| Poster | Thread | roadsign
Member
Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777
| | Re: Discernment ministries | | I have to admit that I was very disturbed to read this stuff about Bonhoeffer. I had always regarded im as a Christian hero. Only, I could never figure out why he would have become involved in the conspiriacy plot. That is not the way of Christ. King David refused to touch King Saul, and instead said, "touch not.... "
If Bonhoeffer had listened to God, he could have spared his life. God had already taken care of the "villain"
Now it makes sense, in view of his theology.
edit:
Quote:
Bonhoeffer was an atheist. I think this is perhaps best eximplified in the thing he is known best for: the conspiracy plot ...
What is the difference between this and the present typical Christian view of war? King Jimmy, Are all professing Christians who believe in going to war against the enemy also atheists at heart?)
I found the discernment ministry site, from which the information came from, to be rather brutal in its assessment of Awana and Finney. I wonder if they have gone overboard.
Are their claims about Bonhoeffer validated?
Diane
_________________
Diane
|
|  2006/1/17 13:41 | Profile | KingJimmy
Member
Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC
| | Re: | | It was mentioned earlier that on a practical level, Bonhoeffer was an atheist. I think this is perhaps best eximplified in the thing he is known best for: the conspiracy plot he was part of to asasinate Hitler. Biblically speaking, this action is entirely contrary to Scripture. If Bonhoeffer would have truly been a Christian, he would have put his faith in God by bowing a knee in prayer and praying for God to bring about deliverance.
Quote:
Tell me, would you be willing to preach openly against 'the crowd' during a world war, stand with the 'opposition' (the Jews) and help them escape? Would you be willing to go to prison for Christ and to be martyred?
As Paul said, if I give my body to be burned, but not have love, it profits nothing. There are many people who do many courageous acts in history, but these acts will by no means justify one before God. We are justified by grace through faith.
In reality, Bonhoeffer didn't believe in the essential claims of the Christian faith. To him, it doesn't matter if Christ really existed and if Christ really lived a sinless life, and if Christ really rose again. He'd confess these things happened as his theology demanded him do so, but to actually believe these things happened, he found of no importance, and would've probably prefered to deny these essentials.
If you do not believe that Jesus Christ is truly Lord, you cannot be saved. Bonhoeffer might have believed Christ to be "his" lord, but in reality, probably not truly the Lord. Thus, Bonhoeffer was not been saved.
_________________
Jimmy H
|
| | 2006/1/17 13:27 | Profile | suzy
Member
Joined: 2005/12/11
Posts: 69
Devon, England
| | Re: | | Quote:
Bonhoeffer a christian??? Are you for real? This man was nothing more than an antichrist.I don't care if he won the Nobel Peace Prize Award.YUK!!!
It is quite outrageous to call Bonhoeffer an anti-Christ. Regardless of his theology being discussed here, his life and his works showed that he loved God and the Jewish people.
Before and during the 2nd world war Bonhoeffer opposed Hitler and Nazism when Hitler wanted to put the German church under his direct control, and spoke out his opposition openly. He was one of the few Germans who opposed the anti-semitic policies of Hitlers. He was banned by the Gestapo from preaching, teaching and publicly speaking! And he worked with some of Hitler's opponents to get rid of him - very dangerous.
He was arrested in 1943 after money used to help Jews escape to Switzerland was traced to him. He was put into prison and concentration camps, and eventually hanged in April 1945.
Captain Payne Best, an Englishman, who survived pays this tribute to the prison-camp pastor: "Bonhoeffer was different, just quite calm and normal, seemingly perfectly at his ease. . . . His soul really shone in the dark desperation of our prison. He was one of the very few men I have ever met to whom God was real and ever close to him."
Tell me, would you be willing to preach openly against 'the crowd' during a world war, stand with the 'opposition' (the Jews) and help them escape? Would you be willing to go to prison for Christ and to be martyred?
By the way, the meaning of the Greek word 'anti' can also mean 'instead of' as well as 'against'. Bonhoeffer certainly was not 'instead of Christ' nor 'against Christ'. I expect to meet him in Heaven!
Sue
_________________
Sue
|
| | 2006/1/17 12:47 | Profile | Conqueror
Member
Joined: 2005/9/8
Posts: 71
| | Re: | | 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. |
| | 2006/1/17 9:45 | Profile | ginnyrose
Member
Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7531
Mississippi
| | Re: | | 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
_________________
Sandra Miller
|
| | 2006/1/17 9:35 | Profile | KingJimmy
Member
Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC
| | Re: | | Quote:
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.
_________________
Jimmy H
|
| | 2006/1/17 9:02 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | KingJimmy's Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2006/1/17 5:11 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
Rejecting the objective unalterable moral standards of the Bible,
I think the key word is 'objective'. We all know the Mosaic Law was an objective statement which could not bring about the change of nature required to stop sinning. Even John's 'he has the witness in himself' is not an objective way of defining what makes Christians die for Christ. If Bonhoeffer had Christ on the inside, and a good brain, then he realised that the power of Christianity was not in objective argument, it was in communion with Him. He may have developed some strange ways of trying to communicate this paradox which do not sit easily with linear thinking or objective statements which assume (without experiencing them) that the moral standards in the Bible are automatically correct.... whereas I would say, they are only correct because they do indeed lead towards fellowship with God and therefore, true spiritual health - two statements which can only be made from within those truths - subjectively. |
| | 2006/1/17 0:00 | | letsgetbusy
Member
Joined: 2004/9/28
Posts: 957
Cleveland, Georgia
| | Re: Beware Bonhoeffer | | 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?
_________________
Hal Bachman
|
| | 2006/1/16 23:25 | Profile | KingJimmy
Member
Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC
| | Re: | | 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.
_________________
Jimmy H
|
| | 2006/1/16 20:14 | Profile |
|
