Shame On Silva

You may also like...

No Responses

  1. Believe says:

    “This is sin…it’s gross sin and Silva needs to repent.
    As a brother in Christ, Sweet has a Christian right to be dealt with in love and with charity.
    Sound doctrine begins with the great commandments…love your God and your neighbor as yourself.
    I discern a problem with Silva’s doctrine…”


    He’s unfortunately choosing to ignore Sweet’s very direct and thorough response and hiding behind Simpson’s article (which is full of holes, assumptions, misinterpretations, logical fallacies, etc).

    Silva is most likely a brother in Christ who is in the sin of pride and bearing false witness and needs to repent.

    Ken, I’m praying for you. If you’re one of God’s…you’re gonna get correction…you can’t remain in sin without God’s chastisement. You will reap what you sow. That is a promise you can count on. Repent now and save yourself some pain (spoken…or should I say written…by one who has painful personal experience with this Biblical principle).

  2. victorious says:

    Doctrine’s intent according to Paul is this;

    “The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.”


    How sad that Silva has added lying to his slander.

  3. Believe says:

    …Vic, it’s “libel”…. 🙂

  4. Michael says:

    “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”
    (1 John 3:15 ESV)

    “To stimulate us still more to love, he shews how detestable before God is hatred. There is no one who dreads not a murderer; nay, we all execrate the very name. But the Apostle declares that all who hate their brethren are murderers. He could have said nothing more atrocious; nor is what is said hyperbolical, for we wish him to perish whom we hate. It does not matter if a man keeps his hands from mischief; for the very desire to do harm, as well as the attempt, is condemned before God: nay, when we do not ourselves seek to do an injury, yet if we wish an evil to happen to our brother from some one else, we are murderers.
    Then the Apostle defines the thing simply as it is, when he ascribes murder to hatred. Hence is proved the folly of men, that though they abominate the name, they yet make no account of the crime itself. Whence is this? even because the external face of things engrosses our thoughts; but the inward feeling comes to an account before God. Let no one therefore extenuate any more so grievous an evil. Let us learn to refer our judgments to the tribunal of God.”

    John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries (Complete) (trans. John King; Accordance electronic ed. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1847), n.p.

  5. Michael says:

    Sweet is not speaking at the conference.

    Because Heitzig caved in, he won’t risk more wrath by reversing course.

    That would call for character…

    Schlueter is on Crosstalk.

  6. brian says:

    “As a brother in Christ, Sweet has a Christian right to be dealt with in love and with charity.”

    It is unfortunate that it often does not work that way, Mr. Silva, Um never mind.

  7. Michael says:


    It’s all about character ….

  8. centorian says:

    just read Silva’s lastest post on his website. I don’t know whether to think he’s typical of a vitriolic Southern Baptist or if they consider it shameful to have association with him. But one thing is for certain, he sure likes to fight. I wonder if this is endemic of him getting pushed around too much while on the playground at school..

    Silva, do you ever talk to people or just talk past them and publish things about them.

  9. centorian says:

    Isn’t Schlueter a Lutheran?

  10. Em says:

    i confess how little of my prayer life has been concerned with asking the Lord to increase discernment in the Body… we’ve been walking a carnival mid-way: “hurry, hurry, step right up and try the latest and greatest ‘christian’ elixers and sideshows” – like a bunch of rubes and we go home with empty pockets… but “dang, Clara, that thar was some show”

    i have prayed for leadership… i think i’ve neglected prayer for the rest of us pew sitters

  11. Jim W says:

    “As a brother in Christ, Sweet has a Christian right to be dealt with in love and with charity.
    Is there some reason you can’t change the name in this sentence to “Silva”?

    Sound doctrine begins with the great commandments…love your God and your neighbor as yourself.”
    Are you loving Ken Silva as much as yourself? Or are you loving your “Christ-likeness” more?
    I don’t see anything remotely resembling love on this site. Certainly not love like Jesus expressed towards His enemies.
    And, yes, this will probably be a “drive-by” post. I have no desire to engage you, just pointing out your own logs. I’ve got plenty of sawdust in my own eyes, but I can still see your hatred clearly. You don’t have to agree with Ken, you can even dislike him, but threatening physical harm is really stupid, even if it’s obviously an empty threat.

  12. Scott says:

    “I don’t see anything remotely resembling love on this site. ”

    That will have to go down as one of the top 5 most ignorant and arrogant statements ever made here.

