(Calv) President of Fuller Seminary: charity to Rob Bell


#1

Calv theologian Richard J. Mouw, currently the president of Fuller Seminary (a broadly Calvinistic institution), disagrees with Rob Bell vs. ECT, but does so in an admirably charitable, respectful fashion. (He has rather more patience with Rob than I do! :laughing: )

Two articles, some good details in each:

“The Orthodoxy of Rob Bell”

“More Thoughts on ‘Generous Orthodoxy’”


#2

DITTO! Call me mean spirited, opinionated, judgmental even dogmatic but if people come out with wishy washy rebuttals such as these then they might as well not come out at all. He starts off by saying, “He thinks it’s a fine book but disagrees with his theology”… That’s like David Horowitz saying, I think “mein kampf” is a fine book but I disagree with his politics. :neutral_face:

I guarantee you the president wouldn’t be so patient and respectful if his mother or wife were being slandered in such a manner and if he did then I doubt his wife would find him “admirable”

WHERE ARE THE MEN!!! :angry: God Bless! :slight_smile:


#3

Godwin’s law?

So it’s slander to put someone in a better light than they typically are? To make them out to be more gracious and hospitable than others think?


#4

That’s a loaded question and a strawman based on a presupposition. God Bless! :slight_smile:


#5

You are commenting on this from your perspective. I am commenting from his perspective. The god Rob Bell portrays is not the God the president believes or sees in scripture which from his perspective is dangerous, damning, and destructive basically blasphemous, apostate, heretical. If someone did this to his wife, how do you think he would have responded? …Do you think he would have said, “well I believe you have made some interesting points about my wife and there may be somethings we can ponder on or even agree”…Ya right. God Bless! :slight_smile:


#6

“Slander” is a loaded term, too. It isn’t only speaking falsely about a person, but doing so in a way that makes them out to be immoral when they aren’t.

If someone claimed that Dr. Mouw’s wife was forgiving and gracious to all people who have done her wrong, and Dr. happened to correctly know and believe otherwise, I expect he would in fact reply much the same way as here: thanks for the compliment, but she isn’t that forgiving and gracious to people who have done her wrong. Yes, she can be very extensively and amazingly gracious sometimes to some people, depending on her whim, but everyone needs to be aware that in regard to other people she is not gracious and forgiving at all. And (so Dr. M believes) his wife is entirely within her rights to be that way, and has good reason to be that way! It’s understandable that Rob feels so strongly about his wife’s mercy and graciousness, since she was gracious and merciful to him after he did her wrong, but honesty constrains Dr. M to point out that his wife will certainly not be so merciful and gracious (or maybe even at all merciful and gracious) to other people who have done her wrong.

What Rob would be claiming to be the real truth about Dr. M’s wife wouldn’t (per hypothesis) be true, but it wouldn’t be slander per se either.


#7

Rob also (by analogy) claims that Dr. Mouw is slandering Dr. M’s own wife, while Rob is standing up for her honor. Dr. M appreciates Rob trying to do that, but replies that he really isn’t slandering his own wife; it’s just that Rob doesn’t understand her as well as Dr. M does.


#8

It could also be said, following the same analogy, that Rob thinks Dr. M is slandering Rob’s own wife, and Rob is trying to set the record straight. Dr. M appreciates this, but he thinks people need to be aware (for their own safety, as well as for sake of the truth), that Rob’s wife is really not gracious and forgiving to all people who have sinned against her. To Rob and to Dr. M, yes–and Dr. M can see why Rob would want to extrapolate that to include Rob’s wife being equally gracious to everyone, since Dr. M is certainly appreciative of the grace Rob’s wife has given Dr. M himself! But still, not because Dr. M is being ungrateful to her, but because it’s the truth, Dr. M has to correct Rob on this. Moreover Dr. M defends the actual real behavior of Rob’s wife as being correctly appropriate.


