Richard Abanes is in desperate need of repentance.

I’m sorry but the hubris on display by Richard Abanes (RA) in the present “Abanes/Silva Dust Up” is simply breathtaking. Do such a statements as those quoted above strike anyone else as sounding eerily familiar? To me it sounds exactly like the first resort of the red-handed – namely blame shifting.

And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. (Genesis 3:12)

For those who may be unaware of the present situation one Richard Abanes – Saddleback apologist and PDL insider – violated scripture in a self-centered, flesh pleasing effort to have an article that personally offended him removed from the website of one Pastor Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries. Much has been said and written on this sorry situation and a simple Internet search of Abanes/Silva” should give the interested reader plenty to chew on.

It’s unfortunate that in his self-professed “final word on the issue” RA has willfully (and not so skillfully) chosen to ignore and evade the fundamental question “What did Ken Silva say in the offending article ‘A PASTOR’S ASSESSMENT OF RICHARD ABANES’ that was deemed so libelous?”

And perhaps even more importantly why does RA – his scriptural gymnastics to the contrary notwithstanding – continue to stand defiantly and unrepentantly in violation of 1 Cor. 6:1-8? Oh, that’s right! RA simply issues a statement flatly denying that he’s in violation of 1 Cor. 6:1-8 and that’s that! Thus saith Richard Abanes! Move along folks, nothing to see here…but wait! There is something to see here – in fact there’s MUCH to be seen here.

In my opinion the bitter fruit born from the poisonous root of the Purpose Driven Paradigm is evident for all to see through the simple observation of RA’s shameful, self-centered, and flesh-gratifying actions throughout this whole sorry episode. Interestingly enough RA’s well established pattern of generally un-Christ like comportment is the whole point behind Ken Silva’s missive “A PASTOR’S ASSESSMENT OF RICHARD ABANES”.

RA has frequently demanded for his “detractors” to show him where his theology or doctrine were challenged by the offending Silva article, yet the article wasn’t concerned with his theology or doctrine; it was concerned with the bitter fruit produced by the Purpose Driven Paradigm of which one Richard Abanes was (and is) “Exhibit A”. In point of fact Ken Silva’s article makes much more sense now than it did when I originally read it because RA has verified the veracity of Ken’s claims by demonstrating his well established pattern of behavior throughout this ordeal.

For example the following quote is taken from Silva’s offending article:

From where I stand, it has now become clear to me that Mr. Abanes feels anyone who disagrees with him is simply wrong, no matter what evidence may be presented to him. It is my sincere prayer that the following might cause him to come to a position where he will at least show some semblance of respect for others in the family of Christ with whom he does not agree. Perhaps he might wish to consider Philippians 3:15 – Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you (NKJV).

And in another quote taken from “A PASTOR’S ASSESSMENT OF RICHARD ABANES” Ken Silva points towards RA’s less than charitable and very personal attack on Dr. John MacArthur who is himself on record exposing the bitter and rotten fruit of the man-centered, flesh pleasing Purpose Driven Paradigm:

From Tim Challies’ rather revealing interview with Mr. Abanes, we will see an arrogance emerge as he “attacks” (personally?) Dr. John MacArthur. Whatever one may think of every area of Dr. MacArthur’s theological positions, the fact remains that he is widely acknowledged as one of the finest Bible teachers we have in the Christian Church today. Further, MacArthur is also a man who is a senior pastor–and an elder–if you will, within the Evangelical church at large.

And yet, instead of showing Dr. MacArthur the respect his venerable position within Christ’s church would entitle him to, Mr. Abanes says with insolence:

As for John MacArthur, he simply does not know what he is talking about and has shown himself to be a loose cannon when it comes to Warren, The Purpose Driven Life, and Saddleback . I am not sure who is feeding him information, but it is false. But perhaps MacArthur just doesn’t care enough about truth to be careful in his own research. Therefore, I fault MacArthur for either: a) not doing his own research; or b) not doing his own research carefully enough before falsely accusing ChurchWarren of things that Warren has never taught. (http://www.challies.com/archives/001175.php)

These are strong words against Dr. MacArthur from RA.

They’re personal words.

They’re incendiary words.

In fact prior to Ken Silva’s writing of “A PASTOR’S ASSESSMENT OF RICHARD ABANES” RA had also expressed his obvious disdain for Silva’s “research skills”. Interestingly enough there is somewhat of a controversy surrounding RA’s own “research skills” as can be easily found online by those who are curious enough to spend a few moments using their own research skills.

Is RA guilty of blame shifting and unrepentantly avoiding his personal responsibility as a professing Christian in the matter before us? Does RA stand defiantly in rebellion of Matt. 18:16-18 and 1 Cor. 6:1-8? I think the facts speak for themselves.

After an absolutely gripping and heart wrenching Biblical plea from Steven J. Camp (SJC) for peace and reconciliation in the matter in the combox over at his blog (posted at 19:32) the best RA could muster was to pick out one sentence, laugh at it, summarily issue the cyber-equivalent of the New York State Bird, and then dismissively walk away! Folks the cavalier, flippant and haughty attitude on display by RA herein is simply stunning.

It really is.

To be honest it was difficult for me to put into words what I felt as I typed a response to RA’s drippingly derisive comment in SJC’s meta, but as I said there it was somewhere between pity and righteous indignation. Look, I’m not taking a secondary offense for Ken Silva or SJC anyone else here. I’m simply in shock at the continuing display of indifference, defiance, and stiff-necked rebellion against God’s Holy Word and the high handed snubbing of a Christ-centered God honoring appeal for reconciliation from one professed brother in the Lord (SJC) to another professing believer (RA).

Behold the bitter fruit of the Purpose Driven Paradigm!

THIS my friends is what Ken Silva’s original article, “A PASTOR’S ASSESSMENT OF RICHARD ABANES” was about in the first place.

THIS exact and well established pattern of un-Christ like, self justifying, fast and loose spin-doctoring by one Richard Abanes is what Ken Silva’s original article, “A PASTOR’S ASSESSMENT OF RICHARD ABANES” was about in the first place.

THIS bitter fruit, born from the womb of the Purpose Driven Paradigm in the person of Saddleback apologist Richard Abanes is what Ken Silva’s original article, “A PASTOR’S ASSESSMENT OF RICHARD ABANES” was about in the first place.

Throughout this ordeal RA has done nothing if not MAKE KEN SILVA’S CASE FOR HIM!

