Archive for the ‘Dan Kimball’ Category

h1

Dan Kimball responds to his critics

August 8, 2007

At CRNinfo Dan Kimball responded to his critics… again…

Read it hear.

Note in the comments the ever gracious Ken Silva states:

“So it’s all quite vague to me when there are no clear answers forthcoming as to how this fits into what Dr. Walter Martin so often called the historic orthodox Christian Church.”

It seems no matter what or how detailed the “orthodox”definition an emerging person is… it never satisfied “the Ken”.

Blessings,
iggy

Advertisements
h1

The hypocrisy of the “religionist”

April 13, 2007

The hypocrisy of the “religionist”

The hypocrisy of the “religionist” is rather interesting at times.

Romans 9: 30 – 33

“What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.”
As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

We see that the religionist misses the point… They pursue God on wrong terms… they seek Him by their works, that is not by faith but by works as they seek the law of righteousness for themselves. There is no righteousness apart from Christ Himself and to think we can add to the righteousness that we have through Jesus nullifies the very Grace of God.

Paul warned the Galatians or rather spoke strongly to the Galatians of the “religionists” of that day called the Judaizers. These men were believers in Christ who believed that since God chose Abraham, and then gave the Law to Moses… and then spoke through Jewish prophets of the Messiah to come… being Jesus Who was a Jew… that naturally one would have to convert to Judaism in order to be accepted by Jesus as the Messiah. That is the reason Paul wrote the book of Galatians and it is dramatically played out to the point that Paul even confronts Peter of Peter’s hypocrisy as it was through Peter the gentiles were even realized to be included in this outpouring of God’s Grace…

Paul writes to the Galatians in chapter 3: 1-5

“You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?”

Paul then build on these questions… yet what most seem to miss is this one question. “After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?” Paul is saying that one cannot add to what the Holy Spirit has began by human effort… or works. What has begun by the Spirit is complete and sustained and maintained by the Holy Spirit… if not then it is considered works.

Many religionists will say… “But I trust in the Holy Spirit and I am saved by Grace yet we are told to do good works…” yes we are, yet these are not OUR good works but Gods and Gods alone. We are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling… yet that is where the religionist stops… he seems to not read the rest of the passage (as is the case in Romans chapter 1 that leads into the first sentence of chapter 2, or that they read the whole of Chapter 9 of Romans in its context… only stopping to prove their doctrine that God hates some and loves others… yet missing that in that very passage the ones hated, being the gentiles and considered vessels of wrath by the Jew are actually the vessels of mercy… and Gods grace and mercy are displayed through that!) which leads me to this point.

A religionist places doctrine before Love…

A religionist will be overly concerned with doctrine… that it be perfect. Yet, in expecting that, the do not realize that while doctrine in itself is not BAD, one then has shifted into works as the way they are justified.

Doctrine is not bad… but as in the passage I quoted:

Romans 9: 30 “What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.”

They stumble over Jesus as they try to fulfill their doctrine… in a sad way some religionist have replaced the Law even with doctrines… and in that have fallen from Grace into the Law.

Galatians 5: 4 “You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”
Again, often this is very subtle and is the reason we must go humbly to someone to restore them lest we too fall into a sin similar.
So what are some of the sign of a religionist besides too much emphasis on the Law?

Well a person named Julie (in the comments) over at CRNinfo has set up a few questions which I will dress out further… that are gleaned from the questions that were demanded of Dan Kimball at Teampyro which then seemed to not care to get any answers as they have closed down the comments on that post… These are a type of questioning and not the exact questions asked by Phil Johnson of Dan Kimball.

1. “We need precise answers.”
They demand that a specific definition (theirs) is the standard and in that display no Grace.

2. “It’s a valid question.” They demand that their authority is greater and their question is not to be questioned nor their authority

3. “Answer me.” They demand an answer immediately.

4. “That’s not sufficient. You’ve not answered me well enough.” When given an answer and it does not meet their definition they demand to have more… much like the Pharisees did with Jesus in the Gospels.

5.“I don’t believe the words you are saying correctly cover your true belief.” Even if you tell them they will deny that you believe what you have stated and call you a liar… like the Pharisees telling Jesus that His miracles were of Satan.

6.“Matthew 18 is a cop-out.” They simple deny scripture as they place their doctrine over it and interpret scripture through their doctrinal bent.

7. “I’m only trying to discern.” Which really means we are judging you as to whether you are saved or not while over looking that they too are but sinners saved by Grace?

8. “He hasn’t answered my question and obviously I have the right to an answer.” Victory is declared even if they are wrong… they demonize the other. They take that when one gives up as there is not way to win, they are the winner.

9. “Comments closed.” We really never cared or wanted to listen as our pride does not allow us to.

