Dan responds to critics
Dan Kimball responded to the review I linked in the article below. I thought his response was not only beautiful but what we need more of. Thanks Dan, for those of us who hold to orthodoxy but see a new movement of Jesus Christ taking place. Here is his response to the critique.
Hello,
I have been traveling and in church meetings today. But so fascinating that it seems the most vocal critics here haven’t even read the book!
Hi Ken Silva, I would encourage you to please tell the truth that I am not being vague about doctrine, as I even took the time and called you up on the phone a few weeks ago and I specifically walked you through the doctrines I believe and followed that up with an email list to you of the doctrines we teach and hold to - so that you wouldn’t be saying I am vague.
You are indicating I have been vague, and I am not sure what else I can do to not be vague besides walking with you the key doctrines we teach, and following that up with an email listing them as well. For those that are interested, the list of doctrines we teach and believe were posted on a blog entry:
http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2007/04/more_ephesians_.html
I don’t see how that is vague. It doesn’t have the Scriptural references on the list I put in te blog entry, but we do as we teach them.
Also, the original meaning of “fundamentalist” was the one from 1920, not from Torrey. So I am not redefining the term “fundamentalist” as it was originally used - I am sticking with the original meaning of the word.
Eric, yes I hold to the original 5 fundamentals and teach those - but I don’t use the term “inerrency” because like the term “fundamentals” it now means different things to different people and it is a term not used in the Scriptures, so I have no problem not using the term. What I say is that we believe that 100% of the Scriptures are inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16) and that exactly what God wanted in the originals is what was written.
As for the homosexual issue you raised, I state my position in the book andwhat we teach.
I disagree that listening to people in our culture to know how best to communicate to them is wrong. People in different cultures have different values and ways of thinking. To be a missionary, we must understand the ways different cultures think as to what way to present the gospel. The classic example is Paul who when in the synagogue started with the Scriptures, and reasoned with them to prove that Jesus was the Christ. In the synagogue they already trusted and believed the Scriptures were from God, they were already looking for the Messiah - so his approach in the synagogue reflected a specific culture and people. When Paul taught the gospel on Mars Hill, he didn’t start with reasoning from Scripture but instead aknowledged they worship “gods”, quoted a pagan poet they were familiar with, walked back to the creation story and then onward to eventually speak of Jesus and judgment.
So there definetly is reasons for understanding a mindset as to best communicate. The four gospels show that in that Matthew’s gospel specifically is catered to a Jewish audience and included things that would be more of interest to them etc.
Also, in my opinion, if anyone is truly engaged in the lives of those outside the church, you would more naturally understand the need for this as it shows care and respect to take the time to understand their worldview. What I have interestingly been discovering as I start asking them, is that the same slice of Christians who are the types who raise these criticisms, don’t criticize missionaries when they study Buddhism when going to China, or whatever culture they are going into - so that they can be effective missionaries in a different culture and understand their beliefs. But to do the same thing in our American culture, it gets criticized.
All I know is that we had better take serioulsy the fact that the church is losing ground in our culture - an interesting article in USA Today from last week:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-08-06-church-dropouts_N.htm
This is why I know I am in this as a missionary in our community as we are passionate about seeing this change (by God’s Spirit).
I am honored that on this blog there is such interest in the topic and what I wrote. I would encourage those who do raise criticisms to please read the book and not just the title.
Peace in Jesus,
Dan
August 7th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
The church isn’t losing ground primarily because of being irrelevant or falling behind the culture curve, the church is powerless because of prayerlessness, hedonism, greed, and a half hearted commitment to Jesus Christ.
Without a revival we will continue to become more and more irrelevant - except in our own eyes.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
“I am honored that on this blog there is such interest in the topic and what I wrote.”
*Shouting over the Erwinesque boasting*
Dan says to me:
“I would encourage you to please tell the truth that I am not being vague about doctrine, as I even took the time and called you up on the phone a few weeks ago and I specifically walked you through the doctrines I believe and followed that up with an email list to you of the doctrines we teach and hold to - so that you wouldn’t be saying I am vague.”
Well first of all Dan, you specifically asked me not to mention you had called me. So I had not.
The other issue is what we are talking about when we say “vague.” How the fact that whole seeker sensitive new evangelical and emerging church “gospel” itself, which is already an adjustment to this culture fits orthodoxy is vague to me.
How does a deeply rooted semi-pelagian and twisted Arminianism square with the Biblical doctrines of grace and the absolute sovereignty of God? It doesn’t.
As I said before, this church growth movement for the pomo set is already outside orthodoxy. And it is definitely not orthodox, nor is it even “Protestant” to accept the apostate religion of Roman Catholicism as Christian as Dan does.
Also rhe contemplative spirituality of (at least) Lectio Divina practiced in Kimball’s church is also not orthodox. This has never been orthodox Protestant theology but comes instead from apostate monks in the Church of Rome with WAY too much time on their hands.