#9

I simply love reading your posts! :smiley:

Chris


#10

(Modified to apply widely)

LOL, same here Chris. Jason’s got a knack for good-naturedly pointing out the illogical bits of others’ statements. Glad he’s on our “side!” (At least momentarily-speaking, because of course, from an eternal perspective, we all end up on the same “side”) :mrgreen:

On topic: Need to read Dr Mouw’s articles, especially if they attempt to be Christlike. :slight_smile:


#11

I am not talking about Rob Bell but the person you started this thread over who is the president. He and I are of the same ilk therefore he sees Rob Bell’s book as heretical therefore slandering God’s nature and character irrespective of how Rob Bell views God.
There would be no problem if Rob bell just admitted he was a universalist but instead he still insist he is of our camp and continues to spread humanistic philosophy of God, constantly twisting scripture to fit his own philosophy. What Rob Bell is doing is inexusable and the president knows it yet he responds in this soft, humanistic luvy duvy approach. He of all people knows that love can be forthright, it can be forceful also because hell is serious and should be treated as such. This president believes in his heart that Rob Bell is misguided and lost so too are his followers on a path to eternal damnation and how does he respond to this impending damnation? ambiguously. His ambiguity only fuels the fire, it softens doctrine, it blurs the line, it fools people into thinking they are on the right path. This president was anything but loving to Rob Bell and the people who follow him. How can you be loving fully believing that he is heading to hell and respond with no such urgency. God Bless! :slight_smile:


#12

Are we still talking about scripture? Mainstream orthodox teaching supports doctrine of eternal hell, to not support that is to be outside it’s teachings. I am not throwing judgment but stating a fact. We are not talking about abhorrent teachers like Osteen or Rick Warren, this is full blown heresy coming out of evangelicalism and should be treated as such scripturally. The president dropped the ball and he knows it. He did not respond scripturally to what he believes is heresy nor did he protect his own or other sheep. “appreciate heresy?” There is only one thing to do as a shepherd when a wolf shows up among the sheep, you yell, RUN!!! anything less than that would be irresponsible, negligent and unscriptural. God Bless! :slight_smile:


#13

Oxymoron, do you believe Rob Bell is going to Eternal Hell? IE: He’s going to burn, forever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever?


#14

I’ve always been very irritated at people who are quick to say, “Don’t judge” when they don’t even know what it means. They use it as an excuse to keep themselves free from honest examination. To the best of my understanding, Jesus was speaking about judgment of condemnation. More accurately we might translate that Jesus was saying, “Don’t condemn one another.” because Jesus was THE Judge, not us. Oxy, you are using the type of judgment that Jesus told us NOT to use. It’s fine to say that you think such a position is wrong, etc., but to say that you know that certain people are going to hell, (Bell and his “followers”) especially people who claim Jesus as their savior and lord, is crossing the line. You are out of line.

P.S. and then you say “God Bless” after you condemn them to hell…it’s really creepy.


#15

I believe all unbelievers will go to hell. Rob Bell worships a god of his own making and choosing, he loves his god but it is not the God of the bible therefore he is an idolator. God Bless! :slight_smile:


#16

A simple yes, or no, would suffice.

Yes, or no? Do you believe Rob Bell is going to burn in Hell forever?


#17

Actually the judgment Jesus was speaking of was hypocrisy. Jesus had no problem with judging as long as we do it in righteousness. What Jesus hated was hypocrites, how can you tell your neighbour to take the splint out of their eye when you have a beam in your own. Jesus was saying, if you are going to judge then what you are saying is, you can tell right from wrong, you cannot plead ignorance therefore if you are doing the same as your neighbour then judgment will be worse for you. God Bless! :slight_smile:


#18

Yes but understand that is what I BELIEVE!


#19

I have to reiterate, read carefully. I never said Rob Bell was going to hell but if the president is of my camp then that is what he believes. God Bless! :slight_smile:


#20

“I believe Rob Bell unless he turn from his ways is going to hell” Wow! that sounds ridiculous because Rob Bell doesn’t deserve hell infact, does anyone? NO WAY!!!

That’s the problem we look at it from a lower view and connect it with God’s love when we should be looking at scripture. Of course it makes no sense to believe Rob Bell or anyone else like my own loved ones are going to hell but I don’t base it off a human emotion or perception of who I think God is. I base it solely off scripture, the character and nature of God. Read 1ST John, if you don’t have the Son then you don’t have the Father either. I have no doubt that Rob Bell loves god but the god he loves is not the God of the bible. God Bless! :slight_smile: