Dietrich Bonhoeffer's descent into a philosophical Hell.

An exhortation to Brothertom from Appolus about the heretical nature of the doctrines of Dietrich Boenhoeffer, and the faith in MORAL RELATIVISM, as the Christian message.

"Perhaps you could have started another thread, in fact you may want to start a thread and give a list of people that you consider to be heretical and in no way Christian. It may be your "Paulean stand," but others will be able to see where you are coming from and who you would consider heretics.
I know of two others at least who would be on your list as we have bumped heads on that before :)...Appolus

[ Madame Guyon, I presume, and a view of as to why? A.W. Tozer derived much his ideology from the Secular and Catholic mystics as orthodoxy.] I will address that later.

From BT:..Appolus:
In view of the clear and obvious ignorant response to the facts about Bonhoeffer's perverted faith, and your refusal to consider them, I have, as per your request, began this as a separate thread, so that some may consider this perverted idea of Moral Relativism, as being Christian, or as it is at it's roots.

It is much below the Christian realm, and even Satanic, in my view.

I have posted a very well done, World renown Documentary video, done by
MARTIN DOBLMEIER.
http://www.bonhoeffer.com/bon2.htm
Appolus said:
"If it were ever proven that Bonhoeffer helped in the conspiracy to kill Hitler, I would find myself in disagreement with him on that issue and if he were still alive he would have to rip up his major work, because being involved in the killing of Hitler would be the opposite of what he wrote.........bro Frank [Appolus].........................................

When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, igniting the Second World War, a group of German conspirators were already plotting a coup d'état; over the next six years, there were as many as fifteen assassination attempts against Hitler.

One of the co-conspirators, a double-agent who smuggled information about the plots to the Allies, was the young German pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer. In the late 1930s he wrote about the necessity of "risking" peace and "daring" a loving presence to others – words which seem to fly in the face of his later justification of assassination.

But Bonhoeffer formulated his theology and ethics in the crucible of a long and ultimately fatal struggle with the Nazi regime in Germany. His story is a fascinating window onto the dilemmas of twentieth-century ethics and spirituality.

Bonhoeffer's work came to full fruition only after his death. His efforts and his writings on behalf of the international ecumenical movement laid the groundwork for post-war inter-faith dialogue.

His insistence on the importance of an active response to Christ's Sermon on the Mount – a call to social justice – inspired many of the world's great civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King, Jr., Vaclav Havel and Archbishop Desmond Tutu. [ none Christian].

RELIGIONLESS CHRISTIANITY
And finally, his brave and revolutionary concept of a "religionless Christianity" has helped Christian theology turn toward uncertain vistas of the future. It is an idea which exposes the vitality and relevance of faith in a world, as Bonhoeffer put it, "come of age."
http://www.bonhoeffer.com/bon2.htm
MARTIN DOBLMEIER.

BONHOEFFER BELIEVED THAT PRACTICAL ETHICAL ACTION WAS THE CORE OF WALKING WITH GOD!...AND SOCIAL ACTIVISM WAS THE PATH, AND THAT THE END, JUSTIFIED THE MEANS, EVEN UNTO MURDER.

http://www.alstaggs.com/main.html
Al Staggs provides a one-man portrayal (live and on videotape) of Bonhoeffer, underscoring the profound influence of fellow Union Theological student, Frank Fisher, an African-American friend who introduced Dietrich to the blight of racism in America.

Prisoner Bonhoeffer expresses moral outrage against the Nazi treatment of Jews and explains how that outrage led him to become involved in the German resistance movement, a commitment that would result in his being executed by hanging on April 9, 1945.

FRANK:"IF IT WERE EVER PROVEN?"

http://www.dbonhoeffer.org/
The International Dietrich Bonhoeffer Society, English section homepage. Provides information on research, recent publications, and the progress of the Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works translation project. This site would be most helpful to the serious student and/or researcher of Bonhoeffer.

AND:..If it were ever proven

THE FILM....BONHOEFFER is a 93-minute documentary film that tells the dramatic story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the young German theologian who offered one of the first clear voices of resistance to Adolf Hitler.
Bonhoeffer openly challenged his church to stand with the Jews in their time of need, and eventually joined his family in the plots to kill Hitler.
His books, Cost of Discipleship, Letters and Papers from Prison, and Ethics, were written during the struggle and are considered classics in the world of religion and ethics.