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.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
WOW-
Classic Silva.
Completely missing Dan’s tongue-in-cheek intention while simultaneously pulling an effortless pot’n'kettle by accusing him of boasting. Beautiful.
And then managing to fit
“semi-pelagian”
“contemplative”
AND
“Dr. Walter Martin”
all into one post.
Skillfully done.
Lost points only on the technicality of not disingenuously including “my mentor” directly before “Dr. Walter Martin.”
9.5!
August 7th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
[…] Dan Kimball responds to The Always Right Rev. Ken Silva. It’s just pathetic realizing that you can call these people up and walk them through your doctrinal statement and they will still slander you. Posted by: Michael Spencer @ 8:56 pm | Trackback | Permalink […]
August 7th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Bob,
As much as I enjoyed your Vin Scully play-by-play, I’m afraid in your great erudition you actually erred. O I know, it’s as rare as a reporter who likes Barry Bonds - but it happened!
I was attempting a bit of tongue in cheek myself. Dan is hardly like Erwin.
And by the way, I hadn’t intended to put “my mentor” there…*he he* You crack me up…
August 7th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Ken,
You are truly amazing.
Really? You had to bring Erwin into this? And this is what you take as boasting?
What’s vague is your use of the English language.
Your response to Dan’s response has nothing to do with being “vague,” but rather with your disagreement with his theology. He has been very clear what he believes, you just disagree. That is NOT being vague. Try speaking to his accusations rather than retreating to your default “Everything Emergent is evil” and “Emergents love Catholics” positions.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
As I machete through the entertaining repartee, let me also add, Bob, that the move toward Roman Catholic practices is another troubling aspect of some of the emergents. To say that the Roman Catholic Church is heretical is like saying the earth is round.
There are some of us who try not to resort to name calling and caustic rhetoric who honestly have questions and concerns.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
“To say that the Roman Catholic Church is heretical is like saying the earth is round.”
Are all practices of the Roman Catholic Church heretical as well?
August 7th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
The RCC teaches salvation by baptism and works. Even after death they teach that others can earn the part of salvation that was lacking. To say nothing of the co-redemtrix role of Mary and the priests forgiving sins. Their heresies are legion.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
So then, are all things that Roman Catholics do (or did) heretical? Does their vast heresy tarnish or destroy all their practices?
August 7th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
I love seeing someone try to back peddle, especially Ken. It’s great that he doesn’t address the issues and cuts straight to the banter about semi-pelagianism, loving the RCC, arminianism, etc., etc., etc.
So let me get this straight, Dan Kimball asked Ken to keep their phone conversation about him private. So, Ken accuses Dan Kimball (after said phone call) of being doctrinally vague. Ken’s rebuttal is simply that Dan asked to keep the conversation private.
Is it just me, or is the “keeping the phone conversation private” thing irrelevant here. Either way, Ken got an earful of specific doctrine from Kimball.
So either one of two things is true here:
1. Ken is telling the truth, Dan Kimball and him had a phone conversation filled with small talk on vague doctrinal issues
2. Ken is actually lying about Kimball being “vague” because he was given all the dirty details on the phone
hmm… which one seems more likely
August 7th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Hi Ken (and others reading),
I specifically sent you a list of doctrines, as well as asked you if you had any question regarding the list. That is why it is confusing, when you say I am vague about doctrine. I am not speaking for others in the emerging world and their beliefs or practices, I am speaking for myself and our church.
I don’t know what I could say more to try and clarify the doctrines we hold to and believe in a public way. Let me know if there is any other way I can communicate doctrines of belief that we practice and teach in our church that isn’t clear here.
This is redundant, but here they are again (what I emailed) - and maybe this will also help those who say emerging church leaders don’t hold to doctrine. Again, this is my personal beliefs and what we hold to in our church. Not sure what else to state, as the list is pretty clear. What doctrines here do you disagree so much with and aren’t clear?
Thank you!
(i am cutting and pasting, so sorry about the formatting)
as I get asked about what are the “core†beliefs that I personally have, here is a list if anyone is ever interested. It isn’t all I believe, but it is a list of what I believe are “core” eternal truths that the Scriptures teach. Ones that if we were reading the Bible in the year 385 or the year 1885 or the year 1985, below are truths which I believe you would conclude no matter what culture or time one lives in. To me, “core” truths are ones that are very important. But by saying that, I am not saying all of the Bible isn’t important. But there are “fundamental” (to use that word in a healthy way) truths that the Scriptures reveal. It is difficult to think of any metaphor to use here, but “core” seems to be the one I can try and explain this with, although the metaphor of using the term “core” as any metaphor has weaknesses. Even writing a “list” like this has weaknesses and doesn’t represent the heart and holistic nature of what following Jesus is about. But for the sake of trying to communicate in imperfect ways, this is the best I can think of at the moment.
