…their fingers are typing.

This brilliant turn of a biblical phrase sums up the sympathy Dan Kimball expressed for Chris Rosebrough.  Why?  Because Chris had the nerve to spend time with Dan Kimball and as a result declared him a brother in Christ.  Apparently this brought a slew of accusations against Chris Rosebrough on his Facebook wall.   Not being a friend of Chris’s on Facebook, I did not see any of the attacks, but the excerpts make the point.

In response Chris Rosebrough dedicated his show on November 15th to an interview with Dan.  I urge that you follow this link and listen to it: Fighting for the Faith, November 15, Dan Kimball Interview.  I was excited to hear someone we have addressed as an ODM take the time to read Kimball and research his beliefs – and come to the conclusion that Kimball is a Bible-believing Christian who holds to the uniqueness of Christ, the existence of Hell, the authority of Scripture, a denial of universalism… etc.  And even though Chris and Dan disagree on methodology… they look at each other as brothers in Christ.

Of course this does not settle the issue.  As Kimball has said, some still accuse him even after being giving all the nescessary evidence to the contrary.  And although in the interview Kimball affirmed that his theology has always been conservative and that he wished he had made more clear distinctions in the earlier years of the Emerging Church conversation, one site responds to the interview by posting;

Regardless of where he may, or may not, be now it’s simply beyond question that one of those involved with the [Emerging Church], right from very early on, would be Dan Kimball, author of The Emerging Church; no amount of attempts at obfuscation on anyone’s part can obscure that.

‘Tis true – out of the overflow of the heart the fingers type blogs, and the hearts of some still overflow with bile.  But this is not the case for Chris Rosebrough.  I am sure that there will be many things Chris says in the future that will make me cringe… yet at the risk of sounding condescending… I am thrilled and pleased to see Chris take discernment seriously.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Friday, November 19th, 2010 at 8:16 pm and is filed under Blogging, Chris Rosebrough, ODM Writers. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

272 Comments(+Add)

1   Neil    
November 19th, 2010 at 8:21 pm

APPENDIX: i think we can all learn (myself included) a lesson about tone from this as well. hearing and reading the tone dan kimbal has taken when addressing the outlandish and false accusations that have been leveled against him i am convicted. i would not, i have not, been so christlike in the past.

2   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 19th, 2010 at 8:55 pm

” he wished he had made more clear distinctions in the earlier years of the Emerging Church conversation”

I have consistently advocated that. The response has usually been that they do not owe that to anyone.

3   Neil    
November 19th, 2010 at 9:54 pm

that is my interpretative summary of the answer kimball gave when asked if he would have done anything different.

i think what dan meant, in hindsight, they should have defined their terms more succinctly so everyone used them in the same way/

4   Aaron    
November 20th, 2010 at 3:13 am

I’m almost positive that the author of that quote (who I’ll not mention) is completely incapable of actually endorsing someone. Even in their articles, it’s hard to find even Jesus being praised and encouraged.

5   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 20th, 2010 at 3:15 am

Yeah, heaven forbid they would for a moment use language they know would help certain audiences understand them better.

The truth is many emergents absolutely do not believe what Kimball does.

6   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 20th, 2010 at 3:20 am

Another thing Kimball could have done early on was create some sort of distinction among emergents that identified the more “orthodox”. But one of the elements about which the emergents prided themselves was the lack of doctrinal barriers and any uniformity of terms.

7   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 20th, 2010 at 8:53 am

The truth is many emergents absolutely do not believe what Kimball does.

The truth is that many Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc. absolutely do not believe what Kimball does. Just because people go to a church with a certain name or doctrinal statement doesn’t mean they endorse it.

I’ve talked to all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds in churches who have unorthodox beliefs or aren’t completely sold on certain things. They just don’t talk about them because they don’t want to rock the boat. This is the problem when you make Christianity just about dogma.

8   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 20th, 2010 at 11:44 am

#7 – I agree.

9   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 20th, 2010 at 11:53 am

BTW Phil – The Free Church of Scotland has recently allowed musical instruments to accompany hymn singing, and I bet they are “orthodox”. Can you imagine such nonsense?

10   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 20th, 2010 at 12:24 pm

I will never understand, though, how a person can strongly believe that baptism saves, and endorse the salvation and theology of someone who does not believe that. How can you say someone is a “Bible believing Christian” when he rejects the Biblical mode of salvation as you see it?

I remain confused.

11   Paula    http://www.purposedrivel.com
November 20th, 2010 at 11:32 pm

“Not being a friend of Chris’s on Facebook, I did not see any of the attacks, but the excerpts make the point.”

No, they don’t.

see the top post on my blog for more of the comments in context.
http://www.purposedrivel.com/2010/11/chris-rosebrough-needs-intervention.html

12   Neil    
November 21st, 2010 at 12:24 am

paula, what i saw on your facebook pdf’s was someone declaring dan was not a christian… another lamenting he called unbelievers his friends… another saying he promoted lectio divina and should repent.

now we see what chris rosebrough dealt with on behalf of our brother in christ – dan kimball. thank you for filling in the gaps that i could not.

13   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 21st, 2010 at 8:02 am

Real, authentic, and New Testament Christianity is no longer practiced in America. We have lost our way but do not even realize it.

Fights, doctrinal idolatry, doctrinal departures, self aggrandizement, careless living, judgmentalism, inclusiveness, boredom, worship of new, innovation, preacher idols, and much, much more defines what purports to follow Jesus today.

The church as a whole settles for crumbs. Never before in history has the church been able to make such inroads, such media permeations, such colossal seminars, such a library of books and CDs, so many local churches, such organized discipleship programs, such evangelism efforts, all of these with such pitiful effect.

Don’t worry, though, nothing is wrong. Be positive and look around. This is exactly what God intended to reflect Him. The early church? If they only knew what we do, they might have made an impact.

(The ODM squabbles are entertaining to my flesh. :cool: )

14   neil    
November 21st, 2010 at 8:16 am

On the one hand I agree,.Rick. The church has little cultural influence. I this is mostly due to the hypocrasy of the religious right… among other things.

But I cannot agree that we have lost the way of Jesus. Some have, to be sure… some in the direction of the sadducees, others in the direction of the pharisees… while many many… particularly the young, are breathing new life into the bride of christ.

15   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 21st, 2010 at 9:01 am

Neil – I visited Paula’s site and clicked on the chat with Chris. How do you sign in so you can comment on that thread?

16   neil    
November 21st, 2010 at 9:13 am

I don’t know. I only read the pdf’s that showed the comments Chris endured… it is sad really… that he took such flack his (well researched) conclusions.

You’d think a guy like Kinball affirming a common bond in Christbwould be celebtated.

17   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 21st, 2010 at 9:16 am

I have no doubt that Kimball is “orthodox” in his personal theology. My question would be how he feels about emergents like McLaren and Paggit. If you are “orthodox” with your own theology, but you have no problem with “unorthodox” theology, that seems to dilute your conviction about your own theology.

18   Neil    
November 21st, 2010 at 10:25 am

You are right Rick, reading both the theological statements on his vintage church website, and the fact that he upholds the Lausanne Statement of Faith – there is no doubt he is a brother in Christ in every sense. to proclaim otherwise is to ignore the facts.

19   Neil    
November 21st, 2010 at 10:28 am

My question would be how he feels about emergents like McLaren and Paggit.

if you listen to the interview it is clear that he wishes things had been clearer and better defined from the beginning of the emergent conversation. he does not name names, and i respect that, but it is obvious he disagrees with the extent to which some have taken their theology. that he maintains a relationship with them does not dilute the very clear statements he makes about his own beliefs.

also, if you read “Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: five Perspectives” – the differences between him and Paggit become clear – absolutely and undeniable clear.

i do not understand why so many (not speaking of you rick) refuse to acknowledge this fact, when all they need do is read what he has written.

20   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 21st, 2010 at 10:46 am

Rosebrough better be careful, he might be excommunicated like Steve Camp! :cool:

21   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 21st, 2010 at 10:56 am

The blogosphere has in some corners taken upon itself such a hollow sense of significance that is almost comical. Like a discernment soap opera, complete with twitter reviews, gotcha pictures, and verbiage that comes up short on the vicious-o-meter, it provides much entertainment. And with the overwhelming theology being complimentarian, it is also amusing to notice how many women are voices of authority.

Very amusing. :)

22   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 21st, 2010 at 11:27 am

BTW Neil – I noticed and appreciated the ‘Tis true at the beginning of your last paragraph. It warmed my heart. :)

23   Jerry    http://www.jerryhillyer.com
November 21st, 2010 at 12:40 pm

Kum Ba Yah…

24   Neil    
November 21st, 2010 at 5:32 pm

Rosebrough better be careful, he might be excommunicated like Steve Camp! :cool:

it appears that is a chance he’s willing to take – score one for doing research and drawing obvious conclusions!

25   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:02 pm

Unless Kimball repents publicly, that is, recants his beliefs in ’spiritual disciplines’ like labrinyth, lectio divina, contemplative prayer, and then also repudiates his teaching and the false teachers of emergent movement like Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, etc. I will continue to question if the testimony is true. Lausanne is ecumenical and false. This does not convince me, Kimball looks like a wolf in sheeps clothing.

26   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:04 pm

The voice of Christian grace speaks. Repent of the sins I believe you might possibly maybe have made that I have created as my own standard – otherwise you’re a damn heretic forever until you’ve met my satisfaction.

27   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:26 pm

I love the fissures in the ODM fortress of doctrinal purity. One constant reamins, none of them need to repent and bring their hearts and lives into compliance with what the New Testament. The statement of faith:

Aggressively defend the Trinity, inerrancy, 24-hour creation day, election, hell, the law of Moses, and all the usual suspects.

But grace, love, humility, mercy, patience, and all those? God’s sovereignty will take care of those. :cool:

28   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:28 pm

#26 Amen!
So what if the world sees us as bickering amongst ourselves like stray dogs over a scrap of meat. I’m right! (tongue planted firmly in cheek…we need a smiley for that)

“The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.”
(John 17:22-23 ESV)
“By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
(John 13:35 ESV)

Jesus, that ecumenical compromiser!

29   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:28 pm

#26 no where did I damn anyone. I question the testimony as I do Rick Warren and Ted Haggard until I see fruit; that is Biblical 1 Cor 5 to judge fruit and refuse to even eat with such a one. NOTE I did not call Chris R. a non believer, nor did I call Kimball a heretic.

30   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:29 pm

#28 I am not one with non-Christians. I am not called to unity in lies, we are called to unity in the TRUTH.

31   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:33 pm

PB – Are you saying that anyone who rubs shoulders with emergents is a wolf in sheeps clothing? Please provide me with an unabridged list of wolves and sheep. It sure would save me a lot of time! :lol:

BTW – To question the salvation of Rick Warren is ludicrous and just reveals a level of hatred masked in “discernment”. I disagree strongly with Warren, but he surely is a brother in Christ.

32   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:35 pm

I have the privilege of meeting monthly with a group of pastors in my home town who are very diverse in their fringe doctrinal interpretations. We have Presbyterians, Charismatics, Baptists, Mennonites, AME, Calvary Chapel, non-denominational, and others that I’m probably forgetting. But all of us have one burning desire: that every man, woman and child within our borough would have repeated opportunities to hear and respond to the gospel. Period. And so we are working together to make sure that happens.

If I refuse to partner with anyone who does not look or think exactly like me, I am causing a division which our Lord prayed against.

33   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:36 pm

I am not one with non-Christians. I am not called to unity in lies, we are called to unity in the TRUTH.

John, who is the non-Christian in this conversation?

34   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:37 pm

#32 – I agree. As long as someone espouses Jesus as the only Savior and the exclusive way to eternal life, I can pretty much digest anything – including blogs. :cool:

35   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:41 pm

that is Biblical 1 Cor 5 to judge fruit and refuse to even eat with such a one.

I’m not really sure how you equate dealing with a church member who’s living in sexual immorality with dealing with someone who has different theological views than you. There’s a lot of people I would have all sorts of theological disagreements on, but refusing to eat with them because of that? Come on…

36   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:42 pm

I’ll eat with Bin Laden if he picks up the tab.

37   Neil    
November 22nd, 2010 at 1:56 pm

pastorboy, nathanael asked a question that i too would like to see the answer to: “just who in this conversation do you say is not a believer?”

38   Neil    
November 22nd, 2010 at 1:57 pm

Lausanne is ecumenical and false.

put up or shut up – show me where the lusanne statement of faith is false!

http://www.lausanne.org/covenant

39   Neil    
November 22nd, 2010 at 2:03 pm

Unless Kimball repents publicly, that is, recants his beliefs in ’spiritual disciplines’ like labrinyth, lectio divina, contemplative prayer…

listen to the interview and then YOU can repent of these false accusations…

and then also repudiates his teaching and the false teachers of emergent movement like Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, etc….

then read Listening to the Beliefs of the Emerging Church and you can repent of this as well… it’s not that hard to see the difference.

40   Neil    
November 22nd, 2010 at 2:20 pm

someone makes clear definitive statements about their faith – and they are questioned.

prove it – the sheep inspector says …even though jesus said “believe and you will be saved” it is not enough for us…

they live a life of service to the church and the lord – and their fruit is rejected.

this fruit is not gathered as we would do it, the fruit inspector writes, we cannot object on biblical grounds, but you are too much like them and not enough like us…

they speak out and write to clarify their beliefs – and these are ignored… facts are only confusing.

false accusation run rampant, ridiculous claims are made, rumors are spread – these are believed and spread… where there is smoke there must be fire.

a man with a skeptical mind and an open heart investigates the matter and comes to an informed decision – it is ignored and attacked.

your conclusions are wrong and we will not have them
- bark the watchdogs. he must repent – publicly – of the sins we say he has committed – and then… if we think the repentance sincere enough – we may allow faith.

and the lies continue to be spread.

i am saddened. i believe the spirit of grieved. and the body is hurt.