SJC appealed to RA in the light of scripture and admonished him to go to his brother (Ken Silva) – and I applaud him for his heart felt efforts – but to be quite frank based on RA’s open letter to SJC and his behavior throughout this dust up it isn’t clear to me whether or not RA actually considers Ken Silva to be his brother in the Lord. In fact I’ve never actually seen RA clarify this point.

I must confess in the Lord that I’m personally appalled by RA’s copious uncharitable responses thus far which, in the light of scripture, clearly originate from the flesh and are therefore worldly and carnal which things are displeasing to the LORD.

I’m particularly struck by the Biblical fact that a regenerate heart will be unfailingly demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit which is peace, love, longsuffering, etc. Certainly true, regenerate, born-again Christians can – and frequently do – fall into miserable sin or react suddenly from the “old man” in the flesh, yet this is not to be the pattern of one’s life conversation as is evidently the case with Richard Abanes. To the contrary, a heart that’s truly devoted above all things to the glory of Jesus Christ and which is being sanctified by the Holy Spirit from glory to glory will be found, as a pattern of life, to be obedient, submissive, teachable and humble to His instruction, rebuke, and reproach.

It truly grieves my heart to say that I have seen none of these characteristics in RA’s responses here or anywhere else where this subject is under discussion. To me this is no light matter because the scriptures teach that not only individuals, but entire congregations can possess all the trappings, appearances and credentials of Christianity – being students of the scriptures and being impressively outwardly religious all while being inwardly lost and without hope (i.e. see the church of Ephesus in Revelation). To call Jesus “Lord, Lord” but then reject and disobey His commands is not evidence of belief but of unbelief. Isn’t the responsibility of a Christian to be a witness to Christ in the world as opposed to seeking to secure his perceived “rights” in the world? Isn’t it indicative of a divided loyalty (i.e. being double-minded) to find or manufacture excuses for why we don’t obey the commands of scripture? Aren’t Christians to be obedient to Christ on His terms and not our own? If we find ourselves to be in such a sorry estate do we not have good cause to question the reality of our faith?

Where is the love?

Where is the humility?

We must always be sensitive to the possibility that we’re dealing with unbelievers in our midst and therefore we are commanded to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves as we lovingly correct those who do err in the faith. If through this process we win our brother, or restore one who stumbles because he is weaker in the faith then Christ is glorified, and if through this process we cast out one who scorns correction and spurns discipline then the spiritual health and purity of the church is protected and Christ is glorified. Of course the purpose of proper, Biblical discipline is always restoration, not ostracism.

Now PLEASE understand that I’m not judging RA’s heart here or suggesting that he is an unbeliever – only the Lord knows his heart – but the church is called to judge behavior and how one’s behavior lines up with the scriptural profile of a Christian and in my view of scripture RA’s behavior thus far has been absolutely reprehensible and has brought shame to the Name of the Lord.

And so is this sorry situation to end where it began? Is this sad episode to simply fade away into the cyber-waste bin like so many other various and sundry dust ups? Is it acceptable for those of us in the Body with an acute awareness of this matter to simply “Let go and let God”?

If so, then in my mind such thinking represents a monumental abrogation of our Christian duty and an utter failure to be faithful and obedient to the Master’s clear cut, objective, and eminently forthright scriptural commands.

If so, then the sad result of all the original posts, subsequent comments thread discussions, and all the other various and sundry related articles strewn around the ‘net are in fact full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

If so, then we have proven to ourselves and the world that we are, in fact, all talk and no action.

I for one am not okay with this.

“Then what’s next?”, you might ask. “What are we to do?” I’m glad you asked, and I’ll gladly tell you.

I’ll tell you what I’ve already told you. I’ll tell you that I don’t believe Ken Silva could have scripted a response for RA to follow that could have done more to actually make Ken’s original case for him than RA has done through his own unwitting tactics which he has literally plastered all over the blogosphere for all to see.
I’ll tell you that perhaps most amazingly to me RA seems to be completely unaware of the fact that his actions throughout this ordeal have served to vindicate and prove the case made against him by Ken Silva in his offending article “A PASTOR’S ASSESSMENT OF RICHARD ABANES”.

I’ll tell you that given RA’s pattern of self-justifying, stiff-necked, rebellious, and un-Christ like comportment throughout this ordeal in the light of his clear violation of Matt. 18:16-18 and 1 Cor. 6:1-8 and his ongoing defiance of Matt. 5:23-24 I am compelled to arrive at the Biblical conclusion that RA must be treated as a Gentile and a publican until he publicly repents and humbly seeks reconciliation.

And I’ll tell you that I now call on others within the Christian blogosphere to carefully examine the totality of this situation and prayerfully consider the “conversation of RA’s life” and his personal conduct as it relates to this matter in the light of scripture and I exhort you to join me in calling upon RA to repent of his self-justifying and prideful resistance to loving scriptural rebuke and correction in this situation.

I realize that these are strong words. I recognize that these are strident comments. But upon examination this is the only Biblical conclusion at which I can arrive and therefore I encourage likeminded Christian bloggers to pick up this clarion call and trumpet it forth until there has been full and public repentance and reconciliation in this situation to the praise of the glory of Jesus Christ alone.

‘Til He returns or calls me home,

44 thoughts on “A Few Words on Richard Abanes and Repentance

  1. Hi CD,

    How do we know about this unfortunate situation in the first place? Shouldn’t we hold Ken Silva to the same standards as Richard Abanes? They BOTH violated Scripture brother. Abanes caused his brother to stumble but Silva did stumble by broadcasting this mess to anyone with a modem and a connection.

    Shouldn’t a pastor also follow Scripture such as found in Matthew 5 (turn the other cheek) as well as 1Corinthians 6 and Matthew 18? Clearly there appears to be a double standard here CD…

    Both of these men should repent Brother because BOTH men violated Scripture….


  2. When this all started,I didn’t know who RA was. I went to his blog and read what was being said. The impression that I got by his own responses was that he is very arrogant. That he likes to toot his own horn and everybody else is wrong if it doesn’t line up the the word of RA. It is very sad thing.

  3. Everyone is right sometimes, and wrong sometimes. You. Me. Silva. Every pastor. Everyone. I have been wrong plenty of times on plenty of issues.

    My actions in this incident — according to well-established and accepted interpretations of Matthew 18 and 1 Cor. 6 — in no way violated these passages. An argument canbe mad, and indeed has been made, by myself and others, that my initial email to IPOWER was within biblical bounds.