An underlying presupposition in this all is that I do believe in the gospel as Paul defined it in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. I am also not writing out Scriptural references on these below, and I just typing them out as I am writing here from just thinking about them as I type this out now - but they are all based out of Scripture. So for those who ask me and to be specific - here are “core” truths I believe and teach:
- The Trinity: that there is one God, eternally existent in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. the Trinity
- that the Bible is inspired (God-breathed) and what God wanted in the Bible is what we have in the original manuscripts and it is an authority and guide for our lives
- the deity of Jesus
- the virgin birth of Jesus
- we are sinners in need of a Savior
- salvation is through Jesus alone
- the substitutionary atonement
- the bodily resurrection
- the future return of Jesus
- there will be judgment and heaven/hell
- the future return of Jesus
- the Spirit regenerates us, indwells us and is our source of power to follow Jesus
- the lifestyle of repentance when we sin, we repent and ask God to help us change
- that God designed a beautiful covenant of marriage for a man and woman
- that a follower of Jesus will be transformed by the Spirit and in our lives the fruit will be seen in our minds, hearts, words, blogs etc. that are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
- that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, pray for our enemies, and care about the oppressed, the poor and those experiencing injustice as God cares about them
- that Jesus said that a sign of being His disciple is if we love one another
In the life of our church these are ones we hold to and practice and which unite us as a local church in unity in terms of key doctrines. As I am putting together our “Church and Mission†class, which is going to be like a membership class – these will be the ones we focus on as uniting all those in leadership at our church.
At the same time I write those, there are also doctrines that I believe we as sin-tainted human beings have trouble fully understanding for certain what is for sure true and are more of a mystery to what God actually meant when the Scriptures were written about certain things. God knows what He meant, but there are godly Spirit-filled scholars and believers throughout history who have come to different conclusions on what I would consider non-core doctrines. Such as:
- whether someone is an amillenialist or a premillenialist or if someone is a pre-trib or post-trib believer of how the end times will specifically play out.
- Whether someone is a 4 point or 5 point Calvinist or an Arminian
- Whether someone baptizes infants or adults
- Whether you hold a literal 6 day creation or a extended time period for creation
August 7th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
hahaha… how will the watch doggies respond to those apples!
August 7th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
I love seeing someone try to back peddle, especially Ken. It’s great that he doesn’t address the issues and cuts straight to the banter about semi-pelagianism, loving the RCC, arminianism, etc., etc., etc.
Well, that’s only cuz I’m being McLarenesque, ever “provocative” and writing to provoke discussion. So feel free to “reinterpret” me the same way you do all your fav emerging boys.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Todd - I appreciate this exchange. No, not all the litergy etc. as practiced by the RCC are inherantly heretical. They are shadows of the law, however, but not heretical. Ingrid’s church for instance practices many RCC caryovers, and she would not consider them heretical.
Dan - thank you for going the extra mile on this thread. Please remember, some of us are sincere in our questions concerning the many streams of emergent thought. I will not label all emergents as heretics, but I remain “spooked”. God bless you for your time here.
Rick
August 7th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
O my dearest Nathan, didn’t Erwin explain it? Don’t you know?
It’s all in the interpretation friend. Anyone can say they believe anything, but as the pomos say it in this emerging culture, it all has to be deconstructed and unpacked.
Jell-o anyone?
August 7th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
So Ken, no response to Dan?
August 7th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Todd,
That’s really really funny. Ken respond? Are you kidding? Did you see the exchange between him and the naked pastor? Although I have to admit Ken, I was a little surprised. You named Rob without linking back to the “ministry” AM. Ponderous.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Ken,
Dan asked, “What doctrines here do you disagree so much with and aren’t clear?”
Please answer Dan’s question! He has been completely honest and open, and communicated clearly and specifically. Please have the courtesy to do the same.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Dan, you seem very mircurial about the doctrine of Cain’s wife.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Ken’s response “reinterpreted”:
“Yeah, he affirms all of the essential biblical doctrines… even the non essential ones, he called me to discuss it, and he is going out of his way on the blogs to show he is orthodox…. BUT, I am the gate keeper of who is and who ISN’T a REAL believer!!! So, we’ll just see about all of that”
oh, how funny it is to see a watch doggie squirm.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Wow.
Sounds like Dan is pretty clear to me.
What’s the problem still?
August 7th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
1. It seems that of all the readership here at crn.info, Dan Kimball is the only one taking the high ground and not succumbing to personal vendetta and petty posting. I almost got a headache reading through these elementary jabs. If ya gotta fight like little kids (as opposed to discussing and debating — referring to Ken as a watch doggie, etc.), go out back or meet at the flagpole at recess.
2. I am encouraged to read what Dan wrote about doctrine — although, I have always felt that he was in a more conservative stream of e/e. I praise God that he affirms the substitutionary atonement, virgin birth, and resurrection.
