| Poster | Thread |
| | Re: Bonhoeffer | | Quote:
You'll find really no restrictions of war in the Scriptures. Even wars we would be appauled at in our Western society, God seems to not only accept but also encourage e.g. the Hebrew invasion of Caanan. Sometimes the prophets spoke out against various wars, as Isaiah does of the Assyrians who went beyond what was acceptable in the eyes of God, but usually it was not the war that was so much spoken out against, as it was the spirit in which some wars were waged.
Is it really possible to take the Old Testament standard as ours today? If God has dropped His Name as 'the Lord of Hosts' in favour of 'The Prince of Peace' - that is David in favour of Solomon - the temple (Church) being built in the era of peace that passes understanding.......? My question is not about what national governments choose to do..... (Christians can always flee.) It is more about what any individual Christian should understand is the message of the New Testament towards taking up arms. |
|  2006/1/18 15:08 | | KingJimmy
Member
Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC
| | Re: | | Quote:
KJ,
Surely this is for the rulers to govern their own people - not to make war with other peoples?
You'll find really no restrictions of war in the Scriptures. Even wars we would be appauled at in our Western society, God seems to not only accept but also encourage e.g. the Hebrew invasion of Caanan. Sometimes the prophets spoke out against various wars, as Isaiah does of the Assyrians who went beyond what was acceptable in the eyes of God, but usually it was not the war that was so much spoken out against, as it was the spirit in which some wars were waged.
_________________
Jimmy H
|
| | 2006/1/18 13:09 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | raodsign's Quote:
Perhaps it is an indictment against the church that it took someone like Bonhoeffer who was not so deluded and blind, and could see the dangers of Nazism, and was willing to speak out and warn people.
Bonhoeffer was a brave man as was his father, a psychiatrist who stood against Hitler's holocaust against the mentally handicapped, but that does not make his a reliable mentor. Many people have died for what they believe. I don't challenge his bravery, I challenge his beliefs.
Quote:
There needs to be discernemnt ministries to discern discernment ministries.
...and then another to discern the discerners of the discernment ministry? ;-) Occasionally you hear someone say something which is factually correct but the spriti behind it is disturbing. There is a creature in the Revelation which 'looks' like a lamb but 'speaks' like a dragon. It is important to listen for the 'spirit' of the voice as well as the statement it makes.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2006/1/18 10:58 | Profile |
| | Re: Motives for aasasination plot | | Quote:
In brief, in Romans 13:1-6 the apostle Paul talks about the state using the sword to administer justice, a gift given to it by God for its ministry.
KJ,
Surely this is for the rulers to govern their own people - not to make war with other peoples? |
| | 2006/1/18 10:23 | | roadsign
Member
Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777
| | Motives for aasasination plot | | Quote:
In brief, in Romans 13:1-6 the apostle Paul talks about the state using the sword to administer justice, a gift given to it by God for its ministry.
I prefer to apply this reference in the context of Biblical history - going back to the time of Israelite captivity. Israel was told by God through Jeremiah NOT to rise up against their Babylonian captors, but ACCEPT their place, stay there and trust God. They refused to listen.
In Jesus day, they still wanted to have an independent nation. Jesus and also the Apostles warned them not to rise up against their captors, the Romans.
The Jews, however, were rebellious at heart, and could not understand the Kingdom that Jesus came to establish - through ruling in the HEARTS of his people - not a national, political kingdom. Their rebellion led them to rise up against the Romans, which led to the total destruction of their society.
So also, we are not to rise up against the ruling authorities with the motive of establishing our own little "Christian" kingdom the way we want it. We are to trust God as the king of our hearts.
Give to Ceasar what is Ceaser's and to God what belongs to God.
The trouble is that Ceasers want more then they are allowed to have - our total devotion.
As much as Bonhoeffer may have been wrong with the assasination plot, I do believe he was trying to spare the oppressed and the captives, and prevent further human catastrophy. Can there be a more loving motive?
At least he didn't "pass by on the other side of the road" like the priests in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
As far as I know, he was not trying to assert his own little empire.