    However, let us look at Silva’s response. If what I did was indeed a private “sin,” then it is Silva who violated Matthew 18, which clearly covers any PRIVATE sin that someone feels has been committed against them by a brother. My alleged “sin” was obviously private (i.e., complaining to Silva’s ISP).

    But instead of going to me privately, Pastor Ken Silva skipped steps #1 and #2 of Matthew 18 and took it not only to the church, but to the entire world—creating an internet circus of hate, anger, bitterness, judgment, condemnation, arguments, and church division. Now what say you?

    And interestingly, my so-called “sin” would have caused not the slightest ripple in the church or in cyberspace. Silva’s actions, however, have created a firestorm of controversy, anger, condemnations, judgments, and division within the Body of Christ. Who actually sinned here? Who should be repenting? I think that is obvious to those who have ears to hear and eyes to see.

    This Open Letter to Steve Camp outlines my initial thoughts/intentions/motivation for writing to Ken Silva’s ISP. It also covers various issues relating to the “Ken Silva vs. Richard Abanes” controversy, including:

    1. Bible Study notes on key passages being discussed (1 Cor. 6 and Matt. 18),
    2. the actual contents of my email to Silva’s ISP,
    3. observations about the current state of the church,
    4. an indictment of today’s so-called Online Discernment Ministries, and
    5. documentation of Ken Silva’s violation of federal copyright/privacy laws, and other issues.

    The open letter should answer most questions and addressed the widely-read article by Steve Camp titled “Battles in the Blogsphere.”

    Proverbs 18:13 reads: “He who answers before listening—that is his folly and his shame.”

    Proverbs 18:17 tells us: “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.”

    R. Abanes
    Pop Culture Mix Website
    Pop Culture Blog

  4. CD:


    Phil Naessens:

    Pastor Ken broadcast this mess because the ISP threaten him with the removal of his website unless he removed that “offending” article. So there was real action involved which have implications for the entire issue of free speech as well. If Abanes would just threaten Pastor Ken, or slander him, then yes, he should have turn the other cheek. As for 1 Cor. 6 and Mt. 18, they do not apply since Abanes has already violated them in going after Pastor Ken.

  5. Both men and many in this arena of so called “Contending for the Faith” have forgotten something: Both men profess “the faith” that was delivered once to all the saints. I have read both of their professions of faith and belief statements.
    Now we step into another area that beleiver’s think they have a right to quarrel over:
    “Their rights”.
    Brothers and Sisters…we have no rights. We don’t own anything, blogs, “Ministries”,
    titles like, “President”, “Founder and CEO”, capital “P”- “Pastor”, “Best Selling Author”!
    Wake up…We are servants! The off-scouring of all things, nobodies, just a separated created being called by God by His grace alone…equal in all aspects…none are greater…everyone must submit to everyone in “the Body” that Jesus alone has blood bought rights over: The Head of the Church!
    Stop the constant name calling, questioning salvation with innuendo… get over your offenses, forgive, then you and I can expect to be forgiven for our many offenses against Him…unless you and I think we have none today to confess, only someone else?
    Obey this one passage and your so-called “Ministries” will actually be Spirit led and directed and effectual rather than a majority work of the flesh:
    2 Timothy 2:24-26 (Amplified Bible)

    “And the servant of the Lord must not be quarrelsome (fighting and contending). Instead, he must be kindly to everyone and mild-tempered [preserving the bond of peace]; he must be a skilled and suitable teacher, patient and forbearing and willing to suffer wrong.

    He must correct his opponents with courtesy and gentleness, in the hope that God may grant that they will repent and come to know the Truth [that they will perceive and recognize and become accurately acquainted with and acknowledge it],

    And that they may come to their senses [and] escape out of the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him, [henceforth] to do His [God’s] will. ”

    Or do we get some exception clause from this because our matters (blogs and books) are more important than what Paul commanded here?

  6. Are we all missing something here? RA is an apologist for who? Jesus Christ? The Word of God? No, none other than everybody’s favorite heretic Ric Warren. A man who openly supports the gay agenda, who has abortion-loving people in his “pulpit” and makes great fanfare of the virtues of Islam, the catholic “church” Mormons and any other apostate group who will kiss his feet. When did Christ make an agreement with these people to stand along side them, wink at their lies, and tell everyone that “all is well and there are many roads that lead to heaven”?

    RA has lost all credibility when he sides with likes of RW instead of the Lord Jesus Christ. (And, no, Richard, you CANNOT do both). And for him to claim to be a “brother” in Christ is a bit over the top. The fruit that he bears is a stinch in my nostrils and doubtless in that of my Savior also. Please remember that repentance is not in RW’s vocabulary, so don’t expect too much from Richard.

    Only the gracious hand of my loving Father can touch him and bring him to repentance.

  7. Phil Naessens – Please see Daniel Chew’s comment.

    Deb Mummert – Exactly! Based on what I’ve seen the response you experienced and shared here is quite commonplace.

    RA – Please discontinue your flesh pleasing, self-justifying, abhorrently un-Christ like behavior and REPENT!

    Your rhetorical questions have been repeatedly answered yet you keep dusting them off and trotting them out as though they were fresh and unconsidered. In point of fact they have been weighed in the balances and found wanting. You seem to wish to pretend that there would be no problem if it weren’t for Ken Silva, but the exact same problem would still exist even if no one except you, Ken, and the LORD knew about it.

    That which was done in secret has been brought into the light. Please know that I’m in prayer for you that the Lord would open your eyes, humble your heart, and grant you contrition and repentance.

    Brent – Based on your reply I must ask; In your view how is the Body to exercise church discipline?

    Sheeple – Assuming you mean the One True and Living God of the Holy Bible He’s on the side of scripture.

    Darrel – Actually a good number of people haven’t missed the point you raise. In fact your observation is the point made in Ken Silva’s offending article “A PASTOR’S ASSESSMENT OF RICHARD ABANES”.

    In Him,

  8. This whole thing is sad and disheartening- Satan must be ROFL at the time and energy expended by Mr. Silva and Mr. Abanes thrusting and parrying at each other – all the while the Body of Christ suffers the ridicule of the world because of this behavior.

    I have a simple solution- both parties surely have a telephone. pick it up and work out the issues like brothers in Christ. If this proves impossible may I suggest you seek the services of a Christian Mediator to privately work out your differences.

    Forgiveness, grace and humility can go a long way.