Notice that none of this is done with humility nor with Love… they want it done their own way. This is the bottom line of the religionist. They have placed God into a religious structure to be able to control Him… they are no better than the Idolaters who used idol to control their gods… in fact they are worse without even realizing it as they in their religious zealousness, have turn Christianity into an idolatress religion that seeks to only control God by their rules and doctrines… that is a dangerous state to be in.

That is why I call for prayer as a religious spirit is one of the hardest to cast out. I know as it took the grace of God to cast it out of me… and even now I still must resist the desire to control God with my performance. This is truly a lie from Satan and sadly many believers in Christ fall for this every day.

Blessings,
iggy

h1

The hypocrisy of the “religionist”

April 13, 2007

The hypocrisy of the “religionist”

The hypocrisy of the “religionist” is rather interesting at times.

Romans 9: 30 – 33

“What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.”
As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

We see that the religionist misses the point… They pursue God on wrong terms… they seek Him by their works, that is not by faith but by works as they seek the law of righteousness for themselves. There is no righteousness apart from Christ Himself and to think we can add to the righteousness that we have through Jesus nullifies the very Grace of God.

Paul warned the Galatians or rather spoke strongly to the Galatians of the “religionists” of that day called the Judaizers. These men were believers in Christ who believed that since God chose Abraham, and then gave the Law to Moses… and then spoke through Jewish prophets of the Messiah to come… being Jesus Who was a Jew… that naturally one would have to convert to Judaism in order to be accepted by Jesus as the Messiah. That is the reason Paul wrote the book of Galatians and it is dramatically played out to the point that Paul even confronts Peter of Peter’s hypocrisy as it was through Peter the gentiles were even realized to be included in this outpouring of God’s Grace…

Paul writes to the Galatians in chapter 3: 1-5

“You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?”

Paul then build on these questions… yet what most seem to miss is this one question. “After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?” Paul is saying that one cannot add to what the Holy Spirit has began by human effort… or works. What has begun by the Spirit is complete and sustained and maintained by the Holy Spirit… if not then it is considered works.

Many religionists will say… “But I trust in the Holy Spirit and I am saved by Grace yet we are told to do good works…” yes we are, yet these are not OUR good works but Gods and Gods alone. We are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling… yet that is where the religionist stops… he seems to not read the rest of the passage (as is the case in Romans chapter 1 that leads into the first sentence of chapter 2, or that they read the whole of Chapter 9 of Romans in its context… only stopping to prove their doctrine that God hates some and loves others… yet missing that in that very passage the ones hated, being the gentiles and considered vessels of wrath by the Jew are actually the vessels of mercy… and Gods grace and mercy are displayed through that!) which leads me to this point.

A religionist places doctrine before Love…

A religionist will be overly concerned with doctrine… that it be perfect. Yet, in expecting that, the do not realize that while doctrine in itself is not BAD, one then has shifted into works as the way they are justified.

Doctrine is not bad… but as in the passage I quoted:

Romans 9: 30 “What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.”

They stumble over Jesus as they try to fulfill their doctrine… in a sad way some religionist have replaced the Law even with doctrines… and in that have fallen from Grace into the Law.

Galatians 5: 4 “You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”
Again, often this is very subtle and is the reason we must go humbly to someone to restore them lest we too fall into a sin similar.
So what are some of the sign of a religionist besides too much emphasis on the Law?

Well a person named Julie (in the comments) over at CRNinfo has set up a few questions which I will dress out further… that are gleaned from the questions that were demanded of Dan Kimball at Teampyro which then seemed to not care to get any answers as they have closed down the comments on that post… These are a type of questioning and not the exact questions asked by Phil Johnson of Dan Kimball.

1. “We need precise answers.”
They demand that a specific definition (theirs) is the standard and in that display no Grace.

2. “It’s a valid question.” They demand that their authority is greater and their question is not to be questioned nor their authority

3. “Answer me.” They demand an answer immediately.

4. “That’s not sufficient. You’ve not answered me well enough.” When given an answer and it does not meet their definition they demand to have more… much like the Pharisees did with Jesus in the Gospels.

5.“I don’t believe the words you are saying correctly cover your true belief.” Even if you tell them they will deny that you believe what you have stated and call you a liar… like the Pharisees telling Jesus that His miracles were of Satan.

6.“Matthew 18 is a cop-out.” They simple deny scripture as they place their doctrine over it and interpret scripture through their doctrinal bent.

7. “I’m only trying to discern.” Which really means we are judging you as to whether you are saved or not while over looking that they too are but sinners saved by Grace?

8. “He hasn’t answered my question and obviously I have the right to an answer.” Victory is declared even if they are wrong… they demonize the other. They take that when one gives up as there is not way to win, they are the winner.

9. “Comments closed.” We really never cared or wanted to listen as our pride does not allow us to.

