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,
CD

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.

Joshua 5:13-15 – My mistake, red-face and all – see even pastors make mistakes. I guess there goes my claim to infallibility! LOL

Thanks for pointing that out.

The Desert Pastor

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

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?)

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.
or
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.

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,
CD

Ken
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.

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.

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.

RAbanes

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.

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.

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.

IC,

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,
CD

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…..

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!

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.

“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.

RAbanes”

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.

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.

RA, PLEASE OBEY THE SCRIPTURES AND REPENT AND SEEK RECONCILIATION! THIS IS A COMMAND OF SCRIPTURE, NOT AN OPTION, NOT A SUGGESTION, NOT A “GEE, WOULDN’T IT BE NICE IF…” AFTERTHOUGHT, BUT A COMMAND! PLEASE STOP BEING REBELLIOUS! PLEASE STOP DEFYING THE DIRECT COMMANDS OF JESUS CHRIST! PLEASE STOP BEING REBELLIOUS WHICH IS AS THE SIN OF IDOLATRY AND WITCHCRAFT!

In Christ,
CD

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

+++++++++++++++++++++ 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

I’ve taken some time to make a post on my blog, rather than consume so much comment space here: The Delusion Of Richard Abanes

And fourpointer, well said brother!

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?

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.

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.