In another hit piece on Rob Bell, Ken Silva sets the plate by writing “We begin with the most important area which concerns the view of the Bible held by Rob Bell…as you will now see like most Emergents Bell has rejected sola [sic.] Scriptura. This is an irrefutable fact.”

Of course, to do so Silva must do two things, redefine the historical usage of “Sola Scriptura” and misquote Bell.  Ken Silva does not define what he means by “Sola Scriptura” though we can discern his redefinition by his misuse of the term.  Historically, “Sola Scriptura” is the belief that “the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (”Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the only source of Christian doctrine.”  It’s easy to see that Luther was contrasting Rome’s belief in the use of church tradition in determining Christian doctrine.

In his missive, Silva sights two quotes by Bell as proof.  The first is Bell’s denial that “Scripture alone” will answer all questions. Silva also takes Bell to task for saying that biblical interpretation is colored by historical context, the reader’s bias and current realities and that the more you study the Bible, the more questions it raises.  Of course, all these are true… there are questions the Bible does not bother to answer… every interpretation is colored… and the more you study, the more questions it raises.  The second quote Silva uses follows his all too often used tactic of leaving out certain parts.  Silva quotes Bells thus; “‘It is not possible to simply do what the Bible says,’ Bell writes. (Online source, emphasis added)” – ironically, Silva adds emphasis, but fails to use the whole statement.  What Bell wrote was “It is not possible to simply do what the Bible says, we must first make decisions about what it means at this time, in this place, for these people.”  This is, of course, the job of the exegete.  It’s easy to dismiss Silva’s sloppy (or devious) use of someone’s words.  But with these to partial statements, Silva weaves the conclusion that Bell denies Sola Scriptura.

Given an accurate definition of this Reformation fundamental, it’s also easy to see how Silva misappropriates the term.  Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the final source of our doctrine and the practices that come from it.  No where. That I have seen, does Bell deny this – in fact he’s clear regarding the authority of the Scriptures.  What Bell does argue for is a careful use of the Scriptures – of course, when this is done Silva just dismissed it as an attempt to look for loopholes.

So Ken does it again. Taking quotes out of context, not looking at the bigger picture and twisting words in general seems to be his bag of tricks that he performs over and over and over again.

Yes, Erwin has gained an infinite reputation among the modern day Pharisees and scribes for his quote, “The greatest enemy to the movement of Jesus Christ is Christianity”. I have heard time and time again that Erwin is anti-Christian and anti-religion. They are probably right. Today event the word Christian has been distorted, not by the world, but by people who claim to be following the teachings of Christ. It is not the gospel that has offended people, but “Christians” who have taken the gospel as a religious weapon to cut down those they disagree with.

Ken Silva wrote a piece about Mosaic’s Barbarian Project, a 10-week summer internship. He pulls out his tricks for this one once again and gets it all wrong. He takes this explanation off of Mosaic’s website, and adds his own commentary at the end:

Ken: The “unique character-transformation process” actually sounds kind of scary:

Mosaic.org: This leadership development experience is designed for women and men who want to become ministry leaders of the future. The Barbarian Project will challenge you to become a person of character, an entrepreneurial leader, and it will envision you to see humanity as God sees it. We strive to develop your leadership skills in many facets as well as challenging you to engage a unique character-transformation process.

Ken: That’s right folks, you will “see humanity as” Erwin McManus “sees it” and he’ll teach you to be a man-lover just like he is

Does any of that sound “scary” to you? And the funny thing is, these interns will probably not get more than a few hours with Erwin over the 10 weeks they stay in Los Angeles with Mosaic. I guess you miss out on the details when you are writing commentary on a church 2,000 miles away that you have never been to. We continue.

Mosaic.org: The internship will consist of weekly interactions centered around the core values of Mosaic, unleashing your creative spirit, catalytic leadership, maximizing your potential, and creating momentum in spiritual communities. You’ll be challenged in areas of self-awareness, relational intelligence, character-transformation, and proactive leadership.

Ken: We do note that the Barbarians will get around to “actively sharing the Gospel with people who don’t know Jesus,” but as we have seen with Erwin McManus this is not the genuine Gospel of the Biblical Christian faith.

Wait, first Erwin and Mosaic is being accused of being to evangelistic and missional, and now they are not “actively sharing the Gospel with people who don’t know Jesus?” Which one is it Ken? For the record, evangelism the the blood that flows throughout every vain of Mosaic. It is not an event, or a class during an internship. It is a lifestyle.

Ken: So now you’ve been warned but if you’re still bound and determined to try and attend this program all you have to do is remember that, “Each Barbarian must raise $2,000 before they begin the 10 week experience.” Undoubtedly the Christian will be a much better steward of his money and time by avoiding this Barbarian Way of Erwin McManus.

Ken, if you can tell me where you can live cheaper in Los Angeles for 10 weeks and go through a full internship program, I would love to hear it! I am sure you called Mosaic and asked how the financial situation works out before commenting on it…right? I am also sure that you called Steve Saccone, the overseer, to get all the facts before making accusatory comments. Only a author who fights for the truth would do that… right?

The overarching problem that I am seeing her is someone who feels that they can make judgment calls on a church they have never even stepped foot in. CRN and other have started to do this on a national level, and it is dangerous to the body of Christ. It is one thing to attack a man. It is another to now go on witch hunts on church websites.

But while Ken seems to be the bearer of truth, I remind you, he has still failed to answer any question here.

· Why would you, a self-professing non-Calvinist publish three blogs entitled “Why I am a Calvinist”?

· Can the elect be lead astray?

· If the elect cannot be lead astray, then why have watchdoggies blogs?