Once again the John MacArthur Crew has taken a sentence, wrenched it out of context, created a new context just so that they could slander someone who is associated with the emerging church movement.
To read the slander by Phil Johnson follow this link.
Hello, Dan Kimball here....
Someone emailed me to let me know that Phil posted some opinions on what I wrote and believe.
I thought I would clear up some of the things being misunderstood or left out of what I actually wrote on the chapter as being discussed here.
For one, the book "Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches" was not supposed to be an exhaustive list of everything we believe. That would take a whole volume or more. We were given freedom to write whatever we wanted to and expand on anything, but we were specifically asked to make sure we covered some core theological topics such as the atonement, the Scriptures, the Trinity and religious pluralism.
So when you read what I wrote, I tried to focus on those core things - never saying that is all I believe nor limiting it to there to only what is in the Nicene Creed. I said after that, I do tread with humility and prayer and wonder about things that godly people throughout church history have had differences of opinions on. But I specifically made sure I said that I do have doctrinal beliefs beyond the Nicene Creed. For those that have not read the chapter, you should be aware that I also stated other beliefs.
On page 105 I specifically said "It is hard to communicate in one chapter what a church believes and practices theologically. I tried to highlight a few core beliefs and share my heart about the importance of theology."
On page 94 I said "Please understand, that as I say I left more to mystery, it doesn't mean I don't believe you can't come to solid conclusions about many things in addition to the Nicene Creed. There are many things mentioned that I believe are clear, such as Jesus' teaching about marriage, the authority of the Bible itself, the role of the Spirit in personal transformation."
I clearly stated in the chapter I believe in a Triune God (pages 99-100), I believe in the substitionary atonement (pages 100-101), believe in the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures (page 94-97), that all religions do not lead to God (page 101-102), an eternal heaven and hell (page 102).
Phil, you rather sharply and in my opinion very inaccurately wrote about my message in the chapter:"
The message of Kimball's chapter seems to epitomize the trend: "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Timothy 3:7)."
I clearly stated that I have belief in "truth" giving some brief listings of theological positions on very core doctrines in addition to those in the Nicene Creed. I also wrote a section with a header called "We can be bold and confident in what the Scriptures do make clear" (page 99).
I read at your own Shepherd's Conference the flurry of debate about your end times distinct position that was spoken on. Would all those who hold to core doctrines as I listed for myself, but believe in an amillennial position be seens as 2 Timothy 3:7 kinds of people?
If anyone in your circles and frequenters of this blog has specific questions to clarify anything I believe, or what our church practices, please feel free to go to my blog www.dankimball.com and I will be more than happy to respond or to answer questions.
This summer, two students from Masters College visited our church on a Sunday. Afterwards, they said something like "This is nothing like we expected. You preached from the Bible." They listed other things from Masters College that they were taught all emerging churches were supposed to be like. Some of the descriptions were so incredibly sad and inaccurate and I was glad they got to see and experience first hand that some of the stereotypes and accusations were not all true.
Peace in Jesus - Dan
11:46 AM, April 06, 2007
My take on all this:
The constant mode of operation from the critics of the emerging church is very consistent. They take a sentence and then build a straw man argument to make it say the opposite that it really does. It seems that Truth is not that important and that lying is a “righteous thing” if you are attacking someone you believe to be a heretic. The real issue is this. How can anyone justify attacking another brother in the Lord? It seems that Scripture means little to the John MacArthur and Crew crowd as they seem to not care that scripture itself tells us so often to not judge each other and that Jesus alone is to be the Judge over all mankind.
Romans 8: 29-39.
"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died--more than that, who was raised to life--is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?
As it is written
"For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
It is sad that JM and crew seem fitting that they should attack Dan Kimball over the weekend we celebrate the Resurrection. For by the resurrection we have been justified by Christ and set free… yet some seem fit to usurp Christ from the Throne and judge others themselves… with slanderous lies…
So once again we find from the JM crowd… that it is “Grace to you” only if you line up behind John MacArthur…
Beware of divisive men!
You can read Bob Hyatts response here.
So it seems the "Truth wars" are officially on... and so far the accusers are ranking a big zero on the truth meter... and owe one huge apology... yet I really think that pride will keep Phil Johnson from being able to see his own arrogant ways.
Be sure to check out the latest at Watching the watchdawgs for Christ blog... Does Ken need real help?