3. I strongly believe that the literal milennium, believer’s baptism by immersion, and literal, six day creation are evident teachings of the Scripture. It greatly bothers me that Dan doesn’t want to make dogmatic claims about these things.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Wow. If it wasn’t clear how intellectually bankrupt the watchdoggies were before, it is now. No wonder all their diarrhea of the mouth all begins to sound the same after awhile.
Direct answers by Dan, nothing but smarmy non-answers from Ken.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Dave,
By being dogmatic about the literal millenium and six day Creation, you are probably going to be saying that probably 1/3 to 1/2 of Christians are wrong. How are you ever going to prove you’re right on such things anyway? Are they truly worth causing separation in the Body of Christ over?
August 7th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Wow, I went a bit overboard with the “probablies” there. I should be going to bed.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
I was upset that Dan didn’t affirm that Abraham’s nephew was Lot, Deborah was a judge and the doctrine of Paul telling Timothy to drink some wine. gees… aren’t those obvious.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Dan’s answer was pretty thorough, and I’m sure the phone call would have brought greater clarity, as well.
It’s amazing how some people clap their hands over their ears to shut out the truth, all the while screaming “Heretic! Semi-pegalian! Apostate! Rome-lover! Whiner! Nyah, nyah, nyah!”
Which would you rather have as your pastor?
August 7th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
“There are some of us who try not to resort to name calling and caustic rhetoric who honestly have questions and concerns.”
And man, I’d love to have a civil conversation about stuff like that.
Maybe we could have a “No Ken” thread where people who start with a presumption that we’re all brothers and sisters in Christ until proven otherwise and who are willing to give a modicum of respect can talk peacefully about whatever questions or concerns they might have regarding the emerging church?
And on that note-
I really don’t like the “me” that comes out in these exchanges. But I have a hard time turning the other cheek to someone who is waiting for you to do so simply so they can exploit it and get another slap in. I’m not sure that’s what Jesus had in mind.
In other words, I get so frustrated that any attempt to be nice is ridiculed as limp wristed and namby pamby and is used as an opening to score points.
My friend Johnny V has a saying- Law for the proud, grace for the humble. Not to say I don’t struggle with pride, but let’s just say Ken brings out the Law in me and leave it at that….
I’d love to start over with people like Ken.
My fear is they won’t have any of it.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
I have renounce my faith in Jesus Christ and now believe in Ken Silva for my salvation.
May he be eternally praised and glorified forever and ever.
Be sure to by his book, “My reasons that everyone else is wrong but me.” Sold in all Ken Silva books stores. It has one page that has his holy picture on it that we can look in wonder at the truly only perfect human that ever lived and is more righteous than Jesus to be able to knock Him off the Fathers throne… and if you order now you can have his free mp3 called “I was once a self loathing ma-loving semi pelagian relevant emerging rocker in an American Band with a couple of records out and I am here to only glorify God but first want to tell you how much I know from a few Walter Martin tapes that mentored me into the incredible dicerning Ken that I Am (please turn tape over) and now you can be free from all that and be above all others by the Law of Judgment that has been bestowed on me as the pastor/teacher/Reverend/editor that is solely greatest in my own mind and you can be truly saved if you follow my easy Calvinistic/non Calvinistic John MacArthur following/non following teachings that are sure to mention “Man-loving semi pelagians” and connect the emerging church Christ followers to all evils that bestow us now as we live and breath the precious air I granted you all to be able to breath.”
Amen…
On second thought, I think I rather continue to be a Christ follower. And you can keep you Grace negating religion to yourself.
iggy
August 8th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Here is a person who actually knew and was mentored under Walter Martin…
According to Ken, Walter also would be an “man-loving semi pelagian” apostate.
“… as far as Walter Martin goes, I had the privilege of learning under Dr. Martin for about 3 years as he taught at a church near where I lived. I went to his weekly Bible studies and met him several times. I happen to know that Dr. Walter Martin referred to himself as a Cal-Minian. That is, he held to some Calvinist doctrines as well as Arminian ones.” Matt Slick of http://www.carm.org/index.html
Be blessed in the Truth as it will set you free!
iggy
August 8th, 2007 at 5:03 am
I want to openly confess that I do not believce in a literal six day creation. Here are some other doctrines that I do not believe MUST accompany salvation:
Eternal security
The Millenium
Baptism by immersion
Calvinism
Arminianism
And even these:
Scripture innerancy
Trinity
Those last two can lead to some problems but they are not actually necessary. My membership in some clubs will now be taken back. Oh well, my conscience is clear.
August 8th, 2007 at 8:29 am
In everyday life, people are going to disagree. That’s why we’re human. We’re not clones, not meant to think exactly alike on any given topic, religion included. To think otherwise is naive. Paul himself told us that we know in part and prophesy in part, that none of us have it all together. That none of us, being tainted by sin, have even the capacity to understand the complete plan of God. What is even more naive is to think that all Christians should align themselves behind one pastor’s interpretation and personal opinion of Scripture.