    Somebody give Jim W the Baloney Award.

  13. Babylon's Dread says:

    Drive by bloggers are just gangsters in print…

  14. Scott says:

    But…Gangstas are considered “cool” in some circles BD 🙂

  15. puzzletop says:

    I agree with you both Scott and Dread.

  16. Believe says:
  17. Believe says:

    Michael said the way to deal with a bully is to punch him in the nose.

    The context was metaphorical…and Jim W alludes to that.

  18. Believe says:

    Jim W…I don’t hate Silva…don’t even know him.

    But, clearly he is wrong and needs to repent. He completely ignores Leonard Sweet’s recent treatise that clearly answers any and all accusations from Silva and Simpson.

    You should read it. It’s a well written, well-spirited response.

  19. Em says:

    JimW doesn’t realize that fok here don’t consider Silva an enemy? It sure seemed to me like what has been expressed is consternation with an erring brother… IMO

    enjoyed the gangsta thing, but here’s a good example of how to play the drums 😉 IMO – again

    God keep

  20. Em says:

    shoulda said that i was listening to mel torme as i stopped by this thread and interrupted him to catch the gansta thread – the drums in the gangsta thread were appropriate – just a ridiculous-to-sublime thing, i guess…

  21. Lutheran says:


    Last I checked, Ingrid was a Lutheran. But please…her viewpoints are hers and hers alone. She doesn’t represent anyone else other than herself.

    The show she’s on is called Cross talk because when you’re done listening, you’re bound to be cross.


  22. Nene says:

    Lute, if you are comfortable, could you e mail me if you have a chance nene 101 at earthlink dot net…thanks!

  23. Lutheran says:

    This is the link to the Crosstalk blog which apparently has replaced Slice…

    Looking at it, it’s a smooth blend of far-right politics, anti-Obama rhetoric, and…

    Well, ;pretty indistinguishable from CC and Chuck Missler’s POV…

  24. What’s worse, bloggers that don’t allow comments, drive by comments, or anonymous commenters? At least Silva is man enough to have his name attatched to his thoughts.

  25. Michael says:

    Now if he were only godly enough to interact with someone else’s…

  26. Believe says:

    Let’s go interact. Michael has engaged in a dialogue. Might be an open door to gain better understanding with the ODM crowd.

  27. DavidH says:

    These verses keep coming to mind regarding Mr. Silva.

    I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church.
    Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God. 3 John 9-11 [ESV]

  28. Believe says:

    DavidH said, “I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority.”

    This brings me back to an underlying question I still can’t seem to answer…who in our Vapor truly has the authority of God?

    I’m exploring Apostolic Succession.

    Here’s my point of inquisition: we’ve got many guys in our Vapor who wake up one day and say, “I want to be a pastor, I’ve got God’s calling…”

    Could that have just been the double pepperoni pizza and gallon of soda they drank the night before?

    From very personal experience, there are pastors out there who confess with their lips and say (mostly) the right words…and can follow a blueprint laid out by Chuck Smith and Matthew Henry…but their private lives are far from Truth.

    Yet, they are perceived as having “authority from God”…

    I’m not buying it.

    I respond to the conviction of the Holy Spirit and I repent and turn away from sin. So why is it that I do not have authority to read and interpret Scripture?

    How can men who are so corrupt and abiding in sin, even when confronted…how is it they have “authority”?? Is it the mere fact they have a building and followers?

    Is it the fact that Chuck Smith handed them a dove?

    The Protestant Reformation departed from the RCC authority model…and I’m still trying to get a better understanding of Biblical “authority” and who to follow (other than our Lord Jesus Christ).

    There are MANY who buy into the pastor “authority” angle in the version that my step-dad sells…and these people get sucked into a near cult-like phenomena and many get deceived and end up really hurt…and somewhat isolated.