Notice that none of this is done with humility nor with Love… they want it done their own way. This is the bottom line of the religionist. They have placed God into a religious structure to be able to control Him… they are no better than the Idolaters who used idol to control their gods… in fact they are worse without even realizing it as they in their religious zealousness, have turn Christianity into an idolatress religion that seeks to only control God by their rules and doctrines… that is a dangerous state to be in.

That is why I call for prayer as a religious spirit is one of the hardest to cast out. I know as it took the grace of God to cast it out of me… and even now I still must resist the desire to control God with my performance. This is truly a lie from Satan and sadly many believers in Christ fall for this every day.

Blessings,
iggy

h1

Dishonesty abounds at Pyromaniacs!!!!!

April 8, 2007

Once again the John MacArthur Crew has taken a sentence, wrenched it out of context, created a new context just so that they could slander someone who is associated with the emerging church movement.

To read the slander by Phil Johnson follow this link.

Dan:
Hello, Dan Kimball here….

Someone emailed me to let me know that Phil posted some opinions on what I wrote and believe.

I thought I would clear up some of the things being misunderstood or left out of what I actually wrote on the chapter as being discussed here.

For one, the book “Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches” was not supposed to be an exhaustive list of everything we believe. That would take a whole volume or more. We were given freedom to write whatever we wanted to and expand on anything, but we were specifically asked to make sure we covered some core theological topics such as the atonement, the Scriptures, the Trinity and religious pluralism.

So when you read what I wrote, I tried to focus on those core things – never saying that is all I believe nor limiting it to there to only what is in the Nicene Creed. I said after that, I do tread with humility and prayer and wonder about things that godly people throughout church history have had differences of opinions on. But I specifically made sure I said that I do have doctrinal beliefs beyond the Nicene Creed. For those that have not read the chapter, you should be aware that I also stated other beliefs.

On page 105 I specifically said “It is hard to communicate in one chapter what a church believes and practices theologically. I tried to highlight a few core beliefs and share my heart about the importance of theology.”

On page 94 I said “Please understand, that as I say I left more to mystery, it doesn’t mean I don’t believe you can’t come to solid conclusions about many things in addition to the Nicene Creed. There are many things mentioned that I believe are clear, such as Jesus’ teaching about marriage, the authority of the Bible itself, the role of the Spirit in personal transformation.”

I clearly stated in the chapter I believe in a Triune God (pages 99-100), I believe in the substitionary atonement (pages 100-101), believe in the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures (page 94-97), that all religions do not lead to God (page 101-102), an eternal heaven and hell (page 102).

Phil, you rather sharply and in my opinion very inaccurately wrote about my message in the chapter:”

The message of Kimball’s chapter seems to epitomize the trend: “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7).”

I clearly stated that I have belief in “truth” giving some brief listings of theological positions on very core doctrines in addition to those in the Nicene Creed. I also wrote a section with a header called “We can be bold and confident in what the Scriptures do make clear” (page 99).

I read at your own Shepherd’s Conference the flurry of debate about your end times distinct position that was spoken on. Would all those who hold to core doctrines as I listed for myself, but believe in an amillennial position be seens as 2 Timothy 3:7 kinds of people?

If anyone in your circles and frequenters of this blog has specific questions to clarify anything I believe, or what our church practices, please feel free to go to my blog http://www.dankimball.com and I will be more than happy to respond or to answer questions.

This summer, two students from Masters College visited our church on a Sunday. Afterwards, they said something like “This is nothing like we expected. You preached from the Bible.” They listed other things from Masters College that they were taught all emerging churches were supposed to be like. Some of the descriptions were so incredibly sad and inaccurate and I was glad they got to see and experience first hand that some of the stereotypes and accusations were not all true.

Peace in Jesus – Dan

http://www.dankimball.com
11:46 AM, April 06, 2007

My take on all this:

The constant mode of operation from the critics of the emerging church is very consistent. They take a sentence and then build a straw man argument to make it say the opposite that it really does. It seems that Truth is not that important and that lying is a “righteous thing” if you are attacking someone you believe to be a heretic. The real issue is this. How can anyone justify attacking another brother in the Lord? It seems that Scripture means little to the John MacArthur and Crew crowd as they seem to not care that scripture itself tells us so often to not judge each other and that Jesus alone is to be the Judge over all mankind.

Romans 8: 29-39.

“For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all–how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died–more than that, who was raised to life–is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?

As it is written

“For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

It is sad that JM and crew seem fitting that they should attack Dan Kimball over the weekend we celebrate the Resurrection. For by the resurrection we have been justified by Christ and set free… yet some seem fit to usurp Christ from the Throne and judge others themselves… with slanderous lies…

So once again we find from the JM crowd… that it is “Grace to you” only if you line up behind John MacArthur…

Beware of divisive men!

You can read Bob Hyatts response here.