41   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
November 22nd, 2010 at 2:23 pm

i believe the spirit of grieved. and the body is hurt.

and the lost are justified in their criticism of the church.

42   Neil    
November 22nd, 2010 at 2:37 pm

the most frustrating thing to me is the inability to have a real conversation with pastorboy.

his very first comment questions kimballs faith… based on accusations that are addressed in the interview.

he then makes a denial that the lausanne statement is true (based not on content but on gba).

it is frustrating to be denied serious interaction.

43   Dave Mosher    http://davemosher.wordpress.com/
November 22nd, 2010 at 2:40 pm

I take a stand with Paula, preacherboy, and all the other so-called “judgmental, vicious” discernment ministries. Would you say Jesus, John the Baptist, Paul, etc. were judgmental and vicious for condemning false teachers? And BTW, a word for Dan Kimball: take a stand one way or the other – you can’t have it both ways. See Rev. 3:15-16, KJV: I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

44   Jerry    http://www.jerryhillyer.com
November 22nd, 2010 at 3:18 pm

WOW. What a day at PPP!!!

45   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:05 pm

I take a stand with Paula, preacherboy, and all the other so-called “judgmental, vicious” discernment ministries.

Photobucket

46   Christian P    http://www.churchvoices.com
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:32 pm

47   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:36 pm

#43.
Um, might I suggest a simple logic course?

This is real money quote from your blog

Logically, the fact that we are even debating Dan Kimball’s evangelical orthodoxy is proof enough to me that his orthodoxy is nonexistent

.
Um, that’s actually not logical at all. Then in another post, you are at least honest. This is about anger, and that’s about it.
When you say,

To start off this blog, I must say I am FURIOUS with Dan Kimball

you show your hand.

Ingrid in another post slams Dan for having to go back and rewrite something. Really? How many posts has Ingrid written that have disappeared? I certainly remember her “burden of sex” comment where she said I lied about her until I showed the screen shot. Then it changed and I was told to take my comments about it down.
Go take a stand for Jesus. Standing against Dan Kimball is just a nice way to run a “Christianized” tabloid.

48   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:59 pm

I will publicly say that this site, regardless of my many squabbles, always posts comments with which they disagree. Ingrid and the rest do not. That is called either cowardice or censorship or both.

49   Neil    
November 22nd, 2010 at 6:08 pm

RE 43,

The blog starts off by defending Dan Kimball as being an “orthodox” Emerging evangelical. Hmm, interesting. Note that the blogsite is from an Emerging church admirer. That in itself speaks volumes – of course you’re going to defend someone that believes the same evasive, amorphous, wishy washy, non-doctrinal-statement brand of so-called Christianity that you believe.

your claims are false. first, the op does not start by defending kimball as an evangelical. he is one. his words and life make it clear. no defense was nescessary.

your accusations against kimball are also false. he has been very very clear (not evasive), he has not waivered (not amorphous or wishy-washy) and he is very doctrinal (not non-non-doctrinal-statement).

as i pointed out previously dan kimball affirms the lausanne covenant of faith (which is thoroughly evangelical and biblically sound. he affirms the nicene creed. and the theological statement of vintage church is thoroughly sound, clear, and firm.

50   Neil    
November 22nd, 2010 at 6:14 pm

Would you say Jesus, John the Baptist, Paul, etc. were judgmental and vicious for condemning false teachers?

at times they were – but neither you, nor pastorboy, nor paula have given any evidence that this is true of dan kimball.

51   Neil    
November 22nd, 2010 at 6:31 pm

ok – i just reread the lausanne covenant of faith, the nicene creed and the core beliefs of vintage church.

what therein is false?

52   Jerry    http://www.jerryhillyer.com
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:20 am

This is a terribly depressing conversation. Except for that squirrel thing and the Homer facepalm. That’s funny, I don’t care who thou art. The rest of this is drivel.

Hey, if we are lucky, and let people like John and Dave keep setting all the rules for who is in and who is not, soon none of us will be in.

I thought we gave up this kind of stuff around here.

53   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:39 am

Which creed is necessary for passing through the pearly gates, and how was a sinner saved before those creeds?

54   Jerry    http://www.jerryhillyer.com
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:45 am

The ‘Rick Frueh Creed’.

Never fails. :-)

55   Neil    
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:59 am

rick, i agree. creeds only help define things so we all know how we are using common terms.

56   Neil    
November 23rd, 2010 at 11:32 am

no truer statement has ever been made by an odm than this exchange:

DAN: > If you ever have direct questions about my beliefs, my writings, what we teach in our church – always feel free to ask me questions.

OBJECTOR: That’s not how it works either Dan. Either you plainly confess Christ before all, or you don’t

dan kimbal could not make his confession of christ any plainer. he has made multiple statements about his faith and belief and even offers to clarify if necessary – and he is told: that is not how it works.

the objector is right – that is not how it works… clear statements are rejected in favor of guilt by association, rumors, etc…

57   Neil    
November 23rd, 2010 at 11:40 am

pastorboy,

my apologies for telling you to put up or shut up – i responded in anger and should not have done that.

still hoping you will clarify who among us in not a christian – as nathanael asked.

still hoping you will clarify how the lausanne statement of faith is false.

58   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
November 23rd, 2010 at 11:41 am

What I find interesting is that when the accusers are presented with facts, and then asked a direct question regarding said facts, the silence is deafening.

59   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
November 23rd, 2010 at 11:47 am

And what is even more interesting is that they will return tomorrow or next week on another thread with the same bogus claims that have been clearly refuted on this thread.

60   Neil    
November 23rd, 2010 at 11:54 am

i think any real discussion is futile with some of them…

in one objection dan’s meeting with chris was compared to nicodemus coming to jesus by night. as if meeting one-on-one was somehow wrong.

this is the first time i have seen nicodemus’ sincere interest in jesus used negatively.

it is kinda telling, by doing this – the objector plays the role of the other pharisees – i am sure they would have condemned nicodemus’ meeting with jesus as well.

61   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:05 pm

I just find it funny that modern-day Pharisees use the same sort of tactics to try and trap their ideological opponents that the Pharisees in Jesus’ day used to try and trap Him. From my perspective, Kimball owes nothing to any of them, and he’s a lot kinder than I would ever be.

I know the type of people who write these blogs. They won’t be happy until there is blood, metaphorically speaking. Until the person they are writing about is destroyed, they will keep on attacking. I have very little sympathy for them.

The fact that they call what they do “discernment” is simply a joke. Most of them couldn’t discern their way out of a wet paper bag. It’s like a mafia thug saying he’s into conflict management…

62   Jerry    http://www.jerryhillyer.com
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:05 pm

Yes, but if I recall correctly Nicodemus was one of two who actually hung around the cross long enough to bury Jesus when it was all said and done.

Besides, midnight, clandestine meetings are fun.

63   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:12 pm

I’m glad he’s on vacation. When he returns, if he even has the time to go back to that blog, I think he’ll get a little chuckle over the demands that were leveled at him after he said he’d be gone for 3 weeks.

64   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:25 pm

” If you ever have direct questions about my beliefs, my writings, what we teach in our church – always feel free to ask me questions.”

What more could you ask? Don’t cha just hate it when someone who you are about to eviscerate throws a monkey wrench into your plans! It was certainly uncooperative by Kimball to openly and clearly ask any and all questions.

He must have some hidden agenda! :cool:

Rule of thumb:

Professing Christ is completely doctrinal and must navigate successfully through the treacherous “Straits of Calvin”. :lol:

65   Neil    
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:35 pm

Kimball owes nothing to any of them, and he’s a lot kinder than I would ever be.

that’s for sure… i have been amazed how calm and mature and respectful he has been… more than i can say of me at times.

and yet, through all the accusations and objections no one has given any belief of his that is false.

every accusation against him is either wrong methods or wrong association.

i do not want to call anyone a pharisee… but the parallel is stunning… particularly when the main objections (e.g. “he eats with false teachers and calls them friends”) is so close to the biblical record.

66   Neil    
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:38 pm

i posted one response comment showing how dan is not the evasive, amorphous, wishy washy, non-doctrinal-statement brand of so-called Christianity that they believe he is.

i’m not sure if the site censors out contrary opinions or not.

67   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:53 pm

I do believe that we should correct in love those that teach things contrary to Biblical teaching, especially as it pertains to redemption. However that does not mean you are not saved if you associate with some people like that.

Is Ken not saved because he associates with Chris R. who believes in baptismal regeneration? And does Ken offer correction to him? My point being consistency.

68   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:10 pm

I love how Chris Rosebrough went from a CRN contributor to a “radio host.”

69   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:11 pm

I may actually listen to his show on whole thing.

70   Neil    
November 23rd, 2010 at 2:28 pm

I do believe that we should correct in love those that teach things contrary to Biblical teaching, especially as it pertains to redemption.

we all agree on this, and have done so in the past…

what is amazing is the lack of investigation. in his post against me dave mosher said:

Hmm, interesting. Note that the blogsite is from an Emerging church admirer. That in itself speaks volumes – of course you’re going to defend someone that believes the same evasive, amorphous, wishy washy, non-doctrinal-statement brand of so-called Christianity that you believe.

dave has no idea what i believe, nor whether i have been wishy-washy or evasive about it. he has no idea what my doctrinal position (or lack thereof) may be.

yet, instead of asking, or trying to find out… he just declares me thus.

i’ll offer to answer any questions about my beliefs that dave mosher has – but i suspect it will not change anything cause (in their words) that is not how it works. it’s ironic in a world that claims to defend right belief – what a person actually believes does not matter.

71   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 23rd, 2010 at 2:44 pm

#38

#1

Yet those who reject Christ repudiate the joy of salvation and condemn themselves to eternal separation from God.

That is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that all people are condemned, children of wrath, dead in their sins. They are condemned, they sin because they are sinners. They spend eternity in a place called at Hell; condemned to an eternity of under the continual wrath of God. Separation is nothing compared to that…

72   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
November 23rd, 2010 at 2:46 pm

“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion” (Proverbs 18:2 ESV).

I’ve been guilty of this and probably will be again.
Lord help us!

73   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 23rd, 2010 at 2:48 pm

#50
Dan Kimbal still has not repuditaed his emergent roots. He is slippery and slimy like Rick Warren at desiring God 2010

74   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
November 23rd, 2010 at 2:51 pm

John, before we address this quote (which I’m not sure the source) please answer the question that was first stated in comment 33, and then repeated in comments 37 and 57.

Thanks

75   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:00 pm

What are the non-negotiables between the parameters of “orthodox”? In other words, what truths must be belueved to be orthodox, and what beliefs disqualify you from being seen as orthodox.

76   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:07 pm

What are the non-negotiables between the parameters of “orthodox”? In other words, what truths must be belueved to be orthodox, and what beliefs disqualify you from being seen as orthodox.

John says “Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness.”, so judging by the words that some people have spoken against their brothers and sisters in Christ, I question what good their supposed orthodoxy is.

77   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:15 pm

#76 Who says they are brothers and sisters in Christ?

A. By their fruit ye shall know them.

78   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:17 pm

John, in comment #30, you said, “I am not one with non-Christians. I am not called to unity in lies, we are called to unity in the TRUTH.”

Who is the non-Christian in this conversation?

79   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:20 pm

#76 Who says they are brothers and sisters in Christ?

A. By their fruit ye shall know them.

If the fruit in this situation is the way people are treated on various blogs, I’d go with Kimball’s fruit… jus’ sayin’…

Reading some “discernment” sites is like being around an open sewer. I feel like I need to clear my browser cache afterward just to get the crap out…

80   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:22 pm

#57 Problem: I have just now been able to sit up after 14 plus hours of vomiting and diarhea. I will be in and out.

81   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:25 pm

#78
I do not know, and neither do you. However, Kimball has not repudiated his association with non-Christians (by their heresy ye will know them) like Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, and Doug Pagitt. Problem is, their heterodoxy, their universalism. Giving lip service to a Covenant like Lausanne or Creeds like Nicene does not make one a Christian, any more than Rupert Murdoch saying that Rick Warren is his Pastor makes him a Christian.

82   Neil    
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:07 pm

Kimball has not repudiated his association with non-Christians (by their heresy ye will know them) like Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, and Doug Pagitt.

repudiation of who he associates with IS NOT a test for salvation.

besides, he addressed that in the interview with chris – please listen to it.
he also repudiated pagitt in the book i have mentioned – numerous times. if you read it you would be aware of the differences.

83   Neil    
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Yet those who reject Christ repudiate the joy of salvation and condemn themselves to eternal separation from God. – lausanne

That is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that all people are condemned, children of wrath, dead in their sins. They are condemned, they sin because they are sinners. They spend eternity in a place called at Hell; condemned to an eternity of under the continual wrath of God. Separation is nothing compared to that… pastorboy

you ignored the following from the covenant:

All men and women are perishing because of sin,

so your arguments is voided b/c the covenant agrees with you. further, nothing you said after that is contradicted by the covenant. so, as of yet, you have not said how the covenant is false.