  29. Steve Jobs says:

    What I posted at Rob’s blog:
    Michael did answer your question. You’re just convinced that he’s wring because he opposes someone you respect. I’ve been there. Listen, I’m fairly certain that if Ken Silva & Michael Newnham sat down and spoke about their love for Christ they’d have a looong conversation and you would see that Michael would show respect & love for Silva as a brother. However on THIS ISSUE, & you have to focus on this issue. Ken Silva is wrong. And the fact that a “ministry” divides brothers CANNOT be from the Lord. You don’t need any special revelation for that. Let me ask YOU to address what brother Silva will not. In light of his directly responding to accusations of his othodoxy, do you find it fair that he would STILL be labeled a heretic or emergent? You can’t ask a guy to state his position and then dismiss it because you’re assuming the worst of that brother. In fact we’re supposed to assume the best of that brother and consider him better than ourselves. I think Ken Silva is a well intentioned brother but he’s been publicly proven wrong & he’s having a hard time admitting it. That’s hardly the unpardonable sin but it sure is prideful and hurtful to the Body of Christ and cetainly grieves the Lord. The prayer of Jesus only hours before His crucifixion should be more important to us than feeling like we have to be right about anything. His prayer was that the world would know that the Father has sent Him by their noted love for one another. His dying wish is that we be ONE. I hope that is important to you and brother Silva. Blessings.

  30. DavidH says:


    I really do see where you are coming from. Churches are human organizations. Despite our best efforts human institutions are going to fail in some areas.

    Believe – “There are MANY who buy into the pastor “authority” angle in the version
    that my step-dad sells…and these people get sucked into a near cult-like phenomena
    and many get deceived and end up really hurt…and somewhat isolated.”

    Because of the nature of humans, we are very limited in what we can do in these cases. I really believe that one of the most important things we can do with matters like this is pray. I’m not sure how to suggest to others how they should deal with a “toxic” fellowship.

    My wife and I visited a “toxic” fellowship for several weeks a couple of years ago. Our radar was on and we realized the so-called pastor was coming out of left field. We left rather quickly. One of the associate pastor’s asked why we left. We told him, and he and his wife also left.

    I believe the key to knowing when things are not right is knowing God’s Word and being guided by the Holy Spirit. And, I know full well that many people who fill the pews do not know God’s Word. Therefore they can easily get sucked into the vortex of a “toxic” church.

  31. Bryan Stupar says:

    Steve Jobs,
    well stated!

    …Macs rule! 😉

  32. Xenia says:

    He’s an unexpected bonus that you get when your priest is in the line of apostolic succession. He has been given all the authority he needs from Christ’s Church and therefore, is free to be humble. He doesn’t have to strive to prove himself to be worthy of a following. Doesn’t have to preach block-buster sermons, doesn’t have to dress cool (clothes come with the job), doesn’t have to dream up exciting new programs, etc. He is what he is, but the grace of God and doesn’t have to impress anybody. Doesn’t have to drum up business. Free to be humble. This is what I have observed in my seven years of being part of a church that follows AS: extremely humble clergy. In fact, my one complaint might be that when I ask for advice, they are usually loathe to offer it.

  33. centorian says:

    God does give authority, man can only recognize and affirm it. That is part of why I have an issue with any so called apostolic succession. It continues a system of man rather than fulfilling God’s intention. A study of the power struggles between the different bishops will show this. The Reformation was necessary for many reasons, least of which the Roman church had lost it’s way and like the Aaronic priesthood, had disqualified themselves from any furtherance of church authority.

    Paul understood the purpose of God given authority.

    2Cor 10:8 For even if I should boast somewhat more about our authority, which the Lord gave us for edification and not for your destruction, I shall not be ashamed–

    The church structure was established by God to build up His church. See Ephesians 4. The problem with authority is twofold. It is misunderstood and misapplied (which is a nice way of saying it is abused). The misunderstanding comes when we subtly forget that it’s is God’s authority and not ours. We’d never admit that, but it is all so painfully obvious many times. The misapplication comes when we take our calling too seriously and begin to think we alone have the keys to the kingdom. We believe our every whim is God breathed, a fallacy stemming from an incorrect view of the filling and baptism and ministry of the Holy Spirit. And we go off unchecked, and reek havoc in our path.

  34. centorian says:

    how’d I end up in moderation?

  35. Believe says:

    Centy…I’m reading and re-reading your post on authority. I’m finding myself agreeing…

    The Church, IMO, needs to do a better job of calling to task those who should forfeit their “authority” when they cross the line. This is what God wants, is it not?

    By letting these rogue pastors “get away with it”…it takes a toll on the “Church structure”…and weakens the Church tremendously. It brings into question the authority of the Church and leadership when injustice is left unchecked…and in some cases protected…even by attorneys who are there to protect the rogue pastor, rather than seek justice and repentance.

    Is the authority of God behind that? Whose authority is the protection of corruption under?

