Bonhoeffer

To confuse Christian brotherhood with some wishful idea of religious fellowship is to poison it at its root.Oh...it's so tempting to put quotation marks around the whole book:-).

I would like to sound a cautionary note concerning the teaching of Bonhoeffer. He is very quotable but he was certainly not 'conservative evangelical'. He acknowledged his debt to Barth who is another much quoted 'neo-orthodox'. Some time ago I posted a short note on Barth here on SI. Most of what was said there would equally apply to Bonhoeffer. For a short critique of Bonhoeffer this article may be useful. Bonhoeffer. The final 14 point summary should be sufficient to alert Bible believing Christians to his position.

Ron, thanks for posting this link. I never knew Bonhoeffers' theology was as bad as this....Wish I had read this before I posted on another thread....ginnyrose

I have a feeling that Bonhoeffer was like any other great saint, alive or dead...he was human. And like any human he would be prone to "human understanding". There is not a teacher, past or present(outside scripture) that I have read that I agree 100%. Not Lewis, not Tozer, nor Murray, not Wilkerson, not Ravenhill...But all of these teachers, Bonhoeffer include, have way more that I do agree with than I disagree with. But its my responsibility to take the teachings of these secondary teachers and compare them against the Bible. all that to say..."don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" :) Bonhoeffer was human and prone to human error. If you don't agree with a couple of things he said doesn't mean he was always wrong.

I read Cost of Discipleship and thought it was excellent. He is the first man I know of who coined the term "cheap grace". I got his "Letters and Papers From Prison" for Christmas but haven't had a chance to read it. I got my father in law that documentary on him. Gonna borrow it from him.

But all of these teachers, Bonhoeffer include, have way more that I do agree with than I disagree with. But its my responsibility to take the teachings of these secondary teachers and compare them against the Bible....which is the only point I would want to make on this particular topic.

There is much that you and I disagree on Ron Bailey....we can start at Israel and move outwards.Much we agree on, we start at Jesus Christ and Him crucified and move inwards.I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Conqueror wrote:all that to say..."don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" :) Bonhoeffer was human and prone to human error. If you don't agree with a couple of things he said doesn't mean he was always wrong.I guess when you think about it, if this wasn't applied, we'd have to reject the protestant reformers and go back to Rome;-).

To help clarify a bit, from my understanding of it (though rather limited), Neo-Orthodoxy is essentially a two-faced belief system. It has it's academic side, that pretty much accepts liberal convictions concerning textual criticism, history, etc., concerning the Scriptures.However, it also has it's "confessional" nature to it which pretty much says that it doesn't care too much about the scholarly findings, though accepting of them. The Neo-Orthodoxy say that in spite of what we believe to be true scientifically, historically, and scholarly, we are going to go ahead anc confess the confession of the othodox Christian credo. Essentially to the Neo-Orthodox, it doesn't matter if the claims of the Scriptures are actually objectively true. To them, all that matters is the confession. So, to the academy they'll concede the findings of scholarship. When playing Church however, they'll essentially sound like the historical Christian faith. Thus, Bonhoeffer is widely read amongst evangelicals, and is quoted approvingly from the likes of Ravenhill, Katz, Christianity Today, etc., who are probably unaware of the underlying foundations and convictions of people like Bonhoeffer or Barth.Essentially the Neo-Orthodox theologians are knowingly enter into a delusion. They truly believe the reality of the claims of Christianity are mostly false, yet desire to go ahead and believe and confess it's claims anyway. Thus, they can look very conservative and evangelical, and warmly received by many. And no doubt, some of their insights are outstanding from which we as Christians can glean from. Even though Bonhoeffer is a Neo-Orthodox theologian, who can possibly deny the wonderful insight he offers in books like "Life Together?" This goes for any theologian. Even Ravenhill sometimes quoted from some liberal sources when he believed they were right about some of the things they said.