  9. The article in question was three years old for crying out loud! What took him so long to complain? That fact alone has to tell you something. It was not really about libel at all. It was about Ken’s website becoming moreand more popular-reaching a larger audience. RA didn’t like the point of view being expressed there and was looking for a way to silence the on going critique of Purpose Driven/Seeker Friendly movement. This is the way they work -silence those opposed in whatever way you can and then twist Scriptures to justify what they do. Both men may profess faith, but we will know them by their fruit. I don’t see this as a disagreement /argument between Christians. I see it as light against darkness, the true gospel against a false gospel. It is not about rights, but about defending the true gospel of Jesus Christ and that, in my estimation, is what Ken Silva does.

  10. Brent:

    Yes, we have no rights. But the question is “If we stand up for the truth, does that mean that we are being contentious and are ‘demanding our rights’?”

  11. Phil Naessens – Ken Silva received a message from his former web host, that his site was about to be terminated. Please explain to us in detail HOW is it a violation of scripture that Ken Silva posted that message from his ISP and RA’s letter? I find no scripture that prevents Ken from posting that.

    After his blog was offline, all who used to view it wondered what was going on. So Ken made it known what happened. Again, please explain HOW Ken violated scripture, to explain why and how his web blog was taken offline and the process taken to restore it?

    It was RA who had an issue with Ken, to the point of bringing up lawyers, so it was incumbent upon RA to speak with Ken, not the other way around. Since what occurred, Ken Silva has been saying what happened, so it is known. Again HOW is it a violation of scripture for someone who had their web site pulled to explain what happened?

    No they both did NOT violate scripture, only the one who asserted they had a problem with material posted that they felt should be removed had an issue that required following Matthew 18:15-17 on their part, that was RA and he did not. He also violated 1 Corinthians 6 in seeking to use laws of man against Ken Silva.

    Before this, they were two who had disagreement, that they would speak to each other about in blogs and such. Then RA tried pulling legal strings and Ken telling us what happened is not ungodly at all.

    I don’t see any scripture that says: “thou shalt not tell anyone when you are sued” or “if thou art an elder and your door for ministry and closed, thou shalt not tell anyone what happened”.

    I find, that Ken Silva has been overwhelmingly gracious given what has occurred.

    You mention “turn the other cheek”, now where did Jesus say that you can’t mention to anyone that you were struck? For Ken Silva to have somehow NOT turned the other cheek would require Ken Silva to send a letter to RA’s web host in an effort to have material removed, that has not happened. Which is the godly posture and in full agreement with scripture.

  12. Independent Conservative,

    You said;

    Ken Silva received a message from his former web host, that his site was about to be terminated. Please explain to us in detail HOW is it a violation of scripture that Ken Silva posted that message from his ISP and RA’s letter? I find no scripture that prevents Ken from posting that.

    From the email in question;
    We have been advised by a visitor to your web site (at: http://www.apprising.org) that such web site contains content that is alleged to be untrue, offensive, slanderous, harassing or controversial in nature.
    Accordingly, please remove such content within 48 hours of this notice. Failure to delete such content within such period will result in termination of your website. The notice we received is below.

    IC….Abanes asked for ONE article to be removed….not a whole website. Clearly he should have gone to Ken himself as per Matthew 18 which he in hindsite has as much admitted to on my blog and elsewhere. At this point it was still a PRIVATE matter and as such Silva should have gone to his brother which he didn’t do either…

    You said;

    After his blog was offline, all who used to view it wondered what was going on. So Ken made it known what happened. Again, please explain HOW Ken violated scripture, to explain why and how his web blog was taken offline and the process taken to restore it?
    I refer you to the following link from the Apprising Ministries website dated July 24, 2008.

    This from the Slice of Laodicia website dated July 26 2008

    Ken made it known what was happening prior to his blog being shut down. Your above statement is lacking the facts brother. Again, instead of going to his brother he made this situation known publicly to anyone with a modem and an internet connection….A CLEAR violation of Matthew 18 as this was a private matter and as a pastor he should have known better.
    Both violated Scripture IC….what don’t you get about this?

    Daniel Chew,

    Please see my response to Independent Conservative. Please remember that Ken Silva made this public statement prior to his site being shut down.

    As far as the free speach deal, well I hope and pray that was has occured here has all made us stop and think about how we bloggers are to conduct ourselves in the future…


    Thanks for allowing me to comment. I will respond to comments as time allows. I’m running a tournament this week at my academy and these folks are VERY demanding:)….I’m just letting you know I don’t play the hit and run game…..


  13. CD-
    The body is to be told after the sin is delt with in private first. We can’t go back…both were at fault for the things that led to it being made public. They both should repent and confess each one’s sinful actions and forgive and not walk in the same behavior again. One man wronging another doesn’t give either a free pass in EVERYTHING that proceeds from the incident.
    At this point the pitch forks and lanterns (drama) will only bring more sin into the situation.

    Daniel: You know well the “Truth” stands alone, it is the method and the actions that are contentious and wrong.

    Refer back to: “…kindly to everyone and mild-tempered [preserving the bond of peace];
    he must be a skilled and suitable teacher, patient and forbearing and willing to suffer wrong. He must correct his opponents with courtesy and gentleness…”

    Not coining names for everyone that seems to be a ‘heretic’, (Just call their teaching false and name names, but don’t make up new ones to be cute and trendy) and judging eternal salvation by one or even several sinful actions.

    Careful…you might find yourself under the same judgment as you meet out.

    If this is walked out IN SPIRIT while the Truth is being proclaimed, even after being wronged or a perceived wrong then the other party who isn’t walking in the Spirit will manifest the fruit of their actions and it will be apparent to all in clarity who is not walking in the Spirit. (But we don’t get to judge one sinful action of another as the final say if they are “In darkness” like they couldn’t possibly be born again, like some are in this case)
    Both men had some flesh flair up and it is only leading to more of the same.
    WE ALL HAVE, which doesn’t excuse them or us, but what if the one time you sinfully stumbled and all the “Christians” were ready to “discipline” you, even if it wasn’t a pattern.
    Remember Paul to the Corithians, ‘fornication was commonly reported among them’, but yet he told the body to remove the ONE wicked man (singular) that seemed to be the most apparently corrupt walk that was influencing others to greater sin.
    Paul had patience and the truth on the side of the Spirit, even when handling the ‘discipline’ that was necessary.