84   Neil    
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:26 pm

the bottom line is that it does not matter to them what dan kimball believes.

their insistence that he is false in light of their inability to show any heresy in his teaching proves as much.

85   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:27 pm

John, you cannot, in one breath, in a conversation about Dan Kimball, say you will not be unified with non-Christians, then in the next breath say neither you nor I know who the non-Christians are, and then in the next breath condemn them.

Either say they’re not believers, like you insinuated in the first place, and deal with the fall-out. Or truly say that neither you nor I know the state of their heart, and exercise a little Christian charity.

In Jesus’ parable about the wheat and the tares, the landowner told the zealous servants not to try to remove the tares from the wheat. That’s not our job. It will be sorted out.

86   Neil    
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:40 pm

…and speaking of fruit. what bad fruit has dan kimball bore?

…and speaking of fruit. i would say the fruit dan has exhibited in the face of these false accusations is much better than the fruit of the false accusations themselves.

again – from the overflow of the heart the fingers type…

87   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:46 pm

I cannot be unified with someone who has diareah and is vomiting. Yuck!

88   Neil    
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:49 pm

I have just now been able to sit up after 14 plus hours of vomiting and diarhea.

bummer – hope you’re recovering.

89   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:55 pm

I cannot be unified with someone who has diareah and is vomiting. Yuck!

I literally laughed out loud when I read this… perhaps the best line ever.

“You know Lloyd, just when I think you couldn’t possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this… and totally redeem yourself!”

90   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:37 pm

Hopefully you’ll feel better by Thursday…just in time to gain back the pounds you just lost. :)

Rick, can we celebrate Thanksgiving?
;)

91   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:18 pm

Its going on 18 hours now…..

92   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:21 pm

I eat a traditional thanksgiving day meal – turkey is my all time favorite meal. However, I do not celebrate it as Thanksgiving, I just compromise and convince myself I’m not. :cool:

93   Neil    
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:45 pm

Its going on 18 hours now…..

only six to go if it’s a 24 hour bug…

94   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:49 pm

If you are really orthodox your bug will last exactly 24 hours. Anything more is evolutionary.

95   Neil    
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:50 pm

up to this point no one, on any site i have seen, has shown anything that kimball teaches or believes that is false.

he has been falsely accused by david.
he has been given extrabiblical mandates by pastorboy.
his clear and faithful statements of faith have been ignored and dismissed by both.

ingrid has mocked him for meeting with chris rosebrough.

and all have played the role of pharisee by denouncing who he eats with…

yet the fact remains – no one can provide any evidence of his infidelity to scripture…

…even in this (false accusations lacking evidence) they parrot the accusers of our lord.

96   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:29 pm

A 2005 Lausanne Committee report titled “The New People Next Door” states that they hope to bring together “younger emerging leaders” from around the world and that “[t]ransformation was a theme,” adding: “We pray for peace and reconciliation and God’s guidance in how to bring about peace through our work of evangelization.”(2 This 64-page report by Lausanne claims it is “heavily drawn” from the book, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity by Philip Jenkins (p. 57), a book strongly pro-ecumenical and pro-Roman Catholic. Jenkins is also author of The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice.

97   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:30 pm

From Lighthouse Trails

Leighton Ford, Honorary Life Chairman for Lausanne, is also helping to bring about the goals of Lausanne. Ford came out of the contemplative closet with his recent book, The Attentive Life: Discerning God’s Presence in All Things. The book offers a collection of quotes by and references to some of the most prolific eastern-style meditation teachers, including Thomas Keating, David Steindl-Rast, Gerald May, Kathleen Norris, and atonement rejector and Episcopal priest Alan Jones (Reimagining Christianity). It is Steindl-Rast who suggested that the Gospel “gets in the way” between Christian and Buddhist dialogue (see A Time of Departing.

The fact that Lausanne is working with two highly influential contemplative proponents, Ford and Warren, reveals the organization’s affinity toward mysticism, an affinity which is shared by the emerging church, including Kimball and McManus.

98   Neil    
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:40 pm

again – nothing to back up the claim that the covenant is false… just more rhetoric designed to evade the real issue.

by declaring such an orthodox/evangelical document as “false” you have painted yourself into a terrible corner.

99   Neil    
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:41 pm

up to this point no one, on any site i have seen, has shown anything that kimball teaches or believes that is false.

i should amend this to clarify that i reference foundational doctrines and the like – i certainly would not say he never gets anything wrong.

100   Aaron    
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:12 pm

Has Pastorboy ever gone to school his theological training? I don’t see how someone with his logic and reasoning could graduate…

101   Neil    
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:33 pm

aaron – pastorboy is a pastor of a church within the CM&A denomination. as such i am sure he has at least an m.div. anyone attaining such an education should not be regarded as unintelligent.

i know his stubbornness can be frustrating, but i do not believe this is based on a lack of intelligence or reasoning ability.

the fact that he is intelligent and can reason makes it even more mind-boggling when he paints himself into a corner as he has done.

at this point i do not know why he continues to evade direct questions and argue such obviously false premises.

102   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:38 pm

If #96 and #97 contain some accurate information, then there are some serious problems. And if you cannot see that then the mind boggling runs both ways.

103   Neil    
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:49 pm

re 96 – the lausanne occasional paper LOP #55 is 62 pages long and begins with disclaimer:

In encouraging the publication and study of the Occasional Papers, the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization does not necessarily endorse every viewpoint expressed in these papers.

this was, of course, omitted. the bit that was quoted contained no context…and besides… what from that quote is troublesome?

104   Neil    
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:59 pm

#97 – seriously? lighthouse trails condemns anyone and everyone who uses the words contemplation or spiritual development or any of their cognates – in any way.

they even list all the schools who have courses with those words in the title – regardless of content.

it does matter what is being taught or promoted – if they use those words they are evil.

but even in that copy and paste job pastorboy offers there is no meat. no quotes are offered – just the accusation that they exist… and are, or course, damnable (just trust us!).

so, because one of the honorary chairs of lausanne is ford, and he supposedly thinks contemplating on god;s word is a good idea – we should reject the covenant.

again i ask – what in the covenant is outside the teaching of christianity and the bible?

105   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 23rd, 2010 at 9:01 pm

I read the covenant and I found it solid.

106   Neil    
November 23rd, 2010 at 9:06 pm

96 & 97 are nothing but diversions. they are offered to throw us off the fact that pastorboy said the lausanne covenant of faith was false.

he said this in haste, i suspect, because he wishes to discredit kimball.

yet, to this point, he has not shown anything in the covenant that is contrary to the basis of our faith… nor has he addressed the clear statements on the vintage church website.

he has not, because he cannot – they are both thoroughly evangelical in every sense of the term.

it may be that his recent sickness is affecting his thinking – i know that happens to me sometimes when i am sick.

107   Neil    
November 23rd, 2010 at 9:07 pm

I read the covenant and I found it solid.

and i am not even saying i agree with everything in it. but it is certainly spot on when it comes to the fundamentals of the faith.

108   Neil    
November 23rd, 2010 at 9:31 pm

Here is the context from which the copy and paste of #96 was lifted. i have emboldened the parts pastorboy quoted (though i suspect he is not quoting the LOP as an original source) – neil

LOP #55 Introductory Comments Pages 1 & 2:

The Lausanne International Committee believed it was led by the Holy Spirit to hold another conference which would bring together Christian leaders from around the world. This time the Committee planned to have younger emerging leaders involved
and sought funds to enable it to bring a significant contingent from those parts of the world where the church is rapidly growing today. It decided to call the conference a
Forum. As a Forum its structure would allow people to come and participate if they had something to contribute to one of 31 issues (around which were formed Issue
Groups). These issues were chosen through a global research programme seeking to identify the most significant issues in the world today which are of concern in our task to take the good news to the world.

This Lausanne Occasional Paper (LOP) is the report that has emerged from one of these Issue Groups. LOPs have been produced for each of the Issue Groups
and information on these and other publications may be obtained online at http://www.lausanne.org.

The theme of the Forum for World Evangelization held in 2004 was “A new vision, a new heart, a renewed call.” This Forum was held in Pattaya, Thailand from September 29 to October 5, 2004. 1,530 participants came from 130 countries
to work in one of the 31 Issue Groups.

The Affirmations at the conclusion of the Forum stated:

“There has been a spirit of working together in serious dialogue and prayerful reflection. Representatives from a wide spectrum of cultures and virtually all parts of the world have come together to learn from one another and to seek new direction from the Holy Spirit for world evangelization. They committed themselves to joint
action under divine guidance.

The dramatic change in the political and economic landscape in recent years has raised new challenges in evangelization for the church. The polarization between east and west makes it imperative that the church seek God’s direction for the
appropriate responses to the present challenges.

In the 31 Issue Groups these new realities were taken into consideration, including the HIV pandemic, terrorism, globalization, the global role of media, poverty,
persecution of Christians, fragmented families, political and religious nationalism,
post-modern mind set, oppression of children, urbanization, neglect of the disabled and others.

Great progress was made in these groups as they grappled for solutions to the key challenges of world evangelization. As these groups focused on making specific
recommendations, larger strategic themes came to the forefront.

There was affirmation that major efforts of the church must be directed toward those who have no access to the gospel. The commitment to help establish self
sustaining churches within 6,000 remaining unreached people groups remains a central priority.

Secondly, the words of our Lord call us to love our neighbour as ourselves. In this we have failed greatly. We renew our commitment to reach out in love and compassion to those who are marginalised because of disabilities or who have
different lifestyles and spiritual perspectives. We commit to reach out to children and young people who constitute a majority of the world’s population, many of whom are being abused, forced into slavery, armies and child labour.

A third stream of a strategic nature acknowledges that the growth of the
church is now accelerating outside of the western world. Through the participants from Africa, Asia and Latin America, we recognise the dynamic nature and rapid growth of the church in the South. Church leaders from the South are increasingly providing exemplary leadership in world evangelization.

Fourthly, we acknowledge the reality that much of the world is made up of oral learners who understand best when information comes to them by means of stories.
A large proportion of the world’s populations are either unable to or unwilling to absorb information through written communications. Therefore, a need exists to share the
“Good News” and to disciple new Christians in story form and parables.

Fifthly, we call on the church to use media to effectively engage the culture in ways that draw non-believers toward spiritual truth and to proclaim Jesus Christ in
culturally relevant ways.

Finally, we affirm the priesthood of all believers and call on the church to equip, encourage and empower women, men and youth to fulfil their calling as witnesses and co-labourers in the world wide task of evangelization.

Transformation was a theme which emerged from the working groups. We acknowledge our own need to be continually transformed, to continue to open ourselves to the leading of the Holy Spirit, to the challenges of God’s word and to
grow in Christ together with fellow Christians in ways that result in social and economic transformation. We acknowledge that the scope of the gospel and building the Kingdom of God involves, body, mind, soul and spirit. Therefore we call for
increasing integration of service to society and proclamation of the gospel.

We pray for those around the world who are being persecuted for their faith and for those who live in constant fear of their lives. We uphold our brothers and sisters who are suffering. We recognize that the reality of the persecuted church
needs to be increasingly on the agenda of the whole Body of Christ. At the same time, we also acknowledge the importance of loving and doing good to our enemies while we fight for the right of freedom of conscience everywhere.

We are deeply moved by the onslaught of the HIV/AIDS pandemic – the greatest human emergency in history. The Lausanne movement calls all churches
everywhere to prayer and holistic response to this plague.

“9/11,” the war in Iraq, the war on terror and its reprisals compel us to state that we must not allow the gospel or the Christian faith to be captive to any one geopolitical
entity. We affirm that the Christian faith is above all political entities.

We are concerned and mourn the death and destruction caused by all
conflicts, terrorism and war. We call for Christians to pray for peace, to be proactively involved in reconciliation and avoid all attempts to turn any conflict into a religious war. Christian mission in this context lies in becoming peacemakers.

We pray for peace and reconciliation and God’s guidance in how to bring about peace through our work of evangelization. We pray for God to work in the affairs of nations to open doors of opportunity for the gospel. We call on the church to mobilize every believer to focus specific consistent prayer for the evangelization of their communities and the world.

109   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 23rd, 2010 at 11:47 pm

The more I read, the more I like.

110   Dave Mosher    http://davemosher.wordpress.com/
November 24th, 2010 at 12:15 am

#70

Neil, thanks for starting this blog – although we may look at things differently, all the comments are good food for thought and for discussion. And… wow, so many comments, so fast – a lot to respond to. I’m not ready to concede my views on Dan Kimball, but I do concede that I could have worded things more tactfully in various blogs. I’m working on doing more research before posting stuff.

Regarding #70, Neil, I’m very sorry for not asking you what you believed before posting my comments about your theology. I’ll revise my blogpost that referred to your theology as wishy washy, etc. So what is your theology? (I see you have some Emergents such as Tall Skinny Kiwi listed on your Blogroll.)

BTW, one thing I love about Facebook is that – unlike here – a person can look back and delete posts that were made in anger or in error. Are you guys (Neil, Rick, etc. etc.) on Facebook?

111   Neil    
November 24th, 2010 at 1:11 am

dave – thank you for the kind words and the reconsiderations. i know full well how easy it is to type fast and regret later.

while i authored this post, the blog itself is not mine – i am a but one contributor amongst many.

we have a policy about not deleting or editing comments – except in extreme circumstances. we have this policy mostly due to abuses we have experienced on blogs that we oppose (and who oppose us). therefore we leave everything out there for all to see. and when we need to – we apologize for any indiscretions. as i did to pastorboy in this very thread.

i hope you continue to check us out. and assuming you are willing to engage with us, i look forward to hearing you views as well.