If we were all to align ourselves behind Kimball or Silva, if we were to all subscribe to the same interpretation of Scripture, where would the growth be? How would we then work out our own salvation with fear and trembling as Paul wrote in Philippians 2. One man’s interpretation is no better than another’s. Valid arguments can be made for both sides in many points of doctrine.
Just because I disagree with pastor Ken doesn’t mean that I’m going to Hell. If I strive to esteem others better than myself, I have no doubt that I could sit and talk with Ken (in a civil manner) about the things we see differently on. However, I also feel that we would understand the other person’s heart more fully, and leave confident that the other is following the teachings of Christ in the best way he knows how.
I think it’s fair to say the myself, Dan and Ken could admit that we have all had encouragement from being united with Christ, we have had comfort from his love, we have had fellowship with the Spirit, we have been tender and compassionate. When it comes down to it, we all have the same love, the same purpose.
Yet we are all guilty of getting on our internet pulpits and doing things out of selfish ambition and vain conceit. How many of us consider Ken to better than us. How many of us does Ken esteem more than himself? This same comparison of Philippians 2 is a mirror that could be applied to all of us.
I think these are things to remember.
August 8th, 2007 at 8:34 am
“When it comes down to it, we all have the same love, the same purpose. ”
Zach - your sentiments are well spoken. I envy, though, your naiveté. We all need to dialogue with humility.
August 8th, 2007 at 9:34 am
See, that’s where you and Silva disagree.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:40 am
You guys are a HOOT!!
August 8th, 2007 at 10:43 am
people like Ken make it all too easy.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:12 am
@rick, it’s not my naivete that drives me. I’ve been reading Ken, Ingrid, Way Of The Master, Pyro, and others for over a year now. I also read Tall Skinny Kiwi, this site, Kimball and others. The one thing I’ve learned to do (am learning to do) is turn the other cheek.
I know that my efforts may be futile. I do. But that doesn’t change the fact that I alone am responsible for my actions. That I alone will answer to God for everything I said and did. There comes a point when one must realize this and live accordingly.
@tim, if Ken does disagree, so be it. No matter what he says (or doesn’t say), it is my responsibility to live according to the revelations God has shown me in the Bible. I try to show love and forgiveness even when my accusers don’t deserve it. How is it that any of us are so different?
Didn’t Jesus die for us all?
August 8th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Zach - Yes Jesus died for all of us and yes we must love each other. But there are times that the Word calls us to reprove or rebuke with patience and speak the truth in love.
Ken doesn’t just disagree, he verbally assaults with words of scorn and pride. He is a brother, but he communicates in the flesh.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:27 am
I understand that Rick, I do.
But when do we decide to leave the man to his deeds? We bicker and fight like Israelites in the wilderness, like little kids in the school yard. I’ll admit that I’ve read this site and so many times, have wanted to strike the oppressors down with eloquent rhetoric and Biblical truth.
But after reading conversation after conversation, it has become clear to me that fighting back only leads to more strife. I have resolved to leave Ken and Ingrid and Pyro and (all the others) to God. Let God judge between them and us. How long will we debase ourselves for people that refuse to listen? Even Jesus didn’t waste his time on proud Pharisees. Nicodemus humbled himself, but he was an exception, was he not?
I feel like the conversations are not lifting us up. It’s not pleasing to God. Please understand that I’m probably more guilty than all of you. But the time has come for me to forgive. Only God will turn Ken’s heart. And if it is us in the wrong, then God will eventually turn our hearts.
But in the meantime. How do we conduct ourselves?
August 8th, 2007 at 11:30 am
I agree, Zach. One element that you must have seen in my comments is humor. I have long since stopped attempting to change Ken, I mostly spar playfully with some seriousness interjected.
Good thoughts.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Zach,
I stopped taking Ken serious when he gave no real answers and then judge my salvation. In that he can “know” if someone is saved or not having never met then and by judging them in a discussion forum like this… is a mockery of God’s grace.
It is clear to me, that IF these people have actually come to Christ, the doctrine they are under is corrupt and has mislead them to believe that judging, slander, and hating one brother is not a sin… though the scripture condemns and even flatly stated such a person is not saved… “the truth is not in them”… I am then to wonder… are they really brothers and as you stated called to give them over to God. (Note I am not judging Ken, but the but by scripture he seems already judged which is my concern for him and others in that camp).
I think Ken is in bad waters either way… and needs our serious prayer.
Be blessed,
iggy
August 8th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
“I am then to wonder… are they really brothers…”
Precisely the heart of the matter.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
My dad used to tell me that “you can’t choose family.” The same, it seems, applies here.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Ken,
Interestingly I was referring to a couple of scriptures as I wrote that and you are agreeing with…
1 John 3:15
“Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.”
1 John 3:19-21
“We love because he first loved us.
If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.”
I has become painfully obvious which side of this issue you are on…
I think you have missed that the accusations you lay at others feet lay at your own as you are the one that has added works to grace and have denied that Blood of Jesus and He Grace is sufficient to save… you have added your own “man loving, semi pelagian” requirements to the salvation of God and seem blind to it.