  14. Phil Naessens

    You attempted to answer my questions in saying:

    Ken made it known what was happening prior to his blog being shut down. Your above statement is lacking the facts brother. Again, instead of going to his brother he made this situation known publicly to anyone with a modem and an internet connection….A CLEAR violation of Matthew 18 as this was a private matter and as a pastor he should have known better.
    Both violated Scripture IC….what don’t you get about this?

    Phil, please show me the exact verses in Matthew 18, that you feel Ken violated. I don’t see anything that says a brother can’t tell others of a situation he’s facing. In scripture, followers of Christ were always very open about their ordeals. You’re trying to ADD to scripture, in asserting that simply telling people about what is going on in your affairs is some violation of scripture. Sir, to speak about the private affairs of OTHERS is a violation of scripture, Proverbs 20:19. To speak about your own affairs is NOT a violation of any scripture at all.

    But Phil, you read over Matthew 18 carefully, since that’s the scripture you’ve cited. You give me full exegesis of the verses you feel Ken Silva violated.

    And if RA feels he was wrong to contact Ken’s web host, which was wrong regardless of whether the complaint involved a single word, single page, or the entire blog, shouldn’t RA contact Ken Silva and apologize to him for his error? Isn’t THAT what all the words from our brother CD above about?

    RA’s actions resulted in Ken’s site being taken down. Instead of RA apologizing and saying he was the cause of this all taking place, he’s blaming Ken. RA wanted that page down and he’s upset it’s still visible.

    If RA would apologize to Ken Silva directly, either by contacting Ken or posting the apology on his own web site, to Ken Silva. Simply saying he was wrong to ever send that letter to Ken’s web host and will refrain from such ungodly actions in the future. You and I would not be having this discussion.

    Phil Naessens, I think the critical point you’re missing here, is that RA made it public in seeking to have a page removed. Which resulted in Ken’s full site being taken offline. Something RA blames on Ken, not himself for his initiating it. Whether a page or an entire site, the public sees it. For Ken to say what happened is no violation of scripture at all.

    RA ran to THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF outsiders, seeking a very PUBLIC resolution in desiring a page be removed. Ken simply has explained what happened.

    RA is a man Ken warned saints about before in public. For Ken to warn saints again that RA continues to violate scripture is not wrong. Their debates were public for years. Ken never went to RA’s web host seeking a resolution in laws of men.

    If your car blows up and you know people are wondering who blew up your car, it’s not a violation of any scripture to explain in detail who blew it up.

    This is all where it is because of RA. RA initiated it and it would be good for him to apologize to Ken Silva if he feels he should not have sent that letter to Ken’s web host.

    Phil Naessens, you said:

    IC….Abanes asked for ONE article to be removed….not a whole website. Clearly he should have gone to Ken himself as per Matthew 18 which he in hindsite has as much admitted to on my blog and elsewhere.

    I’m looking at RA’s comments on your blog and having trouble finding where RA admits he was in error. Perhaps you can find that for me and quote it here? Here’s what I did find, plenty of defiance from RA.

    In this comment RA says:

    RA: Well, first of all, writing an ISP is neither a sin, nor a “crime.”

    NOTHING in the Bible prohibits my having contacted an ISP to alert them to what I felt was someone’s violation of their TOS. That is against neither Matt. 18, nor 1 Cor. 6. And it is tragic to me that Christians have gotten to a place where they are hiding behind scriptures, abusing them and twisting them, to make sure they are not accountable — and can go on the internet to say/do whatever they want to do. That is tragic.

    Moreover, if what I did was indeed a private “sin/crime,” then it is Silva who violated Matthew 18, which does indeed cover any PRIVATE sin that someone feels has been committed against them by a brother. My alleged “sin” was obviously private (i.e., complaining to Silva’s ISP). But instead of going to me privately, Pastor Ken Silva skipped steps #1 and #2 of Matthew 18 and took it not only to the church, but to the entire world—creating an internet circus of hate, anger, bitterness, judgment, condemnation, arguments, and church division. Now what say you?

    I say RA is deluded!

    RA contacted the LEGAL department of an ISP. RA desired an PUBLIC resolution to something he felt Ken did wrong, by trying to take it to the web host instead of Ken. Never does RA say he was wrong, on the contrary, he says everything he did was right. Then after the very PUBLIC loss of Ken’s blog, RA claims Ken is at fault for telling what was already a very public matter. Ken’s site was about to be shut down, he told everyone what was happening, because it was RA, not Ken who showed no regard for scripture. Ken was not wrong to let readers know his blog was about to be shut down and the reason why. RA feels his actions were “private”, that is not true, his actions and his desired resolution were very open and public, he did not go to Ken Silva directly.

    Now regarding this being a matter between saints, here is what RA said to you Phil, in response to your question to him.

    Phil: I would be curious if either of them believe each other are of the “elect” and how that possible belief played a part in all of this…..

    RA: I have no idea whether Silva is elect or not. It had no bearing on my actions.

    So Phil, RA says himself, that he never considered this as a dealing between saints that should be handled as Christ commanded and it never had any bearing on his actions.

    RA continues to prove by his own words that his “Purpose Driven” mind has no real regard for scripture.

  15. Phil,

    The point is that if RA had an issue–a private issue–with Ken Silva, he should have kept it between the two of them. Ken Silva’s issue with RA was because of a public stance made by RA. That is totally different than what Matthew 18 talks about. Matthew 18 is in reference to someone committing a sin that harms you yourself.

    However, listen to the apostle Paul, and tell us if he was wrong to name these names:

    Philippians 4:2–I implore Euodia and I implore Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord.

    These were obviously two women in the church at Philippi that were at odds, and Paul was telling them–publicly–to “knock it off” (OK, that’s not the original Greek. Just roll with it).

    1st timothy 1:20–of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme

    2nd Timothy 2:17–And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort

    2nd Timothy 4:10–Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world…

    John wrote, in 3rd John 1:9–I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us.

    These are all examples of apostates in the church being called out by Paul and by John–in a very public way. Not only were these letters to be read to the church these people were at. These were to be read by Christians for centuries to come. When a person’s sin affects the church, there is nothing wrong with pointing it out publicly. In fact, that is biblical. Romans 16:17–Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. How are people going to know who is going to lead them astray if we don’t tell them?

  16. This post was made by a message board administrator in charge of moderating the forums at crosswalk.com and christianity.com.