112   Neil    
November 24th, 2010 at 1:28 am

So what is your theology? – dave

background: i have a masters of theology degree (Th.M.) in church history from dallas seminary.

theology: here are the basics of what i believe.

Regarding Scriptures
The Bible is fully inspired by God. I understand that both the Old and the New Testaments were without error in their original writings and are trustworthy as our supreme and final authority for matters of faith and life.

Regarding the Godhead
I believe in one God who is the holy and loving creator of all things seen and unseen. God exists eternally in three distinct and equal persons; the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Regarding Jesus Christ
Jesus is wholly God and wholly man. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, was born of the Virgin Mary, and lived a perfect sinless life. He died on the cross as the atonement for the sins of us all. He bodily rose from the dead and ascended into heaven where he is now our High Priest, Advocate, and King. It is through Jesus alone that we may find forgiveness and restoration with God.

Regarding the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is sent from God to live in all who believe in Jesus. He teaches, comforts, and empowers us; giving each follower of Jesus diverse gifts for serving in the church and serving others in the world. I believe that it is through the Holy Spirit that I grow in faith, developing a holy life and Jesus-like character.


Regarding People/Sin

Each person is created with dignity and value in the image of God. Through sin we have lost our spiritual life and are separated from fellowship with our Creator. This separation has been transmitted to the entire human race and affects our relationships with God and each other.

Regarding Salvation

A perfect act of redemption was performed with the finished work of Jesus’ death on the cross. Through the grace (free gift) of God we were rescued from the eternal consequences of sin and our broken relationship with God is restored. I received the free gift of forgiveness and was spiritually reborn by placing faith in Jesus alone. I believe that the relationship that one enters into with God upon salvation is eternally secure.

Regarding the Church
I believe that all those, anywhere in the world, who have put their faith in Jesus Christ are members of the Church and are united together in the Body of Christ. This Church is universal and global in nature and extent while expressed in the local gatherings of believers. I believe the local church exists for the purpose of worship, teaching, community, and to serve and reach others by bringing them the hope and love of Jesus. The Church is the Body of Christ, made up of empowered believers to be part of the mission of God on earth.

Regarding Ordinances
The Lord Jesus Christ gave two ordinances to the church: water baptism (by immersion) and the Lord’s Supper (communion). Though these ordinances are not a means of salvation, they are a means of testimony and practice by the church for the church age.

Regarding Future Things
I believe in the personal return of Jesus Christ. He will judge the nations and restore all things to God’s original intent. I believe in a literal Heaven and Hell, and in the bodily resurrection of all; the believer will be raised to everlasting life with the Lord and the unbeliever will be raised to judgment and everlasting conscious punishment apart from the presence of the Lord.

113   Aaron    
November 24th, 2010 at 3:24 am

I don’t aim to insult PB’s intelligence, nor anyone who has not gone to school. My implication is either that PB is a nutcase who cannot reason well, as some notables on Youtube do, or that something is severely wrong with him in his hatred of what is honestly sound discussion and debate. I enjoy reading the comments and discussions here but PB’s inability to present logical and sound arguments is absolutely frustrating and distracting from what might be a fruitful debate.

114   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 24th, 2010 at 7:53 am

Dave – Your comment reveals a thoughtful and self examining spirit. We get a little heated around here sometimes, but it always good to re-evaluate ourselves from time to time.

I am not a contributor here. I run my own blog. Neil’s theology is absolutely sound. Our disagreements usually center around our differences in whom we respect as preachers and teachers.

I cannot be completely placed in any “camp”. The administrator of this blog has reservations about me and the ODM world is paranoid aboutme. I’m a man without a country (literally) and if you hang around long enough your assessment of me will vacillate. :cool:

115   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
November 24th, 2010 at 8:34 am

Dave, thanks for coming back and taking the time to read the comments. That was no small feat.

One thing that we really value on this blog is the variety of viewpoints and positions. So your input and responses are welcome.

Thanks again for coming back. We’ve had people drop-in and make sweeping comments before and then never return to respond to those who answered those comments. So it was pretty cool to open up this thread this morning and see that you not only returned, but you read and graciously responded to questions directed toward you.

“Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another” (Proverbs 27:17). We need each other or we get complacent and bold in our “rightness.”

Shalom

116   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 24th, 2010 at 9:43 am

In many circles, internet and otherwise, discernment has become an end and not a means. If you are “orthodox”, and if you identify and call out heretics and the like, you consider yourself right with God and divinely endorsed. That is nothing more than doctrinal idolatry.

Let us not forget that it was none other than Peter who proclaimed publicly that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. But the narrative reveals Peter’s heart was far from Christ. He was doctrinally sound but still not right with God and divinely rebuked. I continue to find it strange and revealing that the discernment sites are not discerning the doctrinal compromises in Christian love, humility, and the rest of the Christ manifestations. But the greatest of these is the Trinity, inerrancy, 24 hour creation day, doctrines of grace, stand on homosexuality, pro-life position, love.

117   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 24th, 2010 at 9:47 am

I feel a little more sane now, thank you. Food poisoning is not fun.

While I may be able to say that the LC seems solid, I will repeat that just because you hitch your wagons to something solid, does not make you a Christian or a solid Christian. The statement of faith, (the ‘Narrative’) on Rob Bell’s site is ‘relatively’ solid in places as an example, but his preaching and writing is not. Enough said. That also does not remove the concern that Rick Warren, Erwin McManus, Brian McLaren et.al have not only hitched their wagons to the LC, but Rick Warren is a speaker there in SA this year, which is MOST disturbing.

Kimball does certainly come off as a person who is a believer, but I still go back to his early statements, his books, and his non-repudiation of the things and people and practices that he has endorsed before. I am still waiting; but it is not my judgment to make. I hope God has saved Him. My only right is to discern whether or not he is a brother and to decide to trust his words or not. That is an issue that takes prayer and the leading of the Lord. And since I believe Chris is a brother, it confounds my thinking that he would be so quick to label a person such without a more lengthy examination of fruit.

118   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 24th, 2010 at 9:51 am

What does it say about the discernment abilities of the ODM clan when one calls Kimball a brother in Christ and others say he isn’t even saved. Could there be any greater disparity?

119   Neil    
November 24th, 2010 at 10:10 am

While I may be able to say that the LC seems solid…

thank you, pastorboy, for that admission. if i may be indulged a follow-up question – what changed your mind?

120   Neil    
November 24th, 2010 at 10:15 am

Kimball does certainly come off as a person who is a believer, but I still go back to his early statements, his books,… – pastorboy

i suppose we will just have to live with this – since this is as close as i have seen you come to an admission that someone different from you may be a brother in christ.

thanks for this.

you mention early writings, but give no examples – unless you are referring to lectio divina kinda stuff – which are tangential issues at best… and kimball and rosebrough discussed this as well as labyrinths in the interview anyway.

121   Neil    
November 24th, 2010 at 10:21 am

…and his non-repudiation of the things and people and practices that he has endorsed before. – pastorboy

this one really baffles me. since when did repudiation of someone become a test for “born-again-ness?”

and who has kimball endorsed that you disagree with? and being friends with, co-authoring a book with, not hating… are not endorsements.

further – agin and agin i have linked to a book that kimball contributed to called Listening to the Beliefs of Emergind churches (note they are energing not emergent).

in this book kimball clearly and distinctly rebuts some of the positions held by pagitt.

122   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 24th, 2010 at 10:28 am

I don’t believe labyrinths are dangerous as much as they are dumb.

123   Neil    
November 24th, 2010 at 10:30 am

My only right is to discern whether or not he is a brother and to decide to trust his words or not. That is an issue that takes prayer and the leading of the Lord. And since I believe Chris is a brother, it confounds my thinking that he would be so quick to label a person such without a more lengthy examination of fruit. – pastorboy

this one baffles me even more. sure, in matthew jesus speaks of knowing trees by their fruit… but seriously, you have taken this waaaaay beyond anything jesus could have possibly meant.

where do we see anything is scripture that calls us to examine something at length before allowing them to be a christian? and just what kind of fruit are you talking about?

compare the way ingrid has treated kimball with kimball’s responses to her… and tell me who is exhibiting greater “fruit of the spirit?”

jesus said. “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.” there is no period here where fruit must be shown before life is granted.

again, i understand the need to examine fruit – but the scriptures do not support your belief that we should hold a lengthy examination before granting someone salvation.

124   Neil    
November 24th, 2010 at 10:31 am

I don’t believe labyrinths are dangerous as much as they are dumb.

and one man’s dumb is a bohemian man’s way of focusing his mind on the scriptures… but, please, let’s not go down this twisty road again…

bottom line – in the interview kimball explains this and lays it to rest – if objectors bother to listen.

125   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 24th, 2010 at 10:36 am

My only right is to discern whether or not he is a brother and to decide to trust his words or not.

Sorry, but this is not your “right”. This responsibility belongs only to Christ. We all can decide whether or not listen to or believe certain teachers, but in the end, we cannot discern their hearts.

I’ll say this once more. Again and again in the NT, we are told that one of the most evident fruits of indwelling of the spirit is our love for each other. If we don’t have love, we don’t have anything. It doesn’t matter what doctrinal statements or creeds we hold to if we have that wrong.

126   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 24th, 2010 at 10:39 am

” If we don’t have love, we don’t have anything.”

I refer you to #116. :)

127   Neil    
November 24th, 2010 at 10:46 am

The more I read, the more I like.

rick, i assume you mean the more you read from the lausanne committee the more you like. keep reading, they will certainly challenge you.

here is what i think the problem is with the lausanne committe:

1) they have a lot of europeans and other non-american-evangeliscals who contribute. europeans are automaticall suspected to be theologically liberal.

2) they are not politically conservative – the LOP #55 makes this clear. if you are not a republican and in favor of killing non-elect muslims… you are suspect.

3) they listen to people with whom they dis agree. this was noted in the disclaimer in the intro to lop #55. of course, objectors ingore disclaimers (as noted by lighthouse trails use of LOP#55) so they can twist the truth. and odm’s do not believe in talking to those with whom you disagree (unless you are shouting condemnation to them) so they assume talking=agreeing.

4) they are not concerned with trivial things like praying in certain positions, reading in certain settings, etc…

128   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 24th, 2010 at 10:49 am

I can heartly endorse every aspect of their statement. It is well expressed and very conservative.

129   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 24th, 2010 at 10:56 am

I am having lunch with Kim Jong-Il tomorrow. Am I a compromiser? :cool:

130   Neil    
November 24th, 2010 at 10:59 am

re 125 –

phil, this is why i compared the tone and attitude of ingrid to that of dan. which of these is the exhibitor of better fruit?

i am not saying she is not a believer – not by any means – my point is that fruit inspecting is 1) way to vague, 2) not biblical as it has been recently applied.

pastorboy, and others who share his attitude, have taken this metaphorical simple warning and turned it into an acid test for salvation.

they are right… we should be able to discern the tree by the fruit.

but what is fruit? fruit of the spirit? fruit that is the overflow of the heart? fruit in number of conversions won, homeless fed, arabs killed? maybe fruit is the number of laws we can get passed against socialists and gays or the number of republicans we can get elected to congress?

since our salvation is not earned by good works, it is not proven by them either…

…therefore, my initial thought is to look to galatians 5 for what kind of fruit a believers should bear.

131   Neil    
November 24th, 2010 at 11:03 am

rick,

you can find links to all the lausanne occasional papers and other documents at:

http://www.lausanne.org/documents.html

enjoy!

132   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 24th, 2010 at 11:21 am

I guess what I mean is that we can go one way or the other. Just because a person proclaims “I am a Christian” does not make him one. I know many Mormons, for example, who would say YES! to the Nicene Creed, but are not believers in the one true Jesus. This is what has happened in modernity and post modernity with the ’sinners prayer’- just say it and you are a Christian.

At the same time, while within my local congregation we watch a new believer for a time period to observe fruit before we will baptize OR bring a person into membership, that is not the same standard I should hold Dan Kimball to because I am not in direct relationship with him.

I see the danger more in the former than in the latter, but in discerning people, authors, etc I think we need to make sure that we are not to quick on either side. However, in these times, I think we need to be WAY more cautious than most people are.

I think we should be much more deliberate and considerate before we label a person either a Christian or a heretic.

133   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 24th, 2010 at 11:34 am

…therefore, my initial thought is to look to galatians 5 for what kind of fruit a believers should bear.

I kind of agree with this, but with a caveat. What is Paul’s main point in the book of Galatians. It’s that believers do not need to submit to the demands that Judaizers are making on them, that they are free, and that they should not listen to those who tell them they aren’t in Christ if they don’t get circumcised or observe the Torah. If they need proof that they actually are in Christ, they need to look no further than the fruit their lives are bearing. I don’t believe Paul is giving us license to all go around being “fruit-checkers”. If anything he’s giving us tools to evaluate our lives and to encourage us. “Don’t let the haters try and tell you aren’t in Christ because you haven’t jumped through their hoops – just look at the fruit in your life!”

