For short article on Bonhoeffer’s theology go here: reformedforum.... For the full pactum episode go here: podcasts.apple... #reformedtheology #reformed
I'm impressed by Bonhoeffer in many ways. I was greatly inspired by his Cost of Discipleship book. Yet even in the foot notes of that book he wrote: "confusion of ontological statements with proclaiming testimony is the essence of all fanaticism. The sentence: Christ is risen and present, is the dissolution of the unity of the Scripture if it is ontologically understood….The sentence: Christ is risen and present, strictly understood only as testimony of Scripture, is true only as the word of Scripture." Couched in theological/philosophical terms, most of us need that unpacked for us to understand and that contributes to the confusion for many of us. It is said that he "followed Karl Barth’s view that Scripture is true, even if it is not empirically accurate" in other words, even if the events described there never happened. Well, I'd like an explanation of what he thought "true" means. It is unfortunate that two people can say the same words, yet mean entirely different things - that's what some theologians have done for us. For Bonhoeffer, Christ's resurrection is something to believe it, but not as a real space time event, that is not ontological. This is the best thing I've found in the way of a short introduction to his theology. I was sorry to find this out and yet I appreciated it being explained so clearly. I always seek the true truth, and not some feel good pseudo truth of wishful thinking. www.equip.org/articles/troubling-truth-bonhoeffers-theology/
I don't think he explicitly denied the resurrection, but going through the text it's more a case of him saying that it isn't sure. It's the words play modern theologians love to perform. They tell you one thing, but then slide with meanings over time. It's organized, educated, sophisticated unbelief quite in line with the second part of Romans 1. But it seems people are reading Bonhoeffer or the texts left with pink glasses, because he is something like a martyr and saint of modern Protestantism. Meanwhile the biography was also rather different than alleged. E.g. the reasons why he was arrested. His motivations in the confessing church and why he was hateful to National Socialism (this goes further then policy issues or religious objections). He for sure wasn't the only theologian of that type. There's good reason why the Protestant Church in Germany has shrunken more than half since WW2.
Thanks for this comment. We wish that we had more comments like this on RUclips. Comments that are gentle, thoughtful and polite. Thanks for commenting.
I'm impressed by Bonhoeffer in many ways. I was greatly inspired by his Cost of Discipleship book. Yet even in the foot notes of that book he wrote:
"confusion of ontological statements with proclaiming testimony is the essence of all fanaticism. The sentence: Christ is risen and present, is the dissolution of the unity of the Scripture if it is ontologically understood….The sentence: Christ is risen and present, strictly understood only as testimony of Scripture, is true only as the word of Scripture."
Couched in theological/philosophical terms, most of us need that unpacked for us to understand and that contributes to the confusion for many of us. It is said that he "followed Karl Barth’s view that Scripture is true, even if it is not empirically accurate" in other words, even if the events described there never happened. Well, I'd like an explanation of what he thought "true" means. It is unfortunate that two people can say the same words, yet mean entirely different things - that's what some theologians have done for us. For Bonhoeffer, Christ's resurrection is something to believe it, but not as a real space time event, that is not ontological. This is the best thing I've found in the way of a short introduction to his theology. I was sorry to find this out and yet I appreciated it being explained so clearly. I always seek the true truth, and not some feel good pseudo truth of wishful thinking. www.equip.org/articles/troubling-truth-bonhoeffers-theology/
I don't think he explicitly denied the resurrection, but going through the text it's more a case of him saying that it isn't sure. It's the words play modern theologians love to perform. They tell you one thing, but then slide with meanings over time. It's organized, educated, sophisticated unbelief quite in line with the second part of Romans 1. But it seems people are reading Bonhoeffer or the texts left with pink glasses, because he is something like a martyr and saint of modern Protestantism. Meanwhile the biography was also rather different than alleged. E.g. the reasons why he was arrested. His motivations in the confessing church and why he was hateful to National Socialism (this goes further then policy issues or religious objections). He for sure wasn't the only theologian of that type. There's good reason why the Protestant Church in Germany has shrunken more than half since WW2.
Thanks for this comment. We wish that we had more comments like this on RUclips. Comments that are gentle, thoughtful and polite. Thanks for commenting.