    +++++++++++++++++++++ BEGIN

    From an Admin stand point I usually encourage people to use the report feature when they see someone violating our Terms of Service. One thing I have found is that the anonymity of the Internet fosters hotheadedness. Therefore, one never knows how terribly the recipient of a warning will respond. This is not to say that Mr. Silva has a tendency to that sort of behavior. (However, his response certainly does seem to indicate that it is in the realm of possibility that it would be so.)

    We provide a service with a Terms of Service to which everyone agrees to abide by. Outlined in that service is how we will deal with violations of our Terms of Service. Rather than our members having to deal with this sort of unpleasantness we offer to deal with the situation privately.

    In my opinion, a person does the right thing when he/she reports what is perceived to be a violation of our rules so that the situation can be reviewed and the appropriate action taken.

    I doubt that the service provider in this case lost any sleep over any perceived threats of a law suit from Mr. Abanes. Such a suit standing up in court would be near impossible.

    I believe, rather, that they did much the same thing I do. Look at the content and determine if it violated their rules. They found that it indeed did break their rules and sent a notice to Mr. Silva requesting that the content be removed for violations of the Terms of Service. (This is actually more than what we do in that we remove the content ourselves and notify the offender of the action taken.)

    In this Admin’s view Mr. Abanes did the right thing. . . .

    Mr. Silva should have reviewed the Terms of Service and determined if they were rules by which he wished to be governed. . . . When asked to remove the content for violations of the Terms of Service Mr. Silva should have complied as per his agreement and then considered finding a site more suitable for his style.

    +++++++++++++++++++++ END

    This sums up the incident fairly well. I have nothing to add, except my 100% agreement with this administrator. As I have noted before, those who have ears to hear and eyes to see will both see and hear the truth.

    See his full post at my website, under Thoughts of a Web Forum Administrator: A Look At Ken Silva’s Actions

    R. Abanes
    Pop Culture Mix Website

  17. Since we’re introducing the opinions of other people concerning the issues covered in “A Pastor’s Assessment of Richard Abanes” here is what my friend Dr. Gary Gilley, a prominent critic of the rotten fruit of Rick Warren’s church and ministry, has said:

    How can this evangelical pastor, who has emerged as the most recognized Protestant leader in the world, one who is looked to for spiritual insight and guidance by millions, miss the mark so widely? Perhaps the key is in his view of doctrine. In The Purpose Driven Life Warren wants us to have no doubt that, when we stand before the Lord, “God won’t ask about your religious background or doctrinal views. The only thing that will matter is, did you accept what Jesus did for you and did you learn to love and trust him” (p. 34)? On the contrary, what we believe is of utmost importance. Did the Holy Spirit inspire the Bible for us to ignore what it teaches? Are the words of Jesus insignificant? Are the doctrinal truths of the New Testament epistles nothing more than filler? Concerning salvation, it does matter what you believe about Jesus, the cross, the resurrection, sin, judgment, the gospel and so forth. Warren is doing a great disservice to the church of God. As he minimizes the content of the gospel, trivializes Scripture, belittles doctrine and replaces them with psychology, mysticism and worldly wisdom we are reminded of Paul’s warning in Colossians 2:8, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.”

    As far as I’m concerned this summarizes my views as consistent with these assessements. Nothing further to say I guess “except my 100% agreement with this” fine pastoral piece by Gary Gilley. As the Lord has said, “he who has ears let him hear.” See Gilley’s full post in The Gospel According to Warren

  18. RA,

    With respect I’d prefer to stick with the admonition of scripture as to how Christians are to resolve matters amongst themselves (see my original post above and my numerous comments in SJC’s combox) as opposed to relying upon the uninspired and subjective OPINION of a blog administrator on the topic of TOS agreements.

    Perhaps it has escaped your notice throughout this ordeal, but TOS agreements aren’t under scrutiny here, your violation of scripture is under scrutiny. This has been pointed out to you many, many times by many, many believers yet you continue in your unbroken pattern self-justifying, flesh gratifying, blame shifting, stiff necked, rebellious, defiant, unrepentant, un-Christ like and ungodly behavior.


    In Christ,

  19. OK Richard Abanes, you claimed on Phil’s blog, that you were open to talking with Ken Silva and that you were looking around for him, when you said:

    “I am indeed willing to talk. I’m waiting. I’m making the blog rounds, looking for him. I am telling the truth about what happened. He is nowhere to be found. I am open to reconciliation. Where is Ken Silva? That is another question I keep asking.


    So Ken is here and Richard you’re here. So Richard, what do you have to say to Ken? And Ken, if you have anything you’d like to say to Richard, I’m sure CD won’t mind. But in all fairness. Richard, since you initiated in contacting Ken’s web host and you initiated claims, it seems you would speak first. After all, you said you were looking for Ken. Well he’s here and now is the time to end this.

    Now let the reconciliation begin. Your move RA.

  20. Mr. Abanes,

    Ummmm…..you forgot something. Like, oh, I don’t know, maybe the REST OF THAT POST!!!! I’m curious, why didn’t you decide to include that little snippet where this “blog admin” said,

    On the other hand…

    I feel it is a waste of time to hunt after individuals intent on using the Internet as a vehicle to smear public individuals/ministries. If a public individual is unable to endure the criticism, no matter how inaccurate, of such actions then it may be wise to consider another form of activity.


    I have no doubt that Mr. Abanes has learned from this entire situation. He may even be able to recognize, if not now perhaps later, that he has himself made some mistakes in dealing with this issue and will strive to apply it to future situations on the Internet.

    Nah, that ain’t gonna happen. Because Mr. Abanes is completely without fault in this matter. He has done nothing wrong, he has been perfectly right in everything he has done, and he has nothing to apologize for.

    Er, something

    Um, Richard, your own words, from one of your own websites, says,

    This article, titled “A PASTOR’S ASSESSMENT OF RICHARD ABANES” by Pastor Ken Silva (apprising.org) is filled with not just personal opinions, but slanderous innuendo, misleading statements about my character/faith, and negative implications about me that are meant to deliberately harm my professional/personal reputation as a Christian author.

    In response, I contacted Mr. Silva’s Internet Service Provider (ISP) to inform them of my thoughts regarding the content of that particular article, and after doing so, asked them to please have Mr. Silva remove the article before I contacted my attorneys.

    Nowhere in there does it say anything about you contacting Ken Silva DIRECTLY. Why not? Why go running and crying to his ISP, rather than address Mr. Silva directly? What were you so afraid of? And still, to this day, NO MENTION OF WHAT HE SAID THAT WAS LIBELOUS! For crying out loud, throw us a bone here! If you’re going to accuse someone of something, you have to say what they did wrong!! It’s like going in to court and saying someone stole something from you, but not telling the judge what it was they stole.