So it seems the “Truth wars” are officially on… and so far the accusers are ranking a big zero on the truth meter… and owe one huge apology… yet I really think that pride will keep Phil Johnson from being able to see his own arrogant ways.

Blessings,

iggy

Be sure to check out the latest at Watching the watchdawgs for Christ blog… Does Ken need real help?

h1

Dishonesty abounds at Pyromaniacs!!!!!

April 8, 2007

Once again the John MacArthur Crew has taken a sentence, wrenched it out of context, created a new context just so that they could slander someone who is associated with the emerging church movement.

To read the slander by Phil Johnson follow this link.

Dan:
Hello, Dan Kimball here….

Someone emailed me to let me know that Phil posted some opinions on what I wrote and believe.

I thought I would clear up some of the things being misunderstood or left out of what I actually wrote on the chapter as being discussed here.

For one, the book “Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches” was not supposed to be an exhaustive list of everything we believe. That would take a whole volume or more. We were given freedom to write whatever we wanted to and expand on anything, but we were specifically asked to make sure we covered some core theological topics such as the atonement, the Scriptures, the Trinity and religious pluralism.

So when you read what I wrote, I tried to focus on those core things – never saying that is all I believe nor limiting it to there to only what is in the Nicene Creed. I said after that, I do tread with humility and prayer and wonder about things that godly people throughout church history have had differences of opinions on. But I specifically made sure I said that I do have doctrinal beliefs beyond the Nicene Creed. For those that have not read the chapter, you should be aware that I also stated other beliefs.

On page 105 I specifically said “It is hard to communicate in one chapter what a church believes and practices theologically. I tried to highlight a few core beliefs and share my heart about the importance of theology.”

On page 94 I said “Please understand, that as I say I left more to mystery, it doesn’t mean I don’t believe you can’t come to solid conclusions about many things in addition to the Nicene Creed. There are many things mentioned that I believe are clear, such as Jesus’ teaching about marriage, the authority of the Bible itself, the role of the Spirit in personal transformation.”

I clearly stated in the chapter I believe in a Triune God (pages 99-100), I believe in the substitionary atonement (pages 100-101), believe in the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures (page 94-97), that all religions do not lead to God (page 101-102), an eternal heaven and hell (page 102).

Phil, you rather sharply and in my opinion very inaccurately wrote about my message in the chapter:”

The message of Kimball’s chapter seems to epitomize the trend: “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7).”

I clearly stated that I have belief in “truth” giving some brief listings of theological positions on very core doctrines in addition to those in the Nicene Creed. I also wrote a section with a header called “We can be bold and confident in what the Scriptures do make clear” (page 99).

I read at your own Shepherd’s Conference the flurry of debate about your end times distinct position that was spoken on. Would all those who hold to core doctrines as I listed for myself, but believe in an amillennial position be seens as 2 Timothy 3:7 kinds of people?

If anyone in your circles and frequenters of this blog has specific questions to clarify anything I believe, or what our church practices, please feel free to go to my blog http://www.dankimball.com and I will be more than happy to respond or to answer questions.

This summer, two students from Masters College visited our church on a Sunday. Afterwards, they said something like “This is nothing like we expected. You preached from the Bible.” They listed other things from Masters College that they were taught all emerging churches were supposed to be like. Some of the descriptions were so incredibly sad and inaccurate and I was glad they got to see and experience first hand that some of the stereotypes and accusations were not all true.

Peace in Jesus – Dan

http://www.dankimball.com
11:46 AM, April 06, 2007

My take on all this:

The constant mode of operation from the critics of the emerging church is very consistent. They take a sentence and then build a straw man argument to make it say the opposite that it really does. It seems that Truth is not that important and that lying is a “righteous thing” if you are attacking someone you believe to be a heretic. The real issue is this. How can anyone justify attacking another brother in the Lord? It seems that Scripture means little to the John MacArthur and Crew crowd as they seem to not care that scripture itself tells us so often to not judge each other and that Jesus alone is to be the Judge over all mankind.

Romans 8: 29-39.

“For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all–how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died–more than that, who was raised to life–is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?

As it is written

“For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

It is sad that JM and crew seem fitting that they should attack Dan Kimball over the weekend we celebrate the Resurrection. For by the resurrection we have been justified by Christ and set free… yet some seem fit to usurp Christ from the Throne and judge others themselves… with slanderous lies…

So once again we find from the JM crowd… that it is “Grace to you” only if you line up behind John MacArthur…

Beware of divisive men!

You can read Bob Hyatts response here.

So it seems the “Truth wars” are officially on… and so far the accusers are ranking a big zero on the truth meter… and owe one huge apology… yet I really think that pride will keep Phil Johnson from being able to see his own arrogant ways.

Blessings,

iggy

Be sure to check out the latest at Watching the watchdawgs for Christ blog… Does Ken need real help?