The film, shot on location in Germany and the United States, features interviews with family members, friends, students and associates who knew Bonhoeffer personally, including the last interview given by Bonhoeffer's closest friend and biographer, Eberhard Bethge, and an interview with Ruth Alice von Bismarck, the sister of Bonhoeffer's fiancée, Maria von Wedemeyer.

It also features interviews with outstanding historians and theologians including John de Gruchy and Geffrey Kelly, as well as comments from Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

Extensive research in archives both in Europe and the US yielded extraordinary archival footage, including a speech by Hitler praying for God's blessing on him and the German people and Bonhoeffer family footage that features the only known moving footage of Dietrich. The production team was also given access to never-before-seen personal and family photographs that help bring visual context to Bonhoeffer's life.http://www.bonhoeffer.com/thefilm.htm

Reading for the voice of Bonhoeffer is actor Klaus Maria Brandauer (Out of Africa, Russia House, etc). The film also features an original score by Emmy-award-winner John Keltonic.
THE CALL TO WHAT A PEACE MAKER REALLY MEANS!,,to the humanist of course.

THE DEFENSE OF THE SOCIAL GOSPEL! ..the enemy to the cross of Christ!
"Bonhoeffer is one of the great examples of moral courage in the face of conflict," explains director/writer Martin Doblmeier. "I believe part of the reason the film is getting attention now is because many of the issues Bonhoeffer faced – the role of the church in the modern world, national loyalty and personal conscience, what the call to being a "peacemaker" really means – are issues we continue to struggle with today."

The film portrays Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his search for the will of God, in his defense of the social gospel, in his struggle between pacifism and assassination plots, and in his core understanding of the interconnectedness of every single person.

http://www.bonhoeffer.com/groups.htm
I have watched this amazing documentary in it's entirety, with interviews from close friends, and family members, defining and defending DBs social gospel. It is a gospel of an Ethical lifestyle, where the End is always justified by the Means, which was the Trumpet call of DB, and in the end, is anti-Christian, and an enemy of the CROSS OF CHRIST!

In the end, in this Gospel, you are justified by the impact you have upon negative social situations such as his; the Jewish Holocaust of WW2. He was steeped in murder plots against Hitler, and justified his involvement as the will of God by means of a wicked and intense Humanistic philosophy that he proclaimed as Christian.

Liberal theology is much to faint of a condemnation for this heresy. DB taught a lie, a satanic lie, that one could be justified by his own moral and ethical choice, and should be. How many has he led to Hell, by means of his martyrdom as a Christian one? It was not.

If one can not see through this wicked deception, as so clearly opposed to the Word of God, and the clear teachings of the Bible, I truly fear for their soul. This is beyond obvious; it is another Gospel, bellowing to be noticed, as an enemy to the cross of Christ, and in no way founded from the simple but holy doctrines of grace and mercy found in the Holy Scripture.

"THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS!"

This is at the core of moral relativism. Is this what Jesus taught?

I can't say I know much about Bonhoeffer, as my access to anything he's written has been quite limited, however even on the Bonhoeffer.com website that was posted, this was cited as being positive;

"His efforts and his writings on behalf of the international ecumenical movement laid the groundwork for post-war inter-faith dialogue."

If this were true, it would definitely be something not to get mixed up with. I'd have to see the writings for myself, but it might be something to look into and consider. Anything ecumenical is not anywhere close to the Gospel call in the slightest.

I wish our Family here could come together more. We need one another. When your discernment is up - mine is down and when mine is up - yours may be down. GOD allows that for a specific reason. I won't get into all of the reasons why GOD allows that to happen - but one main reason is because He works through HIS Body and not lone-rangers.

This whole thing started over one of our new members wanting to fellowship here with us and read The Cost of Discipleship together with their newly found Family members.

I read that book about 30 yrs ago and I thought it was enriching. I'm not sure if I've read Life Together or not but I know I did read a lot about "The Body" back then.

We need to work with each other and not go against each other, at any chance that we can. The book that the few wanted to read together would have brought out much of what Bonhoeffer taught and we could just leave it at that.