The problem with us judging another person’s fruit is that our perspective is always limited, and we don’t usually have anywhere near all the information required to make a valid judgment. Any gardener will tell that not all plants bear fruit on the same schedule. For example, my wife and I had some tomato plants that we planted last summer. They grew very big pretty quickly, but in the end it took them a long time to actually produce tomatoes. Now, if I were impatient, I could have said, “well obviously this plant isn’t bearing fruit, I might as well pull it out and get rid of it”. But we waited, and those plants ended up producing quite a bit. Even if fruit isn’t obvious at the time in someone’s life, that doesn’t mean it won’t be in the future. God is ever-merciful and ever-patient. He is a loving Father, and He wants us to know His heart. He is always tending to His own, and I believe He gets pretty angry when self-proclaimed fruit-checkers start getting out the pruning shears to tear down those He loves.

134   Christian P    http://www.churchvoices.com
November 24th, 2010 at 11:35 am

At the same time, while within my local congregation we watch a new believer for a time period to observe fruit before we will baptize

Why would you watch for fruit before you immersed somebody? That is anti-scriptural. Acts 2:41, “Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.”

Acts 8:12, But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.”

Acts 8:36-38, “As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.”

Acts 16:33, “At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized.”

Nowhere does Scripture tell us to look for fruit before somebody is immersed. They believe and are immersed.

135   Neil    
November 24th, 2010 at 11:38 am

I think we should be much more deliberate and considerate before we label a person either a Christian or a heretic.

i agree. this is why i thought it so noteworthy that chris rosebrough spent significant time with dan kimball.

136   Neil    
November 24th, 2010 at 11:41 am

phil,

i agree (re 133). my point was not so much to defend “fruit-inspecting” but to raise the question – what is fruit… particularly in the oft referenced passage on matthew 7.

137   Neil    
November 24th, 2010 at 11:47 am

I know many Mormons, for example, who would say YES! to the Nicene Creed, but are not believers in the one true Jesus. This is what has happened in modernity and post modernity with the ’sinners prayer’- just say it and you are a Christian.

wow – pastorboy dissing the sinner’s prayer and modernity? cool!

i agree, of course. but i am willing to take someone at their word until they disprove their word… as opposed to doubting their confession until i see proof of it.

in the case of kimball we have very clear and definitive statements of his evangelical and “born-again-ness” belief. not only his affirmation of the lausanne covenant, and nicene creed… but the very orthodox and evangelical statement of beliefs of vintage church.

so, his theological position is absolutely on par with evangelicalism.

now, look at his character and ministry with charitable reading in light of that…

138   Neil    
November 24th, 2010 at 11:53 am

christian p,

while i probably would not take it as far as pastorboy, i think a little instruction and clarity are a good thing between confession of faith and baptism.

while i understand the process as it is described in acts – things are different now. in the time of acts those coming to christ and being baptized did so, in many cases, at great expense or threat. they were seen to be repudiating their jewish heritage (even if this was false) or they were repudiating their pagan heritage – either way, i expect they counted the cost before doing so.

in our culture christianity is still assumed – compared to the setting of acts – so i think a little time to assure clarity on what faith and baptism really means is a good thing.

again – depending on how it is undertaken, of course. i would do so to make sure everything is understood… i believe pastorboy comes to from a “doubt the conversion until proven otherwise” mentality.

139   Christian P    http://www.churchvoices.com
November 24th, 2010 at 12:08 pm

In every context, a response to the good news occurs after instruction. In each of the examples I gave, instruction occurred beforehand. Even some form of confession of faith usually takes place because somebody was told or shown how to respond. Our culture might shape how we teach and how much we need to teach, but it doesn’t change the process.

Besides, that’s a far cry from observing fruit.

140   Neil    
November 24th, 2010 at 12:20 pm

agreed… particularly when “fruit” remain nebulous and undefined.

141   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
November 24th, 2010 at 2:35 pm

I wonder if sometimes, when it comes to examining fruit, we compare apples with oranges with kiwis. What I mean by that is the fruit of conversion is different than the fruit of sanctification which is different than the fruit of Christian leaders.
All three groups should bear the fruit of conversion. The second two should bear the fruit of sanctification. And the third bears much more responsibility before God and before man as to what their lives are producing.

Just a thought.

142   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 24th, 2010 at 2:38 pm

#140 – My issue as well. What fruit? Stop smoking? Stop cussing? Church attendance? Belief in the Trinity, etc., etc., etc.?

How about love, mercy, grace, patience, humility?

143   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 24th, 2010 at 7:15 pm

#140 You know very well what fruit is…And the proof that regeneration has happened is bourne out in fruit.

Galatians 5:19-23 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Smoking, church attendance is not on the list…Uncleaness is.

144   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 24th, 2010 at 7:24 pm

I know quite a few orthodox believers who show precious little love or joy or gentleness or meekness.

Some of them are involved with idolatry (nationalism), hatred, and strife. (and some are divorced and remarried as well.)

145   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 24th, 2010 at 8:32 pm

Three beautiful questions from Daniel Neades:

A1. Chris, given what Dan stated during your interview, do you acknowledge the apparent inconsistency between your affirmation that the universal Church declared semi-pelagianism to be heresy, and your affirmation that Dan ‘preaches, teaches, and confesses, historic orthodoxy’?

A2. If so, are you willing to clarify or nuance what you mean when you say that Dan ‘preaches, teaches, and confesses, historic orthodoxy’?

A3. Dan, given that you appeared desirous to agree with Chris’ affirmation of your orthodoxy, and given that you have now seen that the universal Church expressly rejected semi-pelagianism in 529, will you affirm in accordance with Scripture and historic orthodoxy that salvation is the work of God alone, and that this fact gives us great confidence and comfort as to the security of our salvation?

146   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 24th, 2010 at 8:36 pm

I reiterate:

“Professing Christ is completely doctrinal and must navigate successfully through the treacherous “Straits of Calvin””

signed,

Sem. I. Pelagian

147   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 24th, 2010 at 9:19 pm

#146 When did you iterate?

148   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 24th, 2010 at 9:47 pm

http://web.me.com/jaes.coyle/pj/chrisondankimball/20101124FFTF.mp3

LOL

149   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 24th, 2010 at 9:47 pm

http://web.me.com/jaes.coyle/pj/chrisondankimball/20101124FFTF.mp3

150   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 24th, 2010 at 9:47 pm

#64

151   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 24th, 2010 at 10:15 pm

#148 okay I will give him a point- there was no way that we could know in 2003 that McLaren and Warren would turn out to be such rank heretics….okay

152   Jerry    http://www.jerryhillyer.com
November 24th, 2010 at 10:24 pm

#150, I see the diarrhea left your backside and is now coming out of your mouth. Sad, John, really, really sad.

I have three beautiful questions for John:

1. Why don’t you just let God sort ‘em all out?

2. Why do you care?

3. How do you sleep at night with all this condemnation and judgment in your heart?

153   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 24th, 2010 at 10:32 pm

#151
1. As I have said multiple times, He will. 2. My concern is for the souls of the lost and for those who follow lies of the emergent church. If I do not sleep at night, it is for the souls of the lost.
3. I could ask you the same question. By saying this you are should know you are judging me and condemning me for being judgmental and condemning.

154   neil    
November 24th, 2010 at 11:47 pm

when pastorboy starts offering semi-pelagianism as a test for orthodoxy…

when he says his concern over kimball is rooted in a concern for the lost…

when he thinks (insert odm) is a better example of the fruit of the spirit…

he has once again plumbed the depths of
desperation.

155   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 25th, 2010 at 12:15 am

when pastorboy starts offering semi-pelagianism as a test for orthodoxy…
(I am one)
when he says his concern over kimball is rooted in a concern for the lost…
(I believe he does care for the lost)
when he thinks (insert odm) is a better example of the fruit of the spirit…
(Oh yea, love and grace and humility abound.)

Kimball’s associations are a problem/question.

156   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 25th, 2010 at 12:27 am

Question:

Can you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as your only Savior and be deceived into believing some major areas of doctrine, and still be saved?

(Hint: The power of grace.)

157   Jerry    http://www.jerryhillyer.com
November 25th, 2010 at 1:01 am

John,

This is difficult for me to write, but I have decided it is time for me to say it. This will be my last response to you…ever.

Good luck.
jerry

158   Jerry    http://www.jerryhillyer.com
November 25th, 2010 at 1:07 am

#154…if who we hang out with or associate with is a test of faith or orthodoxy…then I am willing to concede defeat. I hang around with some of the sketchiest people imaginable…at work, at school, in my own house at times…sometimes I even hang around other christians, although not too often since they have, historically, treated me and my family worse than unbelievers have.

I don’t even know Dan Kimball, but the very fact that people like pastorinfant hate him makes me love him all the more.

jerry

159   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 25th, 2010 at 6:46 am

There is a difference between “hanging around” people redemptively, and joining with professing believers and treating them as colleagues and their teachings as legitimate even though their teachings countermand what you say you believe.

“I don’t even know Dan Kimball, but the very fact that people like pastorinfant hate him makes me love him all the more.”

I would call that reverse acceptance based upon someone else’s rejection. Reactive. (I consider myself “sketchy”! )

160   Neil    
November 25th, 2010 at 3:38 pm

I believe pastorboy has a heart for the lost. My point was – that concern is moot to the conversation.

The original question was kimball’s status as a true believer… a brother in christ. who he associates with is irrelevant to that question.

what he professes is sound.
and his fruit noncontradictory.

161   Neil    
November 25th, 2010 at 3:49 pm

Rick, re 154…

i should not have said “orthodoxy” – since the question is his whether he should be called a true brother in christ.

the point, palagianism, semi of othetwise, is not a relevant test.

pastorboy started by calling his doctrinal statement false… but had to back off that upon examination.

that is why i called him desperate… he keeps slinging mud, but none of it sticks.

162   Jerry    http://www.jerryhillyer.com
November 25th, 2010 at 7:17 pm

Who cares if he has a ‘heart’ for the lost or ‘concern’ for the lost?

He hates his brothers and sisters in Christ.

This tells me all I need to know.

163   Jerry    http://www.jerryhillyer.com
November 25th, 2010 at 7:25 pm

Rick,

It doesn’t matter who we hang around with because you and I are not privy to what is going on when the privacy curtain is drawn.

I just re-read some comments that DA Carson made about Kimball in Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church. Even DA Carson is willing to ‘give Kimball the benefit of the doubt.’ Even DA Carson doesn’t condemn Kimball as a false teacher–although he does have some issues with the way Kimball uses some words (not curse words).

I really do not see the issue. All these judges and juries….all of us at the cross…and yet some of us, according to the judges and juries not so much.

You can call it reactive if you want. But I tell you that I will love the people who are rejected by people like John because I have determined that John’s powers of discernment are woefully inadequate.

jerry

164   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 25th, 2010 at 10:10 pm

Who cares if he has a ‘heart’ for the lost or ‘concern’ for the lost?

He hates his brothers and sisters in Christ.

For the win.

165   Dave Mosher    http://davemosher.wordpress.com/
November 26th, 2010 at 1:32 am

Wow, the conversation has really heated up since the very kind responses to me at #111, #112, #114 and #115!! I don’t know if I can pick up the pieces regarding the conversation back and forth with my wonderful Christian brother pastorboy/ John, but I’m going to try.

First, I checked out pastorboy’s blogsite. To me his blogsite seems pretty kind and well balanced. (As opposed to some Christian websites I’ve seen that were very hateful, even towards other orthodox Christians.)

Second, it appears that most of you fellows are followers of the Emerging Church movement (as opposed to followers of the Emergent Church movement). This is good; many if not most Emerging Church followers still adhere to core Christian doctrines. (I would say that individuals who no longer adhere to any core Christian doctrines have become Emergent.)
My point is this: myself, pastorboy and the rest of you still have many core Christian doctrines in common.

Third, I would say this debate could have been a lot worse. For example: a debate between a
Calvinist and followers of Universalist Emergence speaker Doug Pagitt. Or, a debate between
a Ruckmanite and followers of Emergence speaker Phyllis Tickle. I bet we’d see much worse emotional fallout from those conversations!

166   Dave Mosher    http://davemosher.wordpress.com/
November 26th, 2010 at 1:50 am

Having said #164, I still have serious doubts about Kimball’s orthodoxy. The main reason: usually, Christians enjoy fellowshipping with those of the same beliefs. Has anyone seen any explanations from Kimball, as to why he seems to enjoy spending so much time informally with Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, etc.? (Kimball even talks on his blogsite about his wonderful times spent with various such individuals.) Why, why, WHY does he enjoy these fellows so much? Mr. Kimball, please explain.

167   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 26th, 2010 at 6:37 am

Very well said, Dave. I have seen PB say much worse than he has inthis thread. There are legitimate concerns over fellowship issues. For instance, if Chris Lyons fellowshiped with Bishop Spong and never corrected him on his theology, wouldn’t that create a problem? Would that problem be magnified if CL even supported Spong? And would CL’s orthodox statement of faith be suspect given such a relationship?

That is the issue, the histrionics aside. I will admit that Kimball’s theology seems orthodox, however he does have certain relationships with others whose theology is in left field. That is a problem. (An interesting side note – Paggit interviewed Bishop Spong and seemed to be in general harmony with him and his views.)

It is my experience that most contributors here will never enter into any serious examination of the theological stances of certain emergent leaning teachers, and will vehemently defend them when questioned. An imbalance at best, but I suggest a level of deception fueled by a combination of “side taking” and a strong aversion to the ODMs and discernment in general.

What problem exists when someone like Neil embraces the Lausanne Statement of Faith and someone like Doug Paggit rejects it pervasively? Isn’t that an indication of a serious breach in how both view the Scriptures? And if so, can Neil feel comfortable inviting Paggit to fill his pulpit? These are problems regardless of those who see none.