Diane
_________________
Diane
|
| | 2006/1/18 10:14 | Profile | KingJimmy
Member
Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC
| | Re: | | Quote:
I haven't followed any of the threads on 'war' in detail but regarding the last sentence of your last post, are you saying there is a scriptural case for 'leaders' to wield the sword and that makes it ok? (Please, I don't need a long answer - just a pointer, if you would, thanks.)
In brief, in Romans 13:1-6 the apostle Paul talks about the state using the sword to administer justice, a gift given to it by God for its ministry.
_________________
Jimmy H
|
| | 2006/1/18 9:03 | Profile | KingJimmy
Member
Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC
| | Re: | | Quote:
I haven't followed any of the threads on 'war' in detail but regarding the last sentence of your last post, are you saying there is a scriptural case for 'leaders' to wield the sword and that makes it ok? (Please, I don't need a long answer - just a pointer, if you would, thanks.)
In brief, in Romans 13:1-6 the apostle Paul talks about the state using the sword to administer justice, a gift given to it by God for its ministry.
_________________
Jimmy H
|
| | 2006/1/18 9:02 | Profile | CJaKfOrEsT
Member
Joined: 2004/3/31
Posts: 901
Melbourne, Australia
| | Re: If you knock the Bible, will it fall over? | | Quote:
Rebecca5 wrote:
I'm in my 30's almost 40 so what does that have to do with anything???
The man's an athiest according to the article.Didn't he promote a book about God being dead? If so are we that desperate of christians that we have to embrace every man that comes down the pike?
I could care less who's in my camp.Im not willing to compromiise because someones an intellectual or greatly esteemed by man.Im concerned with what they believe.
If that article is true than he's an antichrist.
Maybe I'm a little simplictic at times, but I always thought that Neo-orthodoxy sat in between the two extremes of "Liberalism" and "Fundamentalism", in as much as Liberalism starts fully convinced that there is inaccuracy in scripture (after all, how could Jonah survive being swallowed by a whale) and setting out to find it, Fundamentalism being afraid of any aparent "inconsistancy" in scripture and sweeping them under the rug, while the Neo-orthodox boldly wrestling with the most difficult passage, and not emerging until either he or the scripture comes up a winner, knowing full well that he'll lose.
In other words, the Liberal is too afraid that God will appear cruel for creating a hell and so rushes to His defence by explaining it away. The Fundamental is too afraid of God being cruel and so ignores texts that paint him out to be (like hardening Pharoh's heart, or ordaining Judas' betrayal) in order to "protect" a sinner from rejecting God's grace before he can experience His love. While the Neo-orthodox simply accepts that God's love often times manifests itself in the form of cruelty, and that He knows alot more about Himself than we ever will, so let Him state conflicting statements within two verses. He is God afterall.
I'm sorry, did I say simple?
_________________
Aaron Ireland
|
| | 2006/1/18 8:41 | Profile | roadsign
Member
Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777
| | Re: What one CLAIMS and what one believes are not the same thing | | Quote:
[the Bible] was 'man-breathed' but is an authentic witness to man's experience of God.
Is this belief not common today among most evangelicals - even those who CLAIM to believe in divine inspiration of Scripture? Their lives show that they don't really believe it. Their own experience is their supreme authority, and also what THEY think the Bible says.
I have heard all too much, 'I believe every word in the Bible. The Bible says it that settles it.... " Yet these same people don't even know what the Bible says about their own arrogance, lack of love, blindness,and deception. That has been so common in my experience that I'd say it is only by the grace of God that I wasn't turned away altogether.
It's easy to look back into history and put a label on something - Neo-orthodox, Gnosticism, Existentialism, but it is much harder to see that we are saturated in that kind of stuff right now. Or we swing into cold dead orthodoxy. And who are any of us to think we are free of it all?
Yes our beliefs are important, but it is not what we claim to believe but what we really believe that drives us.
Perhaps it is an indictment against the church that it took someone like Bonhoeffer who was not so deluded and blind, and could see the dangers of Nazism, and was willing to speak out and warn people.