I'm proud of Frank for not replying to this and I do recommend we look more to watch over each other and help one another than to go after things that we know the others don't believe in anyway. Soon we see the full-blown fulfillment of the Whole world hating us and then we'll be only too glad to find each other in that storm.
None of us are inter-faith nor ecumenical and you need to understand that those that were on that thread, about to read this book, are in no danger of going any of these ways that these links proport that Bonhoeffer 'supposedly' went.
Calvin - I can't read - but I can read others that did follow him. I told my Reformed Pastor that and he didn't mind. I'm not Reformed. Never thought I'd be in a Reformed Church - but you guys know that but if you met the Pastor, you'd understand why I can be.

I've seen the both of you be right about something when I wasn't seeing it - but on this one, I can't agree with this thread. I went to all of links and most all of them were telling us what Bonhoeffer said and did without any direct quotes or evidence.

Well, anyways, it's Way past bedtime here but I just wanted to appeal to you to let it go, please.
With what's coming - we need to really pick our battles by how dangerous they are to life and life-eternal and not go for things that we need not worry about anyone here falling into. No one's in danger of going the way that you're worried about -- especially not by reading that one book together.

I love you all here. We need each other and that's what yesterday taught me, again when I was wrong and you were right on that something that I was wrong about - just don't ask what it was. I'll tell you when we See Him.

Thank you, Family for hearing me out and considering. We have the Same Father. Heaven help us to bind together for our future. Love in our GOD.

"We need to work with each other and not go against each other, at any chance that we can. The book that the few wanted to read together would have brought out much of what Bonhoeffer taught and we could just leave it at that.

"I'm proud of Frank for not replying to this and I do recommend we look more to watch over each other and help one another than to go after things that we know the others don't believe in anyway."..JIG

First of all, this is not about anyone "going against" another, it is about the truth, and going for it. Secondly, how did you know what others "don't believe in anyway?".....you don't. You might assume that, but the young or immature might not know it, or those taken in by the veneers of religious platitudes that conceal the true nature of DBs, and others faithlessness.

Then, they become become compromised; maybe only a little, but gradually, and may slip off of the foundation of Christ and Him Crucified only, and to bare that Cross to our own daily death, and resurrection in the Spirit.

This is the simple Gospel, that the illiterate and lonely outcast may embrace, the BORN AGAIN Gospel, where Christians learn how to love one another, not just "get along." This is the gospel of the book of Acts, steeped in the Glory of God. DB never once testifies about his sin and about being born again, or promotes the "You must be born again!" foundation of the Word of God.

Tozer said something quite profound about this..[ I love Tozer, by the way; maybe not his journey so much..]..he said, [paraphrased].."It is not the Gospel that we must defend and that Satan attacks, "IT IS THE PURITY OF THE GOSPEL THAT WE MUST DEFEND AND THAT SATAN ATTACKS."

Bonhoeffer, though eloquent in his display, of even profound ideas about discipleship and duty toward a gospel, promoted a humanistic faith, void of the Spirit, that substituted situational morality; ethics, as a lifestyle, that is MOLDED from the teachings of Christ...IN HIS MIND!

He taught this in prolific style, and contrary to your idea that "no one is in danger " in reading his material, DB led an entire movement teaching these same modern heresies with many young ministers discipled by him. The reference to Appolus was simply that he stated that if proven that DB was indeed a conspirator to murder, he would have defied his own very pronounced creed. I agree.

I then proceeded to prove that DB was involved in the murder plots up to his neck, and this is the reason of his "martrydom"...and it was not martyrdom for Christ.

He taught Moral Relativism; Ethical Righteousness, The
End Justifies the Means Doctrines, as the Doctrines of Christ, and it is very subtle, but in no way Biblical, and in believing and living in this manner, he denied the Cross of Jesus, His sacrifice itself as unworthy, and established another, more human way to salvation; "A religion-less Christianity."

This spirit has consumed million and millions of souls, and it is a lie. I simply pointed this out, or tried to, and the fulcrum of this discussion happened to be with Frank, who believed otherwise.

I say debate the book! Surely you can handle my disagreement of the man's doctrine!

About something
I was right about. Could you feel frustrated and emotionally drained after pouring yourself into a situation, and then realizing that it was all about another feeding on your compassion; even relishing sorrow and pain to draw out your "love"?

Some people live their entire lives like that, and somewhere along the line, we must stop enabling; stop feeding it. Hard lesson...Thanks JIG for your humility...tom

But what I have studied some what, is the early reformers, whom evengelicals exalt beyound measure. What I have found so far has been very disturbing.