    And by the way, I have read “A Pastor’s Assessment…” several times, and I have yet to find one place where he libeled/slandered/defamed you. He may have said some things about you that you didn’t like, but that’s your tough grapes. You may not like the fact that he said what he did, but what he said was the TRUTH, and that is not libel, my friend.

    And, Mr. Abanes, how is it NOT slander/libel for you to say things about Dr. MacArthur? Things like “he doesn’t know what he’s talking about” or “maybe he doesn’t care enough about the truth” or calling him a “loose cannon” or questioning his research. You have no evidence to back that up. THAT, friend, is libel. What about your name-calling of Paul Proctor, such as calling him a “rabid fundamentalist critic of Rick Warren?” Or is it OK for you to use names like these to talk about those who would dare refuse to throw themselves down at the Purpose-Driven altar?

    And if what you did was right, why do you go running and crying to people you think will be sympathetic to you, in an effort to appease your conscience? Do you, perhaps, somewhere down deep, have a feeling that you didn’t do the right thing, and you need to get someone’s approval?

    Pastor Silva, it appears that the biggest mistake you made was in not signing up with an ISP that will allow you to make slanderous, libelous attacks against those who disagree with you. Perhaps Mr. Abanes can tell you who his ISP is so you can enjoy the freedom to smear your critics without fear of reproach.

  21. To give you an idea of how contradictory and confused Mr Abanes is, on one website (this one in the article linked to above) he insults Dr. John MacArthur.

    But on another one he lists Dr. MacArthur as an endorser of one of Mr. Abanes books!

    So if Mr. Abanes has such strong negative feelings about Dr. MacArthur and what Dr. MacArthur says about a person that Mr Abanes holds in such “messianic” like high regard (Rick Warren) why would he count him as a valid endorser of one of his books?

    I will tell you why. Mr Abanes is an unashamed publicity hound just like Rick Warren.

    They are indeed the new Pharisees! They revel in the limelight. their tactics are straight out of Hollywood i.e. use anyone who props you up higher, but then when they dont prop you up, cut them off at the knee caps!

  22. Wow! I don’t think anyone could have written a better script. When will we see this on TBN as a full length feature.

    In all seriousness, I am disappointed in this exchange that occured between RA and KS. Especially over a three year old article. It seems that if it didn’t affect RA at the onset when it first came out, it would have been better to leave well enough alone. I am assuming this was not the first time he read the article. In what way did it really cause a problem for RA. I have read it and I still don’t see the issue.

    Sure should have been handled differently. It just makes RA, IMO, an angry man who was out to get even.

    So sad to see this happening in the Body of Christ…..

  23. Daniel Chew is it really your position that because Abanes violated those passages, Ken can as well? If that is, then great! I know for a fact someone has been trying to deal with an issue privately with Mr. Silva and he broadcast it to the entire world that has an internet connection. Our obedience to Scripture does not depend on what others do. That statement destroys any credibility you may have had.

  24. FP,

    Good catch on the rest of the story from the anonymous blog Admin, though RA is still guilty of blame shifting and trying to change the subject.

    I’ve not seen so much spinning since the circus came to town and they had one of those Tilt-A-Whirl rides. I’m nearly dizzy simply from watching.


    You’re spot on accurate, brother and so are your related posts on the subject at your own blog.

    Joe Martino,

    Do you think that it’s possible that your…um…history with CRN.info and Ken Silva may possibly be coloring your perceptions of Daniel Chew’s comment and your opinions in general on the matter at hand?

    Just curious.

    In Him,

  25. This will seem redundant to those who have no intentions of obeying it.

    2 Timothy 2:22-26 (Amplified Bible)

    “Shun youthful lusts and flee from them, and aim at and pursue righteousness (all that is virtuous and good, right living, conformity to the will of God in thought, word, and deed); [and aim at and pursue] faith, love, [and] peace (harmony and concord with others) in fellowship with all [Christians], who call upon the Lord out of a pure heart.

    But refuse (shut your mind against, have nothing to do with) trifling (ill-informed, unedifying, stupid) controversies over ignorant questionings, for you know that they foster strife and breed quarrels.

    And the servant of the Lord must not be quarrelsome (fighting and contending). Instead, he must be kindly to everyone and mild-tempered [preserving the bond of peace]; he must be a skilled and suitable teacher, patient and forbearing and willing to suffer wrong.

    He must correct his opponents with courtesy and gentleness, in the hope that God may grant that they will repent and come to know the Truth [that they will perceive and recognize and become accurately acquainted with and acknowledge it],

    And that they may come to their senses [and] escape out of the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him, [henceforth] to do His [God’s] will.

  26. Joe M:

    that was not what I have said. I said that the verses did not apply not because Abanes violated them first, but because by Abanes’ violation, the situation evolved from allegged slander to suppression of freedom of speech. And Mt. 5 and 18 does not apply to the issue of freedom of speech.

  27. Really? So our Biblical responsibilities are superceded by the constitution. I’m sorry but I find you to be unbelievable. I imagine I will shortly be banned so I am done here, but I intend to quote the comments in this thread often.

  28. JOHN: But on another one he lists Dr. MacArthur as an endorser of one of Mr. Abanes books!

    RA: Soooo, bizarre. This is why there can be no intelligent conversation going on. My disagreements with MacArthur about Warren, doesn’t preclude my finding him to be a most excellent Bible teacher on MANY issues, including his views on Near Death Experiences and the New Age Movement. That you would think a person cannot simultaneously hold such a position is very telling.


  29. Richard Abanes, reconciliation between yourself and Ken Silva COULD begin here and NOW, if you would only stop the back and forth. If you feel your actions were in any way mistaken, given all that has occurred. If you feel perhaps you should have contacted Ken Silva instead of seeking to have his former web host remove material, now is the time to speak.

    If you want to speak in private with Ken about it, you know his blog address and he provides a “contact” page that you can use.

    Ken wrote the material, not his former web host. RA, if something you write offends someone, think for a moment, would you like them to contact you about it, or your web host?

    Richard Abanes, you started your objection the wrong way and everybody knows. It’s time you admit it.

