He has risen indeed!

I think it would be great to have an old fashioned debate… the problem is that to much has been tossed out there that needs addressing (not really as it is mostly one sides opinion) that I am sure Dan Kimball would stand out great against the ranting of the other…

One thing that gets me… Some Calvinists seem to think that all doctrine started at the Reformation… which is stupid as all doctrine started in the earliest chapters of the Bible… yet even in saying that, Doctrine never hung on a Cross, was buried and then rose again on the Third day…

Some seem to think Paul was a systematic theologian. He was not at all, he was a task theologian… he saw what was needed and then acted upon it. That is where all doctrine should be… where the rubber hits the road and for me Calvinism does not cut it.

Don’t get me wrong Arminius was way off also… as I see all “systematic theologies” miss the huge point that God does not fit into a box… as just when we figure Him out He sends a King, disguised as a servant riding on a donkey into Jerusalem… not the picture of the King/Warrior who would overthrow the Roman in a blood-lust battle to rule over all…

Have a great Resurrection Day!

Blessings,
iggy

Rick – it is good to read your comment tonight. I am encouraged by what you’ve written. We have a Savior who is risen! We may not agree on all things but I do call you brother in the Risen Lord.

The comment threads over there get so stinkin’ long… I took awhile and typed this one out, only to then notice that Dan Kimball himself had carefully (and nicely) responded. I felt like Phil wouldn’t own up to his misrepresentation and that made me all the more mad, but…

Dan said most of what I was going to say, so I’ll let the guys speak for himself.

Anyway, here’s what I was going to post:
Phil- you infer from Dan what he clearly did not mean to imply- and you do him injustice.

He said: “When we move beyond what the Nicene Creed discusses, I feel that it is not as easy to be saying so confidently that we have things all figured out.”

You infer from that: “he thinks any doctrine not settled by the time of the first ecumenical council is not really worth fighting over.”
and
“Everything beyond that, he suggests, is negotiable—or at least he dismisses all differences on such matters as consequences of a person’s genetic predisposition, personality quirks, or whatever.”

What he actually said was “IT IS NOT AS EASY.” You assert someone hearing you say “ever-diminishing” and taking away “non-existent” is misrepresenting you.
I say you quoting Dan saying “It is not as easy” and then acting as though he said “It is impossible” is doing the same exact thing. “It is not as easy to be saying so confidently” does not mean “there is simply no basis for doctrine or assertive beliefs or the Protestant Reformation, not to mention Augustine’s refutation of Pelagius and the Council of Carthage’s condemnation of Pelagianism.”

Why do you act as if it does?

Let’s be clear and let’s be fair- Dan BELIEVES plenty of things. In searching for a sense of humble orthodoxy he is tying to get Christians to major on the majors- all things that coming from anyone not associated with the emerging church many would be applauding.

Please take more care, brother. When you say things like “Everything beyond that, he suggests, is negotiable—or at least he dismisses all differences on such matters as consequences of a person’s genetic predisposition, personality quirks, or whatever” you do damage needlessly to the reputation of a pastor who loves Jesus and preaches the Gospel. I have some other names for that kind of thing, but I’ll let it be…

It’s a simple thing- Dan is (unlike many others) very accesible. Email him. Ask him point blank “I infer from your comment on page 92 that you believe everything is negotiable. Are you, in fact, dismissing all differences on doctrinal matters as consequences of a person’s genetic predisposition or personality quirks?”

How much do you want to bet he’d say “no” and be happy to correct your misapprehensions?

And please don’t blame this on vague communication on his part. You took a clear statement “it is not as easy” and ran with it to places Kimball clearly did not mean to go.

I know this, that is to say I, an emerging church pastor assert this as truth, because you left out this important piece (page 94): “Please understand, [he's looking at you, Phil]… 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 not mentioned in the Nicene Creed that I believe are clear, such as Jesus’ teaching about marriage, the authority of the Bible itself, the role of the Spirit in sanctification, etc…
I believe doctrine is important.”

I’m at a complete loss as to how you could actually read the above words from Kimball’s own hand and then actually say something like: ” Frankly, the message that comes across in that chapter is that he really doesn’t want to be bothered with doctrine.”

In fact, I think you owe Dan an apology.