For sure. I hope one day in the near future believers finally wake up to the idea that the Bible needs to be viewed by a Spirit filled believer through the lens of the first century apostles, and not the sixteenth century reformers. There are many who claim that the reformers "rediscovered" Christianity, but the fact is, there were those who never lost it.

Reply: Well, I haven't met a man/woman yet that's omniscient/right 100% of the time [like what I just read now, ain't] and I still believe that when a wicked government arrests and kills you for saving others lives and protesting their genocide - that they're going to put out Propaganda/lies out about why they so unmercifully killed you ['silenced' you], and each branch of religion will 'interpret' your works and incorporate you into their system because of the good name and good you've done during a Holocaust - as you're no longer alive after the war's over to interpret for them / defend yourself / or grow into sounder doctrine at your young age.

So yes, Miccah - I'd vote for him. :)

All Hail! Our beloved High Pontificate of Global Religious Oversight hath returned at last.

Hoorah, hoorah, hoorah!

:)

Brothertom,

Would you vote for Bonhoeffer for President of the United States, if it were possible?..Miccah

As a man of Biblical ethical conviction, and proving his stand to do the right thing about these convictions, right or wrong , I think Dietrich Bonhoeffer would be an admirable President; certainly more trustworthy and with more good character than either of the current candidates, and probably going back to A. Lincoln, 1865. [ Who also made many compromises that may shock Lincoln lovers][edit date]

He [DB] possessed a sterling moral character too; a man who you could trust with your checking account, and your mature daughter in his care.

I also admire his stand on Social injustice, and against the tyranny of the strong crushing the weak, and he certainly proved his willingness to use force when necessary, and as all good generals and politicians must understand, that the means sometimes must justify the means, whatever the circumstances, right or wrong, for the good of the people you are leading. DB embraced this character, evidently.

Truman and Hiroshima, W. Tecumseh Sherman and the scorched Earth doctrines burning the Southern cities and plantations, Eisenhower firebombing Dresden and other German cities burning tens of thousands of innocent women and children, JFK staring down Kruschev and real Nuclear War in the Cuban missile crisis...You could go on. I think DB would stand, and do the right thing, according to his high-standards and ethical standards.

What you did not ask, however, is something you did not ask; WOULD I ELECT DB TO BE MY PASTOR, OR SPIRITUAL LEADER?...and the answer is NO! He did not live a life, or possess a faith to be led of the Spirit, but his very own ethical convictions, and believed that these convictions trumped everything else; including the Word of God.

"The end justifies the means. [ In him being caught deeply involved assisting in Hitler's assassination plot ] He believed the Sermon on the Mount was an outline for a regime to be immersed in Social Activism; not the result of one who embraced their cross to die for them to live for Jesus, and Jesus's endorsement of such a life!

Blessed Are!, [ Matt:5] in his mind, was more for the followers of Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, than the followers of the lowly Paul the apostle.and....he never once speaks of being born again, nor does he teach it. To him, everything is active ethics as a lifestyle, to free the oppressed. Very inspiring, but wrong, and apart from the true Gospel of Jesus.

Two things; "POLITICS IS THE ART OF COMPROMISE!" [ AUTHOR UNKNOWN] Jesus would not nor could not compromise the truth.

2.] I am not sure if there ever has been a born again American President; lot of Masons, Deists, and Religious "Christian"..and certainly not in this last century.

My load-stone is Abortion. I will not vote for a man with innocent blood on his hands. This leaves this election out for me this year. I suppose that DB would stand for the unborn for life. I would vote for him if this was the case in this election, and several before.

I do not expect a US President to be Christian, and for him to get to that plateau of power and succeed, it would indicate hypocrisy anyway. Christian President: hmmmm. this seems to be an oxymoron to me, a cracked conundrum, I think.

PS:...He would have had to hide the Hitler assassination plot involvment. too radical to get elected. Then he may have been a good CIA head...

Ronald Regan was a Christian . George Bush is a Christian. Why did the demons from hell rail non stop for eight long years against each of these men if it where not for thier faith in Christ.

L
O
L

"I think, therefore I am!".. Descartes
"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”...Satan

Somewhere along the line, this sweet venom was injected into the more bloated intellects of the leadership of the Holy church, as Doctrinal ideology and theology in it's purity, "WHAT A MAN THINKS IS WHO HE IS!"....Knowing.