    Do we really believe in the authority of Scripture? Do we really believe in character in the pulpit? We need a reformation (not a doctrinal one, but a character and Spiritual one) within parts of Calvary Chapel…IMO.

    We’ve discussed being plugged into the Power (of the Holy Spirit)…certainly God uses earthen vessels…however, when corruption is knowingly protected…how can we wonder where the Power has gone?

  36. Isaiah56:1 says:

    “The misunderstanding comes when we subtly forget that it’s is God’s authority and not ours. ”
    Well put.

  37. Dwayne H says:

    Defending Leonard Sweet – are you kidding? He’s a new age proponent of a sneaky panentheism view. Are you not aware that Alistair Begg pulled out of a conference because Sweet was going to participate?

  38. Rob Willmann says:


    Thanks for going by my site and posting. I have one awaiting moderation that I won’t publish until I can verify who it is that’s writing it. The poster’s name is “Steve Jobs” and he’s writing from the address. I won’t post his information unless:

    1) He is able to post using an authentic email address and name that can be verified. or
    2) He can confirm to me that he is indeed Steve Jobs.

    I find it highly unlikely that someone of Steve Jobs’ stature would post on a blog concerning this issue. So Steve (or whoever you are), please use a real name and address and I will be glad to post your response.



  39. Michael says:


    Have you read what Sweet said about his own beliefs regarding the new age or are you just taking someones word for what he believes?

  40. Isaiah56:1 says:

    Dwayne H – did you read what Sweet wrote about his opinion on new age? Read his own words. We did, and I would dare say most of us believe he is a brother in Christ, even if we don’t agree with everything he says/writes. Please read his words, his response to these accusations, don’t post out of ignorance.

  41. Tim says:

    It’s worth noting that the wikipedia source is “nogoofyzone” – an ODM website that used to pop up around here a lot during the R Abanes days. In addition, the information on NGZ on this particualar page seemed to all come from Lighthouse Trails.

    I certainly don’t like the quotes from Sweet they listed, but it needs to be acknowledged that there is no context for the quotes given. Not to mention it seems that many of these guys seem to rely on one another for quotes and information. They don’t seem to venture outside their own particular fold for original info much.

  42. Em says:

    The one thing (it may be arrogance.; i hope not) i find most offensive in ODMs is the position that they’ve assigned themselves between me and God the Holy Spirit
    if they want to voice their concerns about any position or teaching, ok, that is good and helpful, but don’t tell me to cover my ears when another speaks
    it seems presumptuous to me to assign all of us pew sitters to an area of safety – designed by them?

    PS – all the preachers and teachers i hold in esteem over the years have stated publicly changes in their positions on doctrines as their own understanding grows

  43. Michael says:


    That was excellent….

  44. Michael says:


    “¶ For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”
    (Romans 11:36 ESV)

    If you don’t sound like a pantheist when you exposit that verse, then you really don’t understand it…

  45. Michael says:

    You’re welcome. 🙂

  46. centorian says:

    aahhhh I found the “older comments” link and now I can see this entire thread again… just like the (USAF) air traffic control radar technician told me years ago; “You push enough buttons, and it’s bound to work”. He sure was fun to watch stress when the radar went down lol 8)

  47. Lutheran says:


    Catholic priest?

  48. Michael says:

    Reformata is Ken Silva ….who is saying nasty things about someone you know…:-)

  49. Michael says:

    “but the potential for God’s people to be led astray and confused by allowing Sweet to speak seems to outweigh any benefit otherwise possible.”

    Bull hockey… but I’ll speak to that tomorrow. 😉

  50. Michael says:


    You can say which branch of the tree without being specific… 🙂

  51. Xenia says:


    It would not be proper to say that the Orthodox descended from the Roman Church. There was One Church which tragically split into two halves. You can’t really say one descended from the other. All western denominations descend from the RCs (more or less- some will debate this) and not from the Orthodox UNLESS you consider the Orthodox Church to be the Original Church, in which case all churches descend from the Orthodox, even the Catlicks.

  52. Xenia says:

    Speaking of pantheism, Orthodoxy skirts around the edges of that pond without quite falling in but close enough to bother some people. We have hymns with lyrics like “the flowers are fragrant by the power of the Holy Spirit.”

  53. Believe says:

    MB said, “We all owe a great debt to the Church, for all of it’s faults and errors.”

    Yes, we do…and the RCC is not as Dave Hunt postulates in his interpretation of End of Days prophecy.