Also today, maybe it takes the outsider to see our blindness. My fear is that discernment ministries are so quick to proclaim 'antichrist' or 'heretic' and cannot see beyond their own narrow grid.
There needs to be discernemnt ministries to discern discernment ministries.
Diane
_________________
Diane
|
| | 2006/1/18 6:32 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | KingJimmy's Quote:
I'm a 23 year old seminarian and have some knowledge about Church history and theological perspectives. As said earlier, I'm far from an expert in this area (I prefer to study about John Wesley and the likes), but I am not without knowledge. I think I know enough to say that so far as I understand the Neo-Orthodox perspective, that it is entirely heretical in which the theologian knowingly confesses as truth what he knows to be a lie.
I am a 63 year old bible student and although I would not use Jimmy's language to define Bonhoeffer's spiritual state I must consider Barth/Bonhoeffer's position before I recommend his writings to others. I have found 'truth' in the most unexpected places but I must ask whether the 'truth' is intrinsic to that man's teaching or not. The danger with Bonhoeffer is his 'philosophy' of truth and revelation. As some posting on this site, Barth/Bonhoeffer believed that bible facts could be 'true' and 'inaccurate' at the same time. They believed that there could be 'truth' in the inaccuracy. They believed that in the Bible we have not 'the word of God' but words from men in which they bear witness to a God who is true. So every word these witnesses say can be false and yet their witness can be true. They had no confidence in the scripture being 'God breathed'; it was 'man-breathed' but is an authentic witness to man's experience of God.
I don't know whether you will see what this is doing. It is really saying there is probably no solid foundation but go ahead and build on it anyway. It doesn't matter to the neo-orthodox whether or not the facts are true, what matters is the sincerity of the witness. Barth/Bonhoeffer attacked the rationalists because they had no faith, but Barth/Bonhoeffer's 'faith' was in facts that they doubted or disputed. This is really saying 'it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you believe'. This is deadly advice. Let me illustrate; Some years ago a Roman Catholic priest accidentally 'consecrated' a chalis containing 'paint thinner'. He believed that he was drinking the actual blood of Christ, but he died just the same.
In the Barth/Bonhoeffer gospel as long as you believe it doesn't matter whether you are believing fact or fiction. This is just celebral superstition: faith without revelation is superstition. Some may study Barth/Bonhoeffer and come out unscathed but if our quoting of them leads believers to think that their testimony can be trusted we have done a disservice to the believer.
It is not the occasional word which is wrong in the teaching of the ne0-orthodox but the whole structure. You can have a rotten house with some good articles inside it, but be very cautious who you invite to visit and don't make yourself comfortable there.
There is an account of a meeting between Barth and Frances Schaeffer that some might find helpful.Schaeffer's separatist preaching frequently decried the weaknesses of Karl Barth's theology: "Neo-orthodoxy gave no new answer. What existential philosophy had already said in secular language, it now said in theological language." In 1950 Schaeffer visited the renowned theologian at his home in Switzerland. There he asked Barth, "Did God create the world?" Barth answered, "God created the world in the first century a.d." Francis gestured out the window to the forested hillside and asked, "This world?" Barth replied, "This world does not matter." This was a signal moment for Schaeffer, confirming that modern thought presumed that religious truth and material truth consisted of two separate realities. He spent the rest of his life dissenting from this view, insisting that "Christianity speaks of true truth." His commitment to the unity of truth reinforced his lifetime insistence that the Bible was inerrant in all respects. He refused to countenance the idea that the Bible's history and science might be less true, or even differently true, than the Bible's theology. This shows very plainly the way in which for Barth/Bonhoeffer "religious truth and material truth consisted of two separate realities" so that a biblical statement can be both 'truth' and 'error' at the same time.
The quotation comes from a Christianity Today article which can be found [url=http://www.markheard.net/heardtribute/archive/schaeffer1_c_today1997.html]here.[/url]
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2006/1/18 5:39 | Profile |
|