This sub-doctrine became a standard in the church, and as compared to the man's fruit, THE SIMPLE BIBLICAL standard, as to be what and who a man really is..being bore witness by the Holy Spirit Himself! as to the Elders and to the Church, and THEN his doctrines are examined as to the maxim of...KNOWING THOSE WHO LABOR AMONG YOU!"

DOES HE LOVE, JESUS AND MEN? IS THIS MAN A CARRIER OF PEACE? IS THIS MAN A MAN OF JOY?....into "what does he believe?..[doctrines and dogma ]

Dogma THEN reached her tentacles out to entangle both orthodoxy and the Pharisee under her green breast.

" This people honors Me with their lips,

But their heart is far away from Me.

‘But in vain do they worship Me,

Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”

....BT writes: What you think is what you are! Enter the THEOLOGIAN! The ivory tower of vivid intellectualism now becomes the temple where only God's thoughts may arise, and they demand their way only, or else, and the Denomination is formed, and the thought about God becomes the "relationship" with Him.

....................................................
"Where did "Christian religion" go off track into thinking that consenting to, confessing and conforming to doctrinal data was what Christianity was all about?

"When did this "Christian religion" develop the idea that Christianity is the acceptance of a correct and orthodox belief-system?"...Pilgrim777.........................

When?..[ Let us reason.org]..."Emperor Constantine's Nicene council is usually pointed to as the source for the doctrine of the Trinity, yet the Trinity was present in the church long before Constantine. Most Jehovah Witnesses and other anti- trinitarians have never had a true presentation of Church history. If they knew history they may not point to Constantine.

They have created this misrepresentation to do battle against a lie. They portray Church history as proof that the doctrine of the Trinity is of a pagan source from the Emperor Constantine. The truth will astound you.

The term Trinitas was popularized by Tertullian almost 100 years before the Nicene council in his debate against Praxeas. However, he was not the first to use the term, a man Theophilus Bishop of Antioch in 160 was the first to use the term (that we have in writing), many years before in his epistle to Autolycus.

We can assume it was used prior to Theophilus and was held as a common church belief with the many quotes that are left to us in history by the early church pastors. Athenagoras representing the whole Churches belief wrote, that, "they hold the Father to be God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit, and declare their union and their distinction in order.

The term was used to simply describe the three that simultaneously exist as the one God. A man named Praxeas promoted what is called Monarchianism, which held a strict form of monotheistic progression. That the Father became the Son, and the Son became the Spirit.

This is what is called modalism in it's simplest form, What is better termed Oneness today. Despite the accusation's of the Church inventing and promoting the Trinity. We find the Church in Rome and elsewhere falling prey to numerous heresies that they tried to keep out.

As we see from history the doctrine of the Trinity did not depend on any council as it was used by Tertullian and others long before a council was called on doctrinal teaching. The Catholic Church gets blamed for inventing the Trinity yet when we look through it's history it tells a different story.

History shows that it was Trinitarians that first resisted a single church Government with a Pope as its head, they did not invent it. Zephyrinus (210 AD.) and Callistus (220 AD.) were the first bishops to claim Mt.16:18 to themselves, they were both modalistic in their view of God.

Tertullian called him an usurper saying, "as if he was the Bishop of Bishop's." So it was Oneness believers who first wanted to be head of the whole Church, not Constantine. Adolf Harnack in his book the History of Dogma actually states that "Modalism…was for almost a generation the official theory in Rome."

Which certainly proposes a problem for those who claim a Roman origin of the Trinity. This occurred before Constantine and Arius' heresy won after Constantine which Rome promoted for yet another 50 years."
.......more..http://www.letusreason.org/Trin13.htm
.....
...BT:...Probably at the garden..but in new Testament history, we see in 3John:

I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say.

For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words;..[ His thinking must be obeyed, you see...]

...and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.".His thinking must be obeyed by all...his doctrine.....Enter the first Pope. [ AD 75?]

Rather heady, I suppose, but it is relevant in the study of Bonhoeffer, and men like him. The simplicity of walking with Christ and learning to love the poor, the whore, and the leper, is overshadowed by defining the sleek intellectual intricacies of how or why I think I may act, and then by thinking the truth about them, these ethics become my guide, and I must follow them.