168   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 26th, 2010 at 10:04 am

Why, why, WHY does he enjoy these fellows so much? Mr. Kimball, please explain.

I don’t understand why this is a problem, especially for people who are involved in theological study. I enjoy being around people who believe differently than me simply because they challenge me to refine my own views. I would imagine Kimball is similar. What fun is it being around people who affirm everything you believe all the time?

It is my experience that most contributors here will never enter into any serious examination of the theological stances of certain emergent leaning teachers, and will vehemently defend them when questioned. An imbalance at best, but I suggest a level of deception fueled by a combination of “side taking” and a strong aversion to the ODMs and discernment in general.

Apparently, examination is only “serious” when one arrives at the same conclusions as you. I’ve seen plenty of reviews of different views here. Just because we arrive at different conclusions about things doesn’t mean we aren’t examining them critically.

169   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 26th, 2010 at 10:09 am

Your definition of “critical examination” and mine are quite different. And when conclusions about heresies are so diametrically opposed, consistently, then either the Bible is nebulous or one of us is wrong.

170   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
November 26th, 2010 at 10:26 am

Dave, would you agree with John’s statement that Rick Warren is a “rank heretic”?

Some of what you are discerning in the conversation between John and the other commentors comes with a good deal of history.

171   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 26th, 2010 at 10:41 am

The main reason: usually, Christians enjoy fellowshipping with those of the same beliefs.

I think this is maybe a generational type of thing. I think that is more true of people who I perceive to be older, whereas younger people don’t really care if they agree with the person, they more or less agree to disagree. As such, there is no need to blast it all over the internet. I have friends that hold very different views than I do on both sides of the liberal/conservative scale. Maybe he hangs out with them because he enjoys his company and how he decides he enjoys someone’s company is different than how you or I decide.

172   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 26th, 2010 at 10:47 am

Your definition of “critical examination” and mine are quite different. And when conclusions about heresies are so diametrically opposed, consistently, then either the Bible is nebulous or one of us is wrong.

My definition is reading books, articles, and other things by these people and coming to my own conclusions. You and a lot of other poeple seem to have an overly broad definition of heresy to me.

For example, I don’t believe questioning the usefulness of a doctrine like penal substitutionary atonement make one a heretic. I don’t believe having an incorrect view of homosexuality makes one a heretic. There a lot of things that people can be wrong about and not be heretics.

If people say they affirm the historic creeds of the church, than I guess I will believe that statement unless there is evidence to the contrary. People like Crossan, Borg, and Spong pretty much openly deny these creeds. I’ve seen McLaren, Pagitt, Jones, and others affirm them. So for me to say, “no you don’t” seem ridiculous to me. I can’t read these men’s minds. If they say the believe these things, why should I doubt their profession of faith?

173   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 26th, 2010 at 11:20 am

Once again:
1.No one is doubting Kimball’s profession of faith, I am just not so quick to accept it. I need some time to examine it before I would embrace his teachings.

2. I think He (and Lausanne) are weak on Hell.
3. I think He (and Lausanne) could embrace a form (at least) of semi-pelagianism
4. I think he fellowships with wolves (like Pagitt, Jones, and McLaren) and does not draw clear distinctions, nor has he repudiated any such associations (like with McLaren) when they have gone CLEARLY heretical.

That being said, I think Chris did an excellent Job in this last podcast discerning the discerners. Gives us all something to think about. Daniel Neades’ blog was excellent as well.

It is pitiful that a man who attacks my love of the brethren could be filled with such venom and hate. I have not once questioned Jerry’s testimony or love, but yet he gets personal. It is at the very least hypocritical, and very sad.

174   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 26th, 2010 at 11:29 am

“I think this is maybe a generational type of thing.”

I agree. Just because a person is nice and hospitable, it does not mean his views are irrelevant, especially if he claims to be a believer. And when a person strives to influence the views of others through CDs, seminars, tours, etc., then their views must be held up to scrutiny.

And when someone claims to believe something, but everything they teach is at odds with that statement, then that must also be pointed out. I count what someone teaches with more weight than when someone says he upholds some ancient creed.

I will admit that there is a difference in spirit and in understanding between us, and that leads to much different conclusions about a person’s beliefs. When someone like Paggit claims that redemption can be found in other religions, and when Paggit is invited to speak at a church, then I must draw the obvious conclusion.

But only God knows who is saved.

175   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 26th, 2010 at 11:31 am

“It is at the very least hypocritical, and very sad.”

Ya think?

176   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 26th, 2010 at 11:34 am

#172 – BTW – This coming from a pastor who claims he likes hanging out with unbelievers because he has been so thoroughly mistreated by believers. It’s all about how people treat him.

177   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 26th, 2010 at 11:39 am

See 157:

“sometimes I even hang around other christians, although not too often since they have, historically, treated me and my family worse than unbelievers have.”

178   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 26th, 2010 at 11:43 am

PB – I will continue to respond to you, especially when I need to correct you! :cool:

179   Dave Mosher    http://davemosher.wordpress.com/
November 26th, 2010 at 12:48 pm

#169

Nathaniel, I haven’t researched Rick Warren very much. From what I have read, his church has a watered down gospel message at best. I read somewhere that a “seeker sensitive” church is really a “seeker centered” church – this is not good. As far as his being heretical, I’ll have to find the entire article stating specifically what PB says about Warren (being theologically conservative, I’m pretty sure I’lll agree with PB, LOL). Off the top of my head, Warren is “not as bad” as Emergent/ Emergence speakers like Brian McLaren, Doug Paggitt, etc. Nonetheless, the end result is the same – many people (mostly young people) are getting their eyes taken off of the “straight and narrow” of the hardcore gospel message (what I call “the preaching of The Blood and The Cross,” with the conviction of sin, the invitation hymn, the altar call, the whole nine yards.) Remember the old song “I love to tell the Story of Jesus and His Love”? – the Story is all about the Blood. Do Rick Warren and others love to tell the Story? Every preacher should love to tell this Story, but many don’t emphasize it at all any more. This is the problem I have with Rick Warren and many others.

180   Dave Mosher    http://davemosher.wordpress.com/
November 26th, 2010 at 1:06 pm

#167

Phil – in response to my initial comment (”Why, why, WHY does he enjoy these fellows so much? Mr. Kimball, please explain.”) You replied, “I don’t understand why this is a problem, especially for people who are involved in theological study… they challenge me to refine my own views… What fun is it being around people who affirm everything you believe all the time?

A couple thoughts. It’s one thing for Kimball to spend private time with these fellows. But Kimball is making these informal get-togethers very public. For Kimball to publicize it in blogs- telling in detail about how they had a great time together – gives his followers (particularly the young) the impression he approves of them and their theologies… And in Kimball’s blogsite accounts of his times spent with McLaren, Jones, Pagitt, etc., I don’t recall him ever saying he tried to straighten out these fellows on their ungodly theologies.

A more personal example: my grandfather was a wonderful, born again, theologically conservative missionary, in Asia practically all his life. He told me how he once sat down and had a lengthy conversation with some young Buddhists about their religious beliefs. As it turns out, my grandfather knew more about Buddhism than these Buddhists did! And he got to witness to them about how Christianity is different. If the Internet had been around at the time, I doubt that my grandfather would have broadcast how great a time he had just “having fun” with the young Buddhists. He would have told us Internet readers how he witnessed to them, and how the wonderful Story of salvation is different from the ungodly Buddhist worldview.

181   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 26th, 2010 at 2:01 pm

#179
Very true Dave- in my contacts with Pagitt, Jones, and Baker, I am not making much of the fun and the friendship, I am making much of the Lord and pleading with them that if they do not repent and trust Christ alone they will spend eternity in a place called Hell.

Actually, Pagitt, Jones et.al say they are no longer my friends, and I know I would not be welcome at Solomon’s Porch because I have shared that truth with them very passionately.

That is the cost of telling the truth, people do not want to be your friends or be associated with you if they hate the truth, which concerns me about Kimball, because if he were telling the truth to these folks, would they still tolerate him?

182   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 26th, 2010 at 2:24 pm

In order to avoid that conflict, you must dilute their teachings and creatively translate them into somewhat less than they are. And some believers will do backflips over some unfortunate and unkind words from an ODM, but will never get passionate about obvious unbiblical teachings from the brotherhood.

183   Dave Mosher    http://davemosher.wordpress.com/
November 26th, 2010 at 2:47 pm

#180
#181

Both great comments in my opinion – and a breath of fresh air from my point of view. God bless you both!

Pastorboy/John, I googled ["Tony Jones" "Pastorboy"]. I stumbled across a blog by Tony Jones stating how he used to be on speaking terms with you. This is what I’ve experienced with my circle of friends too – when I present true biblical doctrine to unsaved friends, in most cases their fuse is very short and they no longer want me in their circle. I think this makes sense biblically, plus it is part of sinful human nature – those who live in the darkness of sin hate the Light.

184   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 26th, 2010 at 5:32 pm

A couple thoughts. It’s one thing for Kimball to spend private time with these fellows. But Kimball is making these informal get-togethers very public. For Kimball to publicize it in blogs- telling in detail about how they had a great time together – gives his followers (particularly the young) the impression he approves of them and their theologies… And in Kimball’s blogsite accounts of his times spent with McLaren, Jones, Pagitt, etc., I don’t recall him ever saying he tried to straighten out these fellows on their ungodly theologies.

I still say, “so what”? People will think what they want to think. I come from a long line of pastors, and they are very conservative in their theology. But you know what, people will lie about pastors regardless if there’s a reason to or not. I find it rather odd that you think it would be better for Kimball to be involved in some sort of backroom, secretive conversations with people rather than simply be open and honest. I applaud his transparency.

I know in my hometown, a local rabbi sometime attends events with the other pastors. As far as I know, many of the pastors are on friendly, speaking terms with him. Is this wrong? Should they simply shun him until he converts?

Also, Kimball, as far as I can tell has had some sort of relationship with these men for quite a while. It isn’t surprising to me that when you have a group of people at the beginning of a movement, they drift apart theologically after awhile. Typically, when this happens each person forms his own denomination. I’ve not seen that type of divisiveness from any of the men mentioned. To be honest, the people who I’ve always seen divide churches tend to be those who are dead certain they are right, and they believe in their cause so much, they don’t mind implementing a scorched earth policy to prove themselves right.

185   Jerry    http://www.jerryhillyer.com
November 26th, 2010 at 6:22 pm

Ya think?

Hey, Rick…since we try to keep this PG around here, I will reserve what I would like to say to you for myself. But, your opinion of me is meaningless to me since I have no problem admitting as much.

Suffice it to say, Rick, that it is the Holy Spirit that is controlling my tongue and my fingers just now. Give me time, though, and I will quit replying to you too.

186   Dave Mosher    http://davemosher.wordpress.com/
November 26th, 2010 at 6:24 pm

#183

So Phil, are you saying that who Kimball associates with means nothing? What if Kimball were to pal around with New Age Emergence speaker Phyllis Tickle? What about followers of Catholic/Buddhist Thomas Merton? What about psychics like Sylvia Browne or Joseph van Praagh? I realize Kimball would not pal around with some of these folks. My point is, is there ANY line that Kimball should not cross, in who he associates with? Do you not think that his followers (the young people at his conferences, the young people in his church, the students at the college where he teaches) are more lightly to accept the writings of who Kimball associates with? I’m looking at this from the vantage point of his impressionable followers, not judging Kimball himself at this point. Can you see how impressionable young people could be swayed by their leaders and by peer pressure? This is going on in many, many churches, colleges and seminaries all over the country – and is leading people very quickly into the mindset of New Age-ish Phyllis Tickle’s Emergence Movement – even in our so-called Christian colleges. One of the biggest denominations getting sucked into this is the Nazarenes, via Leonard Sweet, etc.

187   Joe    
November 26th, 2010 at 6:43 pm

I know Phyllis Tickle and find her to be an engaging conversationalist, and a wonderful hunter.

188   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 26th, 2010 at 6:56 pm

“He hates his brothers and sisters in Christ.”

” historically, treated me and my family worse than unbelievers have.”

I see a paradox. Your PG warning reveals a lot, but nothing that I had not already known. You will not respond to me? Oh well. :cool:

189   Jerry    http://www.jerryhillyer.com
November 26th, 2010 at 7:20 pm

Rick, I have no idea what any of that could mean. I don’t see how sentence one (by john) relates to sentence two (by me). My PG comment reveals nothing except that I am being restrained just now from telling you off.

190   Jerry    http://www.jerryhillyer.com
November 26th, 2010 at 7:22 pm

My point is, is there ANY line that Kimball should not cross, in who he associates with?

Have you ever read in the Scripture about Jesus? Did you ever see who he associated with and who he did not associate with?

191   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 26th, 2010 at 7:36 pm

I know in my hometown, a local rabbi sometime attends events with the other pastors. As far as I know, many of the pastors are on friendly, speaking terms with him. Is this wrong? Should they simply shun him until he converts?

The Gospels tell us that Jesus treated people claiming to be righteous and religious a LOT different than the humble and contrite.

The epistles go further in teaching that we treat people who claim to be believers and are not a lot differently than those who are not believers.

So the answer is no- we do not shun a Rabbi or an Imam. We do share with them the Gospel!

192   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 26th, 2010 at 7:45 pm

The epistles go further in teaching that we treat people who claim to be believers and are not a lot differently than those who are not believers.