I recommend that you go back and study your mentor more, it seems you have lost sight of his first love.
http://www.waltermartin.org/articles.html#witness
My prayers are with you,
iggy
August 8th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Zach,
there is one accuser of the Brethren, and I cannot understand why anyone would want to help him do his work.
Blessings,
iggy
August 8th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Ken,
I see you are still reading and commenting on this thread. Why won’t you answer the question?
Dan asked, “What doctrines here do you disagree so much with and aren’t clear?â€
August 8th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Can I pull back the curtain and give some of you a glimpse into many watchman hearts? It means I will have to confess publicly my sin but here it goes.
Before God humbled me, I used to scour the internet to find any quotes from men like Kimball so I could gleefully nail him on some heresy. And when they would be somewhat unclear about any perceived heresy, I would be disappointed because I was ready to pounce upon him. Can you believe that?
There, the emperor has no clothes. Some times I still feel very bad about how I used to feel. That attitude permeates the discernment blogs and it is an addiction. I used to feel ugly toward Chris L., but now I only feel a little ugly about him (ha).
God has brought me a lond way, some would say toward Christ, others would say…well, you know.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
a glimpse into many apostatizing hearts…
August 8th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Ken,
Perhaps you’d like to be clear on which of the points Kimball addressed in which he is “apostatizing”. Because, you know, your personal distaste for someone isn’t the benchmark for apostasy.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I was under the impression that only God can see the hearts, I guess I stand corrected unless God’s name is Ken.
August 8th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Ken, have you responded to Dan Kimball’s response anywhere aside from CRN.info? I can’t find a response anywhere, and I assume, based on your comments on this post, that you are unable to respond because there is nothing “apostate,” “vague,” or “heretical” about anything Dan has said and you are unwilling to apologize for or, at the least, clarify your previous response to him. Am I wrong? Will you show me how or why I am wrong? Can you, for one comment, lay aside your vitriol and actually respond to what Dan has said?
August 8th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
“a glimpse into many apostatizing hearts… ”
A glimpse into a delusional mind.
August 8th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Is “apostasizing” similar to “jazz-er-sizing”?
I think I may have come up with the next big thing!
August 8th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Rick,
thank so much for that. For the record, I think that you are a very balanced person. I feel sorry for people like Ken, who will never know what it is like to actually communicate WITH people of differing views (not just communicate TO people). I have learned alot from our discussions. Hopefully we both pull each other towards the truth of Christ.
August 8th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
You know what, Nathan. You and Iggy are the most emergent friends I have. I have learned how to love my brothers even while still having some disagreements. Remember, if I get too much heat from my orthodox friends I will have to disavow any knowledge of you(missional impossible).
August 8th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Oh man, I have been mistaken. Until this time I was under the impression that “Ken Silva” was not an actual person in real life. I had thought somebody was playing a really long internet joke on all of us and had created a clever program called, “I dislike everybody that doesn’t think like me, and by ‘me’ I mean God” and it would churn out these posts with Google-sensitive key words that lured people to its (well, “his,” as the evidence is apparently leading) website. This presents quite a conundrum for me…
August 8th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Ken never did respond to the quote I gave from someone who was really mentored by Walter Martin… who state he was a Cal-Minian.
You know one of us “man-loving semi pelagians”, LOL!
I just ordered Walter Martins “Essential Christianity: A handbook of basic Christian doctrines” and will be combing through it very closely to show that Ken is gone way off the path that Walter showed him. It cost me only .08 plus shipping… which was 3.99 LOL!
Be Blessed,
iggy
August 8th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Rick,
You are a friend to me period… in my view, if one has taken the time to “question” and “dig deeper” into their faith… they are emerging. (no offense)
Yet, even if you don’t accept the ‘label” I thank you for your friendship and honesty as you seek Christ and the genuine love for others you have.
Be blessed,
iggy
August 8th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Ken,
I know I sound like a broken record; but I’ve asked twice, and others have asked. Please answer Dan’s question! You destroy any credibility you may have had by dropping condemning comments while ignoring an honest question.
August 8th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
” You destroy any credibility you may have had by dropping condemning comments while ignoring an honest question. ”
Toddfc - That is like a bakery, you must take a number and the wait is long.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
toddfc,
†You destroy any credibility you may have had by dropping condemning comments while ignoring an honest question. â€
LOL!
What credibilty!?!?!
LOL!
blessings,
iggy
August 9th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Phil,
You wrote, “By being dogmatic about the literal millenium and six day Creation, you are probably going to be saying that probably 1/3 to 1/2 of Christians are wrong. How are you ever going to prove you’re right on such things anyway? Are they truly worth causing separation in the Body of Christ over?”
If there are, for instance, two positions on baptism (just concede that for the sake of argument) — one which says that believers should be baptized by immersion (a) and another which says that babies should be baptized to be brought under the covenant (b), then I am “old-school” enough to say that either (a) or (b) are correct. They aren’t both correct. Since God thought the issue was important enough to place into the Bible, I will be dilligent and search the Scriptures to find out what the truth is.