  54. Michael says:


    Good job.

    Now, would you mind answering your phone? 🙂

  55. Michael says:


    That pond (and others such as union with Christ/theosis) have a mystery about them that we need to be a tad more comfortable with…

  56. Em says:

    FWIW from my reading, i have the impression that at the time of Henry 8th and prior the Church was not all that well organized throughout Europe – there was a lot of jokeying for leading roles and, i believe….

    God keep all close and comforted this night

  57. centorian says:

    thank you for that correction on the Great Schism…

    “Even non-denoms like Calvary Chapel or denominations like the Southern Baptists stem from the heritage passed to us from the RCC.”

    no, they didn’t, not even close.

    Hunt may very well be right about the Roman church at least in some degrees. It is a point of view, in the same way that Shobat’s postion is a point of view.

  58. Xenia says:

    Not The Trail of Blood theory of Baptist origins, I hope?

  59. Babylon's Dread says:

    Ah the old Trail of Blood, bad history, bad theology, B H Carroll fostered that nonsense and others… one more reason I am glad I left.

  60. Em says:

    all that i know of that time in history is secular reading from the world’s view ( 😉 )
    the hierarchy of the organized Church was hugely political and there was a lot of jockeying for supremacy among France, Spain and England that involved gaining support or even the physical presence of the head of the “Church.” Rome won out because of a very powerful, ruthless political presence whose name escapes me. All the while God’s unknown servants, humble, anonymous priests, i’d guess were quietly going about God’s business – just like today 😉

  61. Em says:

    Xenia, way back when you posted a link to a time-line chart that was very clear and i’m sure accurate regarding the divisions … i printed it, but where did i put it? 🙄

  62. Xenia says:

    Hi Em, I tried to Google that chart but couldn’t find that exact one. There’s lots of similar-but-subtly-different versions. If the Catholics drew it, the RC church is shown as one dramatic, thick line that runs uninterrupted from Pentecost to today with the EO church portrayed as a weak lil line wavering off from the RC and getting lost among the denominations. If you look at an Orthodox production of that chart, it’s the EO Church that has the strong uninterrupted line. (And if you look at a Landmarkian chart you see pure fantasy!)

  63. Em says:

    Xenia 🙂
    thanks – i’m still looking (have to fire up my old Mac and search, maybe it’s there…)
    but i just found some links to rug hooking that Dusty kindly sent me waaay back when

  64. Em says:

    found it! on the old machine – “A Time Line of Church History” traces “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” thru seven Ecumenical Councils and then, 300 years later, the branching off of the Roman Catholic Church with their Crusades beg’ 1095… and the “mainstream” continues as The Orthodox Church

    does God see our definitions as the history of the Church 😕 probably not, eh?

  65. Em says:

    MB, thanks – the whole history is full of very blatant human ambition, but God works thru history

  66. Lutheran says:

    One of the practices that the Lutherans maintained from the RCC, as well as the Episcopalians is that of absolution of sin. The absolution of sin part of the service is my favorite part. At the moment the priest says, “God have mercy on you, and forgive you all your sins…and keep you in eternal life” — that alone is THE greatest part of the service for me


    I had a very similar experience when I went to my first Lutheran service. It’s still my favorite part, actually. It just blew me away.

    Also, Lutherans and Anglicans are much alike WRT Catholicism and its practices. I’ve said this before on here, but Luther never wanted to create a new ‘tree’ (church) — he wanted to trim off some branches. He was fond of calling the Church “Mother.” If you had been to an early Lutheran Mass, in form it would have been pretty much indistinguishable from the RC Mass.

    Anglicanism was heavily influenced by Lutheranism at the start — there was lots of interaction between Melanchthon and other early Lutherans and the Brits.

    It’s the later Prots. who became more sectarian, even to today. They forget that nothing comes from nothing.

  67. Lutheran says:


    Sounds like you’re meeting with a quite knowledgable priest.

    If you want to read more about it, there’s a great book titled “The Protestant Face of Anglicanism,” by Paul F.M. Zahl. The author is an Episcopal priest and former head of one of the Episc. seminaries in the U.S.

  68. Em says:

    MB, there are way too many important things said on this thread for it to matter, but have to ask – was there a Henry the thirteenth ? 😉

  69. Nonnie says:

    Madison Bella, Ok, you lost me on the mustard sardines. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.