You guys are just too much…

That you can ignore social and historical contexts of these letters is just amazing. A major point of contention in Paul’s epistles is the authentication of his apostleship in contrast to false apostles who would have been deadly to these young congregations. These men would travel into town, woo the congregants, and end up causing all sorts of problems.

This is hardly an analogous situation to a man like Kimball having people over for dinner or whatever and writing about it on his blog. Paul warns his churches about associating with false teachers simply because they were vulnerable and he knew it would cause problems down the road. I’ll reiterate once more – the vast majority of church splits I’ve seen have not been from people trying to make the church more liberal. I suppose in the mainline denominations, this is an issue, but in Evangelical circles, I haven’t seen it. The people I see causing problems are those who have such a narrow view of Christianity, that they take the stance that it’s their way or the highway.

193   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 26th, 2010 at 7:58 pm

As usual there appears to be a disconnect.

194   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 26th, 2010 at 9:42 pm

#193 Good call, Rick.

I’ll reiterate once more

Thats like saying youll repeat it again

the vast majority of church splits I’ve seen have not been from people trying to make the church more liberal.

Thats because it is easier to make the church less like the true body of Christ and make it logical and safe to fallen Man’s desires.

The people I see causing problems are those who have such a narrow viewbiblical view of Christianity, that they take the stance that it’s their way or the highway.

good problem to have, people standing for truth. Actually more church splits are happening today because the Purpose Driven and Emergent Nazis are saying change is good but if you object you can leave.

195   neil    
November 26th, 2010 at 11:54 pm

so far there is still no example of kimball teaching anything contrary to the core doctrines of our faith.

he is even very clear on hell.

196   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
November 27th, 2010 at 12:14 am

Actually more church splits are happening today because the Purpose Driven and Emergent Nazis are saying change is good but if you object you can leave.

Source?

197   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 27th, 2010 at 7:49 am

Church splits happen for all sorts of reasons, and they can be beneficial and they can be very harmful. Using the word “Nazis” is unhelpful.

It is unfortunate that some cannot see the danger in fellowships and associations with people who teach serious compromise with the truth. Regardless of where you draw that truth line, it must be evident that embracing them as colleagues lends credibility to them in the eyes of many.

If I fellowshiped with Kenneth Copeland, or Bishop Spong, or Fred Phelps, I lend credibility to those men even if I did not intend to. And the unintended counsequences of that scenario may not be believers embracing completely the theologies of those men, but it can mean creating doubt in people’s mind about the accuracy of their own beliefs, or at least creating in people’s minds a much greater expanse in what is acceptable and what is not.

And in time, the church will slowly but surely move away from a solid stance on redemptive truth and it steadily embraces more and more a wide range of nebulous, doctrinal teachings until the church entertains several semblances of universalism and becomes very reticent, in fact uncapable, to stand for the exclusivity of redemption by faith through Christ alone.

And when the world sees and hears the church wrangling with truth, all truth, as if we now believe there no such things as settled and unchangeable truth, then they rightfully should become uninterested in what we have to say, or be drawn to our diluted brand of the Christian faith, or have a deserved disdain for our amiguous, enigmatic, and inconclusive conversation.

In short, not only has the message become void of eternal redemption, but in reality there eventually exists no message at all. If Jesus tarries for another 50 years, the scenario I outlined may unfold; it already has begun.

198   Jerry    http://www.jerryhillyer.com
November 27th, 2010 at 9:55 am

If I fellowshiped (sic) with Kenneth Copeland, or Bishop Spong, or Fred Phelps, I lend credibility to those men even if I did not intend to.

No you don’t. You are saying: “I enjoy their company.”

It’s just like when my sons hang around with their ‘pagan’ friends. Or when I go to a Christmas party with my ‘pagan’ friends at work.

It means that you are not afraid of them. Your credibility is only lent to those to whom you give it. Besides, who said you had credibility to lend?

Maybe, it is they who are lending credibility to Kimball?

199   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
November 27th, 2010 at 10:28 am

The gospel is much bigger than legalist Christians make it. The tomb is empty. Jesus is alive. The Holy Spirit is at work in the darkest corners of the earth. There is hope.

I don’t understand Christians who live in fear and despair. That’s not the gospel I read in the Scriptures.

200   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
November 27th, 2010 at 10:28 am

The glass is not half-full. It’s overflowing with the Water of Life.

201   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 27th, 2010 at 10:29 am

And when the world sees and hears the church wrangling with truth, all truth, as if we now believe there no such things as settled and unchangeable truth, then they rightfully should become uninterested in what we have to say, or be drawn to our diluted brand of the Christian faith, or have a deserved disdain for our amiguous, enigmatic, and inconclusive conversation.

In short, not only has the message become void of eternal redemption, but in reality there eventually exists no message at all. If Jesus tarries for another 50 years, the scenario I outlined may unfold; it already has begun.

I have no such fears. The Biblical narrative doesn’t say the Church advanced because of it’s unwavering stance on absolute truth or its credibility. If that were the case, I have no doubt the Church would be dead already. The Church advances because of people seeing Jesus and because of people seeing our love for each other. I do think it is sad that there are so many people who spend so much time trying to discern who’s actually in and out, though.

I don’t believe that all roads lead to God or anything like it. I believe salvation is through Christ alone. What I don’t believe, though, is that any single Christian tradition has hold of the single way to get to Christ. I believe Christ will draw people and is drawing people all the time. And, yes, I believe there are sorts of false teachings floating around, just as there always has been, but I believe Christ is bigger than those. In other words, I look at the world through the eyes of hope rather than fear.

202   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 27th, 2010 at 10:36 am

There is a difference between pagans and false teachers. Don’t you fellows believe that we should ever separate from any false teachers? Or do you just have differring stipulations?

“I believe Christ will draw people and is drawing people all the time.”

And so is Satan blinding people’s eyes. You guys seem like Calvinists. :)

203   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 27th, 2010 at 10:44 am

“I don’t believe that all roads lead to God or anything like it.”

But Phil, do you believe that soemone who teaches that all roadsd lead to God is a false teacher and is deceiving sinners?

204   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 27th, 2010 at 10:49 am

There is a difference between pagans and false teachers. Don’t you fellows believe that we should ever separate from any false teachers? Or do you just have differring stipulations?

Well, sure, if someone is teaching something that is obviously wrong regarding the nature of Christ or a core teaching, I would not recommend listening to them, and I wouldn’t go around and do seminars with them. What I consider a core teaching probably would be something like the Nicene creed – Trinitarian nature of God; Christ begotten, not created; physical resurrection of Christ and the saints; one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Limiting it to this creed would deal with most heresies, and would give a certain starting point. I don’t think things like the nature of hells, the scope of salvation, homosexuality in churches, or other things rise to the level of heresy. That doesn’t mean they’re not important, or that a groups view of those issues wouldn’t prevent me from serving in some role with a church that believed differently than I do on those issues. I wouldn’t want to be on staff in a church in which I had significant disagreements with leadership.

205   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 27th, 2010 at 10:54 am

If Jesus tarries for another 50 years, the scenario I outlined may unfold

and it may not…

206   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 27th, 2010 at 10:57 am

#204 – Than you, Phil. That is what I was looking for. It means you do endorse discerning and separation, but it depends upon our differing perseptions of what is and what is not “separation worthy”. :cool:

I can live with that.

#205 – If it doesn’t, then it would have to undue what already has begun.

207   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 27th, 2010 at 10:58 am

Gotta go for some medicine.

208   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 27th, 2010 at 11:01 am

But Phil, do you believe that soemone who teaches that all roadsd lead to God is a false teacher and is deceiving sinners?

Basically, yes, I would say that would probably be the case. Of all the people on that list Kimball is being trashed for associating with, I’ve never read or heard any of them actually say that. I’ve heard them say or read where they write that God may reveal Himself to those involved in other religions, but I don’t consider those two statements equivalent.

On the other hand, though, doesn’t Calvinism basically say all roads lead to God? I mean, you’re either being led to Him for your salvation or for your damnation. You don’t really a choice on what road you’re on, and eventually, it will lead you to either an extremely happy or an extremely terrifying encounter with Him. I actually think that in sort of a ironic twist of fate, the prevalence of Calvinism in American Evangelicalism is actually pushing some people to Universalism. People are told that God’s grace is irresistible and that they have no choice in following God, so they see the innate unfairness of God’s grace only being available to a select few. They then in turn just say God’s irresistible grace will be shown to all.

I guess that’s the thing. I find the teachings on some of the ODM- approved reading list just as dangerous, if not more dangerous than those on the bad list. Any theology can be distorted to the point where it becomes a false teaching, and with some the jump is not as far as others.

209   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 27th, 2010 at 11:01 am

#206 perhps

210   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 27th, 2010 at 11:21 am

#208 – You are pushing my bottons. I mean the histeria concerning false teachers from a Calvinist is perplexing, especially since those false teachers cannot alter or even influence anyone’s eternal destiny, which they contend is paramount in the faith.

And when you teach that God has amused Himself by picking His team and the opponents team before the game began, that must by definition affect your evangelism. They also seem disturbed by the prospect of someone making a false profession of faith. Who cares?

Why would you be upset if a non-elect sinner falsely believ he was saved and enjoyed his life even when he had no possibility to be saved? Are you so mean that it bugs you if a hell bound with no chance sinners has some joy?

211   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 27th, 2010 at 1:43 pm

#210 That is because you and many others have a false view of Calvinism ( I am a Biblicist, not a Calvinist) as I read the Bible from cover to cover I see that God does choose, but man has responsibility to respond to that choice in obedience. You cannot deny that God chose
Noah
Abraham
Jacob (over Esau)
Israel
David

Not because of anything that they had done, but based upon Himself for His glory. But each one of them responded to God’s choosing and evidenced that they were of the chosen by the way that they responded to God by faith and to a lesser degree their works.

As to Kimball and others (I do not know how ‘calvinism’ got into this) Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism has been considered heresy since the 300’s. It seems to be coming back into vogue today. If there is anything that we add to salvation, it is not of grace. And that is heresy that is damned. (See Galatians 1)

212   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 27th, 2010 at 2:18 pm

#211, Actually Semi-Pelag has never been considered heresy.

213   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 27th, 2010 at 2:23 pm

just kidding john

214   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 27th, 2010 at 2:24 pm

God chose man to choose. :cool:

215   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 27th, 2010 at 2:35 pm

” If there is anything that we add to salvation, it is not of grace.”

Does that include baptism?

216   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 27th, 2010 at 4:33 pm

It seems to be coming back into vogue today. If there is anything that we add to salvation, it is not of grace. And that is heresy that is damned. (See Galatians 1)

Seems being the operative word there… Meaning from your skewed perspective.

Being Arminian is not the same as being Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian (whatever the heck the semi prefix means – it seems pretty black or white. You either believe that salvation can be earned or it can’t.). I see the charge thrown around quite a bit, but I very rarely see it in reality. If anything, demanding repentance before offering forgiveness is a type of work-based salvation.

Anyway, believe God offers all humanity the gift of salvation with the ability to choose to accept it or not has nothing to do with works. Saying “yes” and accepting a gift is not the same as earning something. Even a four year old can understand that. I get tired dealing with the same lame accusations over and over and over again.

217   Neil    
November 27th, 2010 at 6:50 pm

…it appears that most of you fellows are followers of the Emerging Church movement (as opposed to followers of the Emergent Church movement)….My point is this: myself, pastorboy and the rest of you still have many core Christian doctrines in common.

i am not a follower of the emerging church movement as much as an observer. the church i attend is certainly not.

your point is correct. we certainly have more doctrine in common than we have in contention. that is usually not the point.

218   Neil    
November 27th, 2010 at 7:07 pm

dave and pastorboy,

the issue of who kimball hangs with is not relevant to the op. it has no bearing on his status as a believer in christ and a brother in the church.

it may be an interesting side issue, but that is all.

219   Neil    
November 27th, 2010 at 7:13 pm

regarding friends who are not christian,

i agree that sometimes presenting the gospel will cause them to rebuff the friendship. but the bible does not assume or teach this as axiomatic.

to ponder this theorem:
if kimball has friends who are not believers
then he is a) not sharing the gospel with them or b) does not believe the gospel.

is fallacious logic. it is wrong. it is arrogant.

220   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 27th, 2010 at 7:25 pm

I am unfurling my sail to catch the divine spark from Bin Laden. But his religion is as valid as any other. :cool:

221   Neil    
November 27th, 2010 at 7:31 pm

220 – what does that mean rick? certainly you are not saying kimball says islam is as valid as christianity… are you?

222   Neil    
November 27th, 2010 at 7:39 pm

220 comments ago – comment #2 – rick brought up kimball’s associations. in comment #3 i gave a paraphrase of kimball addressing that in the interview.

at comment #25 pastorboy dove in with tangential issues that were either untrue or addressed in previous writings and the interview. he has yet to recant his false accusations.

long about #38 i made my first call for anyone to show anything kimball has said, written, or taught that is contradictory to the core of our faith.

along the way other accusations have been leveled… other personalities attacked… more mud slung… yet nothing has stuck to kimball.

so here we are – 222nd comment.

and what has been set against kimball so far –

nothing.

223   Jerry    http://www.jerryhillyer.com
November 27th, 2010 at 8:37 pm

Rick,

As a courtesy to the rest of us, will you stop using the smiley face to hide your condescension? Frankly, it is boring. Just be contrary without the condescension.