August 9th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Dave,
Please note that I didn’t include baptism in my response to you on purpose. I actually do think that one’s position on that is quite important.
August 9th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Guys - just to give another perspective I would believe in the six day creation before infant baptism. Why? Because the six day thing is unimportant conjecture while the baptism issue has implications.
August 9th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Rick,
That’s kind of my point. I think infant baptism can have negative implications, too. One’s view of the Millenium or how the Creation story happened seems to have little practical implications in real life, at least that I can see.
August 9th, 2007 at 9:35 am
disagreeing with infant baptism? Watch out Clearly, you may be urinating on the blood of the reformers. Luther was a baby baptizer.
August 9th, 2007 at 9:55 am
John Calvin was a baby baptizer as well.
August 9th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Calvin wasn’t much of a friend, either.
August 9th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I have great respect for the reformers and recognize their influence on Baptistic Christianity (of which I am apart), but I see a strong correlation between myself and many of the anabaptist bretheren that were slain by the reformers.
August 9th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Eagerly awaiting Ken’s reply to Dan.
August 9th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
OK, this may be off topic, but a couple of you have been talking about baptism so may I ask…
My wife was born in a Catholic hospital, as that was where her mother’s OB worked. As such, she was baptized at birth. Her family, however, were Anglicans (read, Episcopalian in the U.S.) and she was baptised again as a teenager at her confirmation. In our late 20’s, however, we became born again believers and were both baptized in an Evangelical Baptist church in Toronto.
What are the “implications” (a word used earlier) of her being baptized three times, twice by christening and once by immersion?
August 10th, 2007 at 12:12 am
rwk,
I don’t think that has any implications… you both understood the SYMBOL of baptism and were re-baptized accordingly.
If someone believes that infant baptism is biblical, it becomes more than a symbolic declaration. Obviously a baby has not made a decision for Christ and therefore cannot make a decision to show the world that commitment. Infant baptism implies that the baby is either “blesses” thru baptism, or somehow is connected to God thru it.
August 10th, 2007 at 12:23 am
rwk - the implications we spoke of are most people that believe in infant baptism believe that it is more than symbolic. They either believe it makes the infant a covenant child or even that it washes the infant from original sin.
Baptism is as you apparently have seen is an act of sacred symbolism of the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. It publicly identifies the believer with Christ. It is a sacred and meaningful act of obedience and devotion but it plays no active part in salvation. The same can be said for communion.
Thank you for sharing!
August 10th, 2007 at 1:35 am
[…] Henry (Rick) Frueh on Dan responds to critics […]
August 10th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
[…] I feel incredibly bad for Dan Kimball, who seems to be CRN’s new (and possibly most undeserving) whipping boy. It is amazing that the watch doggies can still say that he is “preaching a “vague and perverted†gospel.â€Â This may be a strong effort to save face from past mishaps, but non the less it seems incredibly unmerited. However, in this latest attack, I am having a hard time following what the author really believes on the subject. First me makes the claim above […]
August 11th, 2007 at 12:51 am
Nathan and Henry: That question has been floating around in the back of my mind for 20 years and tonight you laid it to rest. Thank you - I really appreciate what you’ve said.
August 16th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Wow! Dan has really gone out on a limb! He believes in God? Please…let me entrust my earthly search for knowledge with you!
August 17th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Scott,
It helps if you actually read the post and associated links before you comment here.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
That’s OK, I think I’ll just write what I want.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
More honest than Ken, more succinct than Ingrid.
August 17th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Tim,
Would this be a classic example of “willfully ignorant and spiritually blind?”
August 17th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Such a wonderful Christian discussion. Makes me want to go to church. With folks that look like these guys sound.
August 18th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Awaiting a reply that reflects where you are on your Christian walk. I replied to Dan…you replied to me.
August 18th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
?
August 18th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Regarding earlier comment…I read enough.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
I’m not surprised you’re ” ? “.
It shows.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
I guess I’ve just re-read your comments, and I don’t see a question there to respond to…
If you’re questioning what Dan believes, he even went into more detail in his comment on August 7, 2007, 8:21 pm…
August 18th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Sorry, let me slow down. If you don’t see a question to respond to…don’t respond. Okay…?
August 18th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Compare your responses with Dan’s responses. Dan, why don’t you address your defendersl dialog on this “blog” of which you are all so proud of.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Dan, how many other dialogs are out there like this that you are involved with? Is this your congregation? I apologize for my first comment. What are you doing to control your “BARKING POODLES?
August 18th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
We know where Mr. Kimball and Mr. Silva live and work. I propose if we are not willing to disclose the same, we should remain silent.