  30. No one is justified by any sinful action of another. I wonder with that being said, how often we have sinned and how often we have thought that it really was not a big deal.
    Richard wrote Ken’s ISP instead of going to Ken. There it is.
    Ken wrote the world about Richard’s so called sin. There it is.
    Now it seems like to me… that everyone that reads Ken’s writings is on Ken’s side because if they were to ever appear to have some balance to the discussion, they would be viewed as some ‘PDL POPE RICK WARREN’ (Ken’s sinful name calling) supporter.
    I am amazed at the degree of extremes of this ‘case’ everyone is attempting to win.
    The greater good would be to conform to loving all men involved and speaking the truth in love and allowing the Holy Spirit to work on everyone of us, Him showing us our sins and faults and being confessional one to another in order to bring about the bond of peace and unity in Spirit and Truth. Many seem to want to force a false work of the Spirit like some attorney confronting Richard with some absolute, ‘you must do this’ or you are some heretic because you won’t. Here is a question we can ask ourselves:
    Every time we were confronted with our sin by the effectual working of the Holy Spirit did we IMMEDIATELY repent? Or did we seem to slowly come to repentance in some areas of our lives over some length of time? Was it days or weeks (like this whole little messy discussion has been going on)? I don’t think I have repented of everything the Holy Spirit has confronted me with immediately. Have you? We shall be judged on how we judge and condemn others. If Richard and Ken has sinned, they sinned against God. If you think he has sinned, point it out and ask God to do a work of His Spirit and then you should rest from your labor. Only God knows if each one of us are held by Him and His grace alone, if Richard or Ken are one of those, then God alone will conform them and us into His working vessel in His way on His terms without our flesh making them or us do so. Give up on the cross examination, before you find yourself being examined for how you dealt with each one of these men and others on this blog. The so-called sins have now been wrongly made public, let’s walk in the Spirit and not make the public mess one of further ridicule.

  31. RA
    You should have gone Ken privately, not his hosting company. This is common sense. By doing what you have done, you have opened up a door for other bloggers (including yourself) to having your websites removed and shut down. You didn’t go to him because you thought he was arrogant, which, in and of itself is, well, arrogant. Why are you still here posting? (or anywhere else for that matter) E-mail Ken now and start talking to him. He offended you. You go to him.

    You have offended a brother. You both need to talk. As silly as it sounds, this is almost like a playground click, with people jumping to different sides a drawing battle lines. Are you all nuts? (RA included) Even though I believe that you did no wrong in this issue, you still offended a brother. Deal with it.

    I say WE avoid talking about this issue until the two of them (KEN AND RICHARD) talk amongst themselves, I don’t know, “privately”? That way we can guarantee that they have spoken to each other privately. After that, fire away.

  32. Joe Martino,

    You didn’t answer my question.

    Daniel can and has spoken for himself. I asked you a direct question and I’m still waiting for your response. It’s really just a YES or NO type question, but I’m not averse to an extrapolation of your reply.

    In Him,

  33. Sorry, you didn’t answer my question either. So, I’ll answer yours. No. I don’t believe this has anything to do with my issues with Ken. I admit those issues are far and reaching. I now view Ken in light of Titus 3:10 and 11 and believe that unless he changes his path, God has placed destruction in his path.
    How unemergent of me.

    Also, as to Daniels statement (feel free to edit these two comments so they appear as one), I don’t see how his statement can be taken as anything other than, one of two choices:
    1. Ken doesn’t have to play by the “rules” because RA violated them first. To me this sounds akin to my daughter telling me the reason it was OK for to hit one of my other daughters was because she was hit first.
    2. The Bible doesn’t address how we defend ourselves in matters of constitutional law therefore Ken can do whatever he wants because Richard did something wrong.

    Please understand I disagree pretty strongly with both views.

  34. Joe and Daniel,

    By any chance are you guys actually friends and just like sparring together or what? I have throughly enjoyed the writings and sparring as it seems with one another.

    Thank you for making my day and providing a bit of laughter for me in a world of despair and hopelessness without Christ.

    OK, I just had to say something that has absolutely nothing to do with this post. My reading comprehesion is at an all time low (about 6th grade) and I need to go back and read my computer manual to get more serious again.

    Thanks you guys
    Blessings to you both
    Tim (ah but which Tim of the blogging world?)


    I believe this issue has gone on long enough on this post. It is obvious that nothing is being accomplished. Testimonies are being diminished and Christ is not being exalted and glorified when all that can be done and said is “mud-slinging” from both camps.

    Yes, apologies do not need to be sought I believe by those who are on both sides, but it takes one who has a tender heart for God to be willing to take the first step knowing that the other side may not reciprocate.

    I am reminded of the angel who came to Gideon. This timid Israelite asked whose side the angel was on, “Are you on their side or are you on ours?” The angel replied, “NEITHER, but I stand as Captain of the Hosts!”

    Gentlemen, the battle is raging, and taking potshots at each other is not only counter-productive, it is a sure sign of one not being filled to overflowing by the Holy Spirit of God who will evidence in the life of a true believer the fruit of the Spirit.

    I am going to respectfully ask that if you feel you must continue any tirades against each other, that you find another forum to do so.

    Because of Saving Grace,
    The Desert Pastor

  36. Dear Desert Pastor,
    While I agree with you on almost all that you said, it was actually Joshua that had the experience you are reminded of. My friend Rob Bell, pointed that out to me.

  37. I’m curious……….how can DR MacArthur be a poor researcher, and unconcerned about Truth according to RA, yet be an excellent teacher whose recommendation is giddily accepted when in reference to that very same RA’s book??

    I don’t know about you, but I’d hardly find it comforting that a man who is incapable of proper research and who has no regard for Truth endorsed my book. What would that actually say about the content of my book, that an inept researcher with a low regard for Truth agreed with my book??

    And,if we’re going to go further, and have to decide which of these two has more credibility, how precisely does one with the academic theological credentials of Dr MacArthur attain to such lofty accomplishments being such a shoddy researcher who has no desire to pursue Truth as Mr Abanes claims??

    What are Richard’s academic achievements so we can compare who actually demonstrated adequate research skills and love for Truth to attain them??

    Ahhhh………..Richard has none. Imagine that.

  38. GaryV,

    But in RA’s defense he did (does?) attend Saddleback so at least we can be confident that he was receiving solid doctrinal instruction in the historic, Orthodox Christian faith from the pulpit of his pastor Rick Warren, right?

    Oooohhh…wait a minute…Rick Warren doesn’t teach such things does he? Never mind. Maybe RA is simply “Saddleback Sam” personified.

    In Him,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s