Thank you,
jerry

224   Jerry    http://www.jerryhillyer.com
November 27th, 2010 at 8:38 pm

Neil,

The only thing I have against Kimball is that I don’t know enough about him. Do you think he’d come over for dinner if I invited him?

jerry

225   pastorboy    http://www.riveroflifealliance.com
November 27th, 2010 at 8:40 pm

I think I will invite him for dinner next time I am in Cali.

226   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 27th, 2010 at 9:03 pm

It is almost impossible for me to avoid condescension given my level of communication, even when it is unintentional.

Jerry – Don’t allow little things to bother you. :cool:

227   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 27th, 2010 at 9:10 pm

#221 – It was a little humor using Shane Hipps theology.

228   john hughes    
November 27th, 2010 at 9:29 pm

Jerry, God has placed Rick in your life for a purpose. Don’t kick against the goads or you will have to repeat and repeat the lesson until learned.

229   john hughes    
November 27th, 2010 at 9:38 pm

Saying “yes” and accepting a gift is not the same as earning something – Phil

Amen Phil, but I think that nuance is beyond the 5 point Calvinist.

I defer to Jesus (who I think should know):

John 6:28-29 – Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

To believe does not add anything to grace. It just accepts it. Calvinist define this as a work by theological fiat. It is a work because they say it is a work. Logic has nothing to do with it.

230   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 27th, 2010 at 10:49 pm

A little humor:

Phil gets to heaven and an angel takes him on a guided tour. But the angel introduces him to the ugliest girl he has ever seen and informs him that she will be his constant companion for 1 million years as a punishment for his careless Christian life. As they walk around heaven, Phil sees Neil with an unbelievably beautiful girl and asks the angel why Neil gets such a beautiful girl when Phil is sure he lived just as good a life as Neil.

The angel recognizes Phil’s confusion and says, “Phil, that beautiful girl lived a very careless life and Neil is her punishment!”

231   Neil    
November 28th, 2010 at 9:00 am

The only thing I have against Kimball is that I don’t know enough about him. Do you think he’d come over for dinner if I invited him?

he may not make a special trip to northeast ohio just for that… but if he were in town i bet he would – time permitting. :)

232   Neil    
November 28th, 2010 at 9:01 am

I think I will invite him for dinner next time I am in Cali.

i think that would be a great idea.

233   Neil    
November 28th, 2010 at 9:04 am

#221 – It was a little humor using Shane Hipps theology.

ok – just checking… given some of the outlandish and false accusation against kimball, i just wanted to check.

234   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 28th, 2010 at 12:20 pm

I just listened to Rosebrough’s response on the dubious logic of withhunts and had a couple of thoughts.
1. If the “discerners” really followed Walter Martin they would have to greatly reduce the number of people on their heretics are us list.
2. There is a whole lot of anger to be found on the cross talk blog. Whenever I am away from those types of sites for a while and I go back, reading the downright anger and hate is like jumping into a body of cold water. It takes your breath away.

235   Neil    
November 28th, 2010 at 1:44 pm

joe, there is a lot of anger here at times… certainly not as consistently, but we have our share – how would you differentiate the anger?

236   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 28th, 2010 at 2:48 pm

Neil,
I’m not sure. How do you differentiate it? Or do you believe it is the same?

237   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 28th, 2010 at 2:51 pm

The exact same only different targets. ODM flesh is the same as PPP flesh which is the same as FJL flesh.

238   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 28th, 2010 at 2:53 pm

#237,
So the other day when you were gang piling on Jerry with PB, that was the exact same as what is on Cross Talk?

239   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 28th, 2010 at 2:59 pm

joe, there is a lot of anger here at times… certainly not as consistently, but we have our share – how would you differentiate the anger?

You really think this? I know that we occasionally have outbursts in comments here, but I don’t ever see the same type of angry posts here that are the bread and butter of those other sites.

Anyway, I don’t think anger is always wrong. If someone is attacking your wife or family, I would expect some sort of anger in the response. If not, I’d suspect something wasn’t quite right.

I guess one thing that has always struck me about sites like Lighthouse Trails isn’t so much the anger, but really more the fear and paranoia. It seems they are able to find a demon under every rock on those sites, and suspect the absolute worst of people who are theologically different from them.

240   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 28th, 2010 at 3:00 pm

I am not sure what you are talking about, but everyone, including you, has exhibited fallen flesh, which is the same as on Crosstalk. Poor Jerry, gang piling on.

Jerry holds his own in piling on. :)

241   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 28th, 2010 at 3:01 pm

I admit, that I tend to skim the comments here and usually think that most threads follow the same pattern. We all have our opinions of the other people on this thread. Some people love Rick, some people think his comments are worthlessly haughty. Some people love Chris L, some people think that he has small children hidden in his basement so that he can sacrifice them to the gods of capitalism. Some people like me, some people think that I deserve all sorts of hate and anger.
Neil, I get the idea that you don’t like me. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m saying it’s my opinion. The point is that I’ve never seen any one here consign anyone to Hell, even you for me. The anger over there is at every thing that doesn’t look they want it to look. Maybe it’s the same here but for the most part, I could tell you how the comments will go here almost every day.

242   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 28th, 2010 at 3:02 pm

#239
Well said, better than I was able to express my own feelings.

243   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 28th, 2010 at 3:07 pm

Joe _ I honestly believe I would like you much better in person. I think that is a common phenomenon on the internet, yes?

244   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 28th, 2010 at 3:09 pm

#241 – I reject the adverb “worthlessly” and embrace the predicate nomnitive “haughty”.

245   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 28th, 2010 at 3:11 pm

#243, To me that would make sense, yes.

246   Neil    
November 28th, 2010 at 5:27 pm

Neil,
I’m not sure. How do you differentiate it? Or do you believe it is the same?

well, for one we are not in the business of deciding who is and is not of the faith… we do not judge people for methodologies with which we disagree… we certainly do not intentionally misquote, or partially quote… and even though we’re conservative politically, we keep a better distinction between faith and fatherland.

for starters.

247   Neil    
November 28th, 2010 at 5:30 pm

maybe that didn’t answer the question… that being – what is the difference between their anger and ours.

i guess the answer to that questions is – they start from a position of anger… looking for someone to point at and accuse.

i get angry when they employ faulty logic, sloppy interpretations, lie, copy and paste without reading, etc – all in the name of jesus and at the expense of the truth and the brethren.

248   Neil    
November 28th, 2010 at 5:34 pm

Neil, I get the idea that you don’t like me.

not at all joe. we certainly have differing opinions, but as well as i know ya i like ya just fine.

in fact, that was the reason for the question about anger – since we often think differently, i was curious what you thought.

249   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 28th, 2010 at 6:02 pm

Since sites like crosstalk often screen and delete comments, they avoid some of the flseh that is sometimes evident in comment threads here. I don’t believe they show anger as such, but much self righteousness and idolatry.

250   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 28th, 2010 at 6:34 pm

Yes, I agree. I really think there is a difference in the place that each of us is coming from. Some sites out there just seem to me that they are coming from an angry place and they have found a place in the internet to express it. I don’t think this is just about places like the crosstalk blog where they are more conservative. There are certainly as many angry liberals out there who will cut people up over disagreements. I think the best way I could nuance the difference is to say that it seems to me over there they come from a posture of anger whereas here (most of the time) we express anger during a conversation.
To use a potentially dangerous illustration because it could sidetrack the conversation; There is a difference between being a drunk and being a person who was drunk once last year.
Does all of that make sense?

251   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 28th, 2010 at 6:39 pm

#249.
The author of such blogs don’t strike you as angry or as coming from a position of constant anger? Even when they are writing things about which they agree there seems to me to be an angry undertone.

252   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 28th, 2010 at 7:43 pm

I do not see it as anger. I see it as self righteousness. I have seen self admitions from all writers here, even those with whom I have been combative.

I have never seen genuine humility or apologies from the ODM camp. In fact, when an ODM takes a kinder/gentler attitude toward a popular discernment target, that ODM is usually attacked and even dismissed from the membership.

I, personally, assign greater weight to an occasional apology than I do to nano-doctrinal orthodoxy.

253   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 28th, 2010 at 9:17 pm

I guess I have a hard time separating them, they are like sickness and disease in my mind. I agree there is plenty of self righteousness, which is why when it can proven that something that has been written is factually inaccurate the post just goes down but it really seems like there is an underlying issue of pure anger there most of the time.

254   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 28th, 2010 at 9:54 pm

I have seen where a post is revealed as inaccurate because the news article it relied upon was inaccurate. And instead of a humble and profuse apology, the blame is shifted to the news source.

It is impossible to have a conversation with them that is respectful and without an escalating atmosphere of unkind verbiage. And the overwhelming ODM blogs have removed all vestiges of anything resembling a mirror.

255   Neil    
November 29th, 2010 at 10:02 am

upon further refection, i agree with rick when he says what they show is not anger. like us, at times, they get angry…

…but i would say the position from which they operate, the place from which they start is not anger,

they are mean-spirited and nasty. that may be a subtle difference, but it is a distinction.

256   Neil    
November 29th, 2010 at 10:08 am

I have seen where a post is revealed as inaccurate because the news article it relied upon was inaccurate. And instead of a humble and profuse apology, the blame is shifted to the news source.

that would be a simple mistake or sloppy research – and we have seen plenty of it.

what is more insidious is twisting the facts, or selective quoting?

just look at what pastorboy copy/pasted about the lausanne occasional paper (cf. 96) compared to the original it was lifted from (cf. 108).

that is more than blame-shifting. that is outright dishonest and deceptive. what kind of “ministry” purposefully uses lies and deception as a method.

(since pastorboy did not site a source we cannot address it directly. i assume pastorboy is not guilty of deception in this case, i expect he was duped by them and just employed a copy/paste). and since, like pastorboy, most people do not bother to read pages and pages of the lausanne papers in context – the lie is spread like a virus.)

257   Neil    
November 29th, 2010 at 10:16 am

You really think this? I know that we occasionally have outbursts in comments here, but I don’t ever see the same type of angry posts here that are the bread and butter of those other sites.

i agree phil. as i sais above, i think it is just that they are mean and nasty. we get angry. we even lose our tempers from time to time in the comments. but the posts are not mean-spirited and nasty.

258   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 29th, 2010 at 10:21 am

#255, I guess I see mean spirited and nasty as a secondary emotion and anger as being the base emotion.

259   Neil    
November 29th, 2010 at 10:26 am

#255, I guess I see mean spirited and nasty as a secondary emotion and anger as being the base emotion.

i was coming from the position that anger is a response, and mean-spirited and nasty are ways of being. i suppose it is possible the anger is the base emotion and it is based on something deeper, a reaction to something…. say loss of power/influence… or methods they do not like…

then anger would be the emotion, mean-spirited & nasty would be the expression.

260   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 29th, 2010 at 10:47 am

#259, Yeah, I’m going to have to think about it. I see what you are saying.

261   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 29th, 2010 at 10:47 am

This discussion about whether people are mean-spirited or angry seems to be heading in Monty Python-esque directions… “Are you suggesting that coconuts migrate?”

262   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 29th, 2010 at 11:38 am

Self righteousness is almost always mean spirited, but it isn’t always angry. In fact, it can be served up in false humility and in an emotionally controlled way that is designed to elicit anger from someone else.

263   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 29th, 2010 at 11:51 am

#262.
We’re about to wander far from the OP and I imagine drive some people crazy. Having said that, I think that this part of the conversation could be really fascinating. Working with people to figure out their emotions going on underneath their actions is always fun to me.
I am not sure I agree that just because it is served up in false humility and in an emotionally controlled way doesn’t mean that it does not come from a place of anger. Anger can often be hidden under a controlled veneer that seems so placid and quiet on the outside.

264   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 29th, 2010 at 11:58 am

#263 – Perhaps. But more often anger cannot be controlled, and even when someone attempts to hide it, it surfaces very easily.

265   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 29th, 2010 at 12:17 pm

See, I would have to say that in my work I find that to not be true at all. Sure it’s true of a certain section of society but far and away many of my clients are outwardly very controlled. I mean, it might come out at home but it doesn’t come out at work or other places where they have to be controlled (or can control others by not allowing an honest conversation). It has been my experience that anger can often be controlled and is controlled in environments in situations where people feel they have control.

266   Neil    
November 29th, 2010 at 12:24 pm

i think the op has run it;s course. no one was able to offer anything against kimball’s doctrine or teaching.

267   Neil    
November 29th, 2010 at 12:56 pm

the reason i prefer “mean-spirited & nasty” to “angry” – as a description – is because anger can be an appropriate response. for example, when pastorboy called the lausanne statement false – i got angry. when he perpetuated false accusations against kimball – i got angry.

i believe these to be examples of proper anger.

on the other hand – i am not an angry person… maybe that’s the difference. getting angry vs. being an angry person.

268   Joe    http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=john+chisham
November 29th, 2010 at 1:21 pm

maybe that’s the difference. getting angry vs. being an angry person.

absolutely agree

269   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 29th, 2010 at 1:38 pm

I do so your view about anger. But I suggest that ODM anger is birthed by self righteousness.

270   Neil    
November 29th, 2010 at 5:07 pm

your suggestion fits with my assumption that being an angry person has a cause. please define/illustrate self righteousness.

271   Neil    
November 29th, 2010 at 5:08 pm

i suppose, this does fit with the op in the sense that kimball suggests that from the overflow of the heart the fingers type.

272   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 29th, 2010 at 9:06 pm

When your “ministry” is to look for and publish the heresies and sins of others, you will have no difficulty in fulfilling your ministry. And in your quest you will find what you are looking for, or what you are manipulating.

I will write about heresies, however they come to me.