If you could backtrack these labyrinths of intellectual trappings, perhaps you could be set free, but it is not that easy. Consider the Pharisee, who knew that Jesus was the Son of David as prophesied, and chose to murder Lazarus too, in that Lazarus proved their wicked error bound into their evil traditions , their religious THINKING, AS THE TRUTH. They would rather murder the truth, than submit to the idea that their THINKING may be in error...............BT

"That the act of thinking guarantees the existence of the self is a fact that many philosophers take for granted. As Descartes famously put it “I think, therefore I am”, an assertion that has come to be known as the cogito.

Certainly the cogito doesn’t seem like something that can be doubted, but if we are really to rely on it we should be certain that its truth can be divorced from Descartes’ philosophy."

http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/10/12/i-think-therefore-i-am/

These ideas are the breath of the dragon in purity itself, and many have cast off their gas masks in lieu of a more noble manliness; MY ethics and my moral activism! DB was never born again, as I see it, nor did he testify , or live under this simple faith of mercy and love.

He chose to be a ethical activist to change the hearts of men, and cure the evils of this or that tyranny...BT

"Ronald Reagan was a Christian . George Bush is a Christian. Why did the demons from hell rail non stop for eight long years against each of these men if it where not for their faith in Christ."

This is a little off topic, and I really do not know how to take it, but along with EOS, I am alight with laughter...meaning...You are the funniest punster I've met in a while, or the funniest and most dense punster I have met in a while..[ no offense] It is just funny. I will leave it at that.

I have thoughts of Sarah Palin addressing the upcoming Republican Convention [ if invited ]; She opens her great speech, wide eyed with her famous earthy smirk: " My campaign manager, jonalon and me, wellll, [ still smirking ] we got to the same idea about this here election, and the economy and terrorism. We need another George Bush, or Ron Reagan!..[ applause thunders the arena]

We're in a big spiritual war! Can't you see! We need spiritual men..like me, I am a woman of faith!
"Why did the demons from hell rail non stop for eight long years against each of these men if it where not for their faith in Christ?"..[ more applause ].

The real america, down home, apple pie, Mom and her Christian Presidents.

Hmmmm....And they were cursed alot....Must mean their Apostolic or sumfin?...ok...I see now.
...me too....LOL
They took the heat for their faith.

"As Pope of Michigan and Apostolic Overseer of the World Council of Cults, I alone have authority to consign people to hell for disagreeing with my dogma. Your decree that Bonhoeffer is frying in hell because his doctrine differed from yours is an affront to my Papal Authority!"
PrimaDogma.

All hail! PD. I hope Bonhoeffer is saved, but my difference with him had nothing to do with his differences with me, but with the Word of God.

He taught and believed that walking with Christ is equivocated with solving social injustice; IE, social activism; which he proved with his own execution in the Hitler assassination plot.

The gospel of Christ teaches that to walk with Christ, we must be born again the second time, and be conformed to His image as we follow the Spirit, deny ourselves, and learn how to love; in simplicity, to be conformed to His image.

These two gospels are diametrically opposed to one another, on different ends of the universe. Bonhoeffer assumes that his humanistic approach must be endorsed by a
God who seems to be there, but believes that he looks upon men in a context of Ethical choices, and is remote, like he has wound up the Universe and lets man intervene as he chooses.

The bible speaks of a living God, who is constantly involving Himself in the affairs of men, as it is His pleasure.

Bonhoeffer by promoting this ethical and moral activism as the Gospel of the Cross, which it certainly is not, then becomes the liar, and the deceiver. The deceived, deceive, as they reproduce themselves.

I have not found one instance where DB speaks of his testimony of being born again, or he ever leading a soul to Christ, or loving the sinner as Christ. I have never seen him speak of the blood driven gospel that exposes are wretched inner man [ Roman's 7], while begging for His mercies and grace, as true believers must and always do.

So, rather than address these issues, it seems more affective to mock them, and assassinate the character of the one who offends , and the doctrines and the people you may idolize.

I do not remember any, on two threads, anyone who addressed the core as to why Dietrich Bonhoeffer is NOT a Christian, and why he chose to teach and preach another gospel, a lying gospel that defies the Cross of Jesus as the only way to find God's favor.

To me, to mock and assassinate without offering a stable idea as to why this is NOT heresy, according to the facts and the word, belies ignorance below, and the mocking simply morphs it into mocking pride.