I'm a bit confused how Bonhoeffer could say this...'Bonhoeffer proclaimed that God was dead...Rejecting the objective unalterable moral standards of the Bible, Bonhoeffer proclaimed a situational ethics -- that right and wrong are determined solely by the "loving obligations of the moment"'...and this:"You students at this liberal seminary sneer at the fundamentalists in America, when all the while the fundamentalists know far more of the truth and grace, mercy and judgement of God than do you."What am I missing here?

KingJimmy's Essentially to the Neo-Orthodox, it doesn't matter if the claims of the Scriptures are actually objectively true. To them, all that matters is the confession. You are right here, JImmy. I think there is a clear 'post-modern' strand to the neo-orthodox. This supports the idea that it does not matter what it says it matters what you hear it saying. Consequently the Bible is the witness of the witnesses who may be wrong in their facts and full of error, nevertheless their testimony is authentic and what I hear validates it. This is a crazy idea and much on the lines of those who would have said that the Christ of History is irrelevent, what matters is the Christ of experience. This is a subtle snare. Christianity is an historic faith based on events which happened in time and space; if they did not happen 'we are of all men the most foolish'. This is why Bonhoeffer would accept the witness of the evangelical/fundamentalst while rejecting the basis (the fundament) of that position which is an inerrant record. He derides the rationalist because the rationalist demands evidence; Bonhoeffer and Barth need no evidence other than the witness of believers.The post-modernist says meaning lies with the hearer and the 'truth' is what is received not what was said or intended. This is not so far from Barth/Bonhoeffer. They reacted against the sterile rationalism of their day by adding a faith element but there is no integration; reason and revelation are kept in separate watertight compartments. And no doubt, some of their insights are outstanding from which we as Christians can glean from. Even though Bonhoeffer is a Neo-Orthodox theologian, who can possibly deny the wonderful insight he offers in books like "Life Together?" This goes for any theologian. Even Ravenhill sometimes quoted from some liberal sources when he believed they were right about some of the things they said. This is true too and has always been true. Jude's quotation from the book of Enoch does not validate the book of Enoch. Paul's quotations, in Acts 17, from heathen poets (see below) does not validate those poets. But simply finds a point of agreement with them. To find a point of agreement with Barth and Bonhoeffer is not difficult, to elevate the men to the description 'man of God' is foolhardy and dangerous. Many have insights into truth who are not God's men. I can find remarkable insights into truth in the writings of Oscar Wilde but that does not make him a 'man of God'.As certain even of your own poets "As also some of the poets among you." Aratus of Soli in Cilicia (ab. B.C. 270) has these very words in his Ta Phainomena and Cleanthes, Stoic philosopher (300-220 B.C.) in his Hymn to Zeus has ?? ??? ??? ????? ?????. In 1Co 15:32 Paul quotes from Menander and in Tit 1:12 from Epimenides. J. Rendel Harris claims that he finds allusions in Paul's Epistles to Pindar, Aristophanes, and other Greek writers. There is no reason in the world why Paul should not have acquaintance with Greek literature, though one need not strain a point to prove it. Paul, of course, knew that the words were written of Zeus (Jupiter), not of Jehovah, but he applies the idea in them to his point just made that all men are the offspring of God. Robinson's Word Pictures of the NT

This is true too and has always been true. Jude's quotation from the book of Enoch does not validate the book of Enoch. Paul's quotations, in Acts 17, from heathen poets (see below) does not validate those poets. But simply finds a point of agreement with them.Exactly. On a personal note, I really struggled with Jude's quote of Enoch for the longest time. At one point I was actually so distressed over it that I nearly ripped Jude out of my Bible. But before I did, God gave me peace about Jude, and later I came to understand thus.

This reminds me of something I told our deacon one time: seems to me that theologians or preachers can complicate the most simple things. [Edit] BTW, he agreed!ginnyrose

LOL. Ginny, couldn't agree more. I have mentioned that before to my Sunday School class when we were discussing the Christian walk. It becomes complicated when we apply our finite human understanding to God's word....or try to fit the word into a mold that we created.