August 19th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Well Mr. Baker I live and work in Michigan. I attend Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids. I also attend Seminary where I am pursuing the completion of my M.Div and PHD. I have a wonderful wife who is a beacon of God’s love to the world. I have more than one but less than 6 amazing kids. I have 3 cats, and 1 dog. I own outright a 1999 Dodge Caravan. I still a few thousand $’s to the bank on an f-150 extended cab V8 triton heavy hauler. I also drive a 2003 Kia Optima for work, which is a company car. I enjoy reading (ussually 100 books a year) and writing.
I love Ice Cream and am overweight. I maintain two BLOGS of my own and contribute to a couple of others. I love all music.
I work in the auto remarketing business, for now.
I have been a pastor in three different churches for over 10 years. I have also worked as a Christian School teacher and at a Christian Camp. Along the way I have owned my own business, and worked in the food service industry. I would like to someday teach at the College level and plant another church.
Ok, I’ve got to go to church. Visiting the in-laws today where we will go to a good old 5 point church. Great people.
So Mr. Baker that’s me in a nutshell. How about you? I’m not sure why we’re back on this old thread but here we are, so let’s hear it. I would hate for you to be silent.
August 19th, 2007 at 10:50 am
I appreciate your honesty. I believe you had one entry on this page, which was minimally offensive. Was that sarcasm in your last sentence in your response to me? I will be silent here. I don’t want to get caught up in this dialogue, which I did for a short time. I was just doing some research and was amazed at the tone of the comments. I know Mr. Kimball bemoans the tone of comments he receives.
God bless us all.
August 19th, 2007 at 11:31 am
It was unintentional sarcasm. I meant to delete it before I submitted. Once it was up, I can’t take it down.
August 19th, 2007 at 11:32 am
For the record I’m behind Mr. Kimball. So if he thought I was against him, I feel bad about that and apologize.
August 19th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
I think I’ve posted my personal information in a number of discussions here, so I’m not hiding behind anything. My name is Chris Lyons, and I manage this blog and my personal one. I currely reside in Indianapolis, where I do project management for a large pharmaceutical firm. While I started out at a Christian college, I finished in Chemical Engineering from Purdue, with a registered P.E. license in the state of Indiana.
I am a lifelong member of the Christian churches in the Restoration Movement, currently attending Connection Pointe Christian Church, where I am active in small groups, almost weekly service on keyboards in our modern service, and with the Great Banquet. The church I attend has been around since the early 1800’s, with a current weekly attendance of about 3,600.
Since 1996, I have taken on in-depth study into the Jewish roots of Christianity, including a 3-week study tour in Israel and the 7-churches region of Turkey in 2006.
As for Mr. Kimball, I became acquainted with his church and his writing nearly two years ago, and I have been impressed with his desire to carry the gospel into the world using relevant methods without changing the message of the Bible. I also feel for him, somewhat, since he takes so much flak from a group of Christians which has, over time, lost the discernment to differentiate between what it traditional and what it biblical.
August 19th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
I am not sure the purpose for the request. Paul says, “Wherefore, henceforth know we no man after the flesh”, and again he says, “But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:)”.
My bio is on my blog, but I am not as Spiritual as some think and not as fleshly as others think. I am an unprofitable servant and my education and ecclesiastical geneology is worthless as it pertains to Christ. I ascribe to the orthodox view of Christianity but I have been led by the Spirit to hold others in Spiritual esteem regardless of our differences.
So my pedigree is worthless, I claim only Christ and with Him I am satisfied.
August 19th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
I’m Matt Brown. I’m in my early 30s. I’m single. I’ve been a Christian since six years old. I grew up in the Conservative Baptist Church. I am a member of Grace Chapel, one of the few mega churches in New England. I am heavily involved in the church’s young adult ministry called Fire (I know, goofy name). It is basically an unpaid part time job. I lead a small group, am the leader of the Events Team, and also on the Fire Leadership Squad.
My introduction to the emerging church was Donald Miller, which lead me to Mark Driscoll.
I also like long walks on the beach and horseback riding.
August 19th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Joe, Chris L., and Matt.
Big deal. How can I know anything you say is true?
Just kidding, somewhat.
August 19th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I understand your point Henry, but it seemed like we were being asked for our identities/backgrounds, so rather than quibble and act like we’re hiding something, it seemed reasonable to put it out there…
August 19th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Stop the lies!
August 19th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Ok, I admit it. I’m Pope John Paul II. I’m hanging out tonight with Elvis and Keith Green. Jim Morrison just ran out to pick up a pizza we ordered. When Jimbo comes back, we are going to finish our plans to take over the world with the Muslims.
August 19th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Maybe we should post a bio page.
August 19th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Matt - you are a scream. Humor, from an Englishman no less. I love it!!
August 19th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Henry - I’m from Massachusetts. We call our region New England.
August 20th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Oh, sorry. November 1, 2007 - the opening of the Notre Dame football season. Go Irish.
For four months in the fall I become Catholic, does that make me emergent?
August 20th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Nah, just a miserable guy to be around:)