In case anyone was curious, Kevinâs âtwo thoughtsâ were (summarized):
1.) This is not a Matt 18 issue calling for private response before public airing;
and
2.) Rob isnât only asking questions. Heâs trying to teach a point using questions as a rhetorical form.
A pity KDY doesnât take his own advice and actually read the Bible passages he refers to and think and pray about what they mean - instead of just trotting out the old bad news formulations. And where is the love, where is the humility in what he writes about Rob Bell? How sad it is to see an influential church leader write in this way.
Actually, Kevin specifically called out against Calvinists acting like âjerksâ against Rob; so he at least recognizes thereâs a danger and seems to be at least a little self-critical about wanting to make sure he doesnât fall into that himself.
I donât perceive Bell as intending to ridicule these doctrinesâmerely stating the questions that so many have wrestled with. Maybe just the fact that he dares to question these âsacredâ truths, is enough to bring on the charge of âundermining and ridiculingâ?
Itâs reasonable to believe that a righteous God will be angry about sin, but does he really not see that thereâs reason to question and wrestle with ECT and PSA? In the video, I donât recall Bell questioning Godâs wrath at all, just ECT. But to Keith, it seems to mean the same thing.
Sonia
In case anyone is curious (and since itâs hard to find in the mega-long comments there), here was my comment posted in his thread. (I doubt he read it due to the thread length, so no one should think less of him if he doesnât answer.)
***comment
As someone who has written thousands of pages of apologetics for orthodox trinitarian theism (as well as historical apologetics): I also find something Rob said in that video to be pretty common. â[W]hat gets subtly sort of caught and taught is that Jesus rescues you from God.â
Trinitarian theologians of all people ought to know better than to schism between the Persons like that, but this is what the people in the pew often end up learningâand frankly Iâve caught trained theologians saying what amounts to this, too.
If weâre going to be trinitarian, be consistently trinitarian, and then make sure our soteriology follows consistently. Or (though I wouldnât recommend it) deny trinitarianism and be a modalist or an Arian of some kind. But donât go both waysâand donât deny a precept of trinitarianism in order to bolster a soteriological position. Thatâs an incoherent theology, and we can be sure weâre not interpreting the scriptures properly (in one or more ways) if that happens.
Iâm saying this because some of the things Kevin has written seem to imply this thing that Rob was complaining about (and not in a question but in one of his declaratives.) And yet Kevin is worried that Rob is saying something that is inconsistent with orthodoxy.
Would you care to comment on that Kevin? (Or point to where you have already?âitâs a long comment thread. {g}) Which do you find and believe is consistent with orthodox trinitarianism and which is inconsistent?âthat the Father does not abandon the Son (no moreso than the Son rebels against the Father), or that the Father abandons the Son?
That the Son has come to save us from the Father, or that the Son has come (with the Spirit from the Father) to save us from our sins?
That God is essentially love in Godâs own interpersonal self-begetting self-begotten existence as the ground of all reality (and so âLove winsâ), or that God is is not essentially love and so is not the self-existent interpersonal Trinity (neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance); or perhaps that God is love this has nothing to do with God being a loving relationship as-and-at the ground of all reality; or perhaps that God is a loving relationship as-and-at the ground of all reality but God is not essentially love?
That justice has nothing primarily to do with love and/or has primarily to do with hate (and so the Persons of the Trinity are never just to one another, or maybe primarily hate one another as well as love one another); or that justice is primarily and ultimately (even in punishment) about the fulfillment of love and fair-togetherness between persons (like in the eternal unity of the Trinity that grounds all reality against which we sin by being un-righteous, i.e. acting to fulfill non-fair-togetherness unlike the Trinity from all eternity)?
These and other related issues are directly relevant to whether trinitarian theism is true, and/or to what trinitarian theism uniquely means compared to other propositions of theism. But they also have huge logical consequences in regard to soteriologyâincluding some consequences that Calvinists have historically been staunch defenders of! (But also including some consequences Arminians have historically been staunch defenders of!)
The basic question is whether trinitarian theologians are consistently interpreting what the scriptures say about salvation and condemnation in light of the Trinity? Or not? (In light of something other than the Trinity?âless than the Trinity?âmore than the Trinity??!)
Are they REALLY giants of church history? In Godâs eyes? The first âchristianâ terrorist, an anti-semite, and a conspirator to murder who believed in a sadistic capricious god!
Give me strength!
Was David great in Godâs eyes?