TRUE OR NO?

[prism]

Make me work.

Be my guest. 🪏

 

[Josheb]

Be my guest. 🪏

Hmmm... You want me to be your guest having you and any other poster express any point of disagreement that may exist so that I can be made to work. Okay.

Is there any particular point or points of disagreement with either what Bonhoeffer wrote, or with my view(s) of the line in question? If so, would you please post it/them?



.

 

[Josheb]

I have another question,

Neither is Calvin or Luther or other Reformational luminaries. At least Bonhoeffer lived and died faithful to his convictions.

Would you mind clarifying that last sentence?

 

[prism]

Would you mind clarifying that last sentence

It was in response to @atpollard's comment, "Mr Bonhoeffer is not the Word of God so I wrote...

"Neither is Calvin or Luther or other Reformational luminaries. At least Bonhoeffer lived and died faithful to his convictions.

 

[Josheb]

It was in response to @atpollard's comment, "Mr Bonhoeffer is not the Word of God so I wrote...

Yep. And Post #23 asks you about that. I'll clarify.

• Did Calvin or Luther not die faithful to their convictions?
• Did Calvin or Luthor did die faithful to their convictions is Post #5 implying their convictions were somehow incorrect and they died faithful to something to which they should not have been faithful?
• If there is some disagreement with the line taken from "Cost of Discipleship" then that implies Bonhoeffer may have died faithful to either an error or a lie. Is that what Post 5 should be read to imply?
• The premise "Bonhoeffer is not the word of God" is a red herring. No one has said his statement is the word of God and there's no evidence anyone present believes his words are God's words, or somehow equivalent thereof. Accurately identify Post 2's content accordingly does not entail commentary pertaining to how anyone died.

There's more but the point, the need for clarification, should be understandable in light of those questions and commentary. I may or may not take up the matter of Post 2 later but, for now, I am endeavoring to engage the op and the comment made in Post 19.

Anyway, enough has been said where we each have made our view clear, whether we agree or disagree.

Has your view regarding the truth of Bonhoeffer's statement, or lack thereof, been made clear?

For example, Post 4 is missing a quotation mark. Is the post quoting another statement made by Bonhoeffer? Someone else? If not then what is the significance of "dispensation"? Post 2 is bait, so I'll skip over Post 5. Post 8 affirms what Bonhoeffer said but it doesn't disclose an opinion on its truth (or not). Post 13 asks a question, which was answered. Post 14 asserts to different answers that are context-dependent, similar (but different) to my op-reply ("depends on context"). Post 17 does broach a point of (seeming?) disagreement but that point of disagreement is not over the Bonhoeffer quote. Have you realized you did not answer your own op's inquiry?

Too forensic for you? Then I'll keep it simple: Is the Bonhoeffer quote true or not?


.

 

[prism]

• Did Calvin or Luther not die faithful to their convictions?
• Did Calvin or Luthor did die faithful to their convictions is Post #5 implying their convictions were somehow incorrect and they died faithful to something to which they should not have been faithful?

Calvin wrote a commentary on every book of the Bible except Revelation.
Luther died an antisemite.

There's more but the point, the need for clarification, should be understandable in light of those questions and commentary. I may or may not take up the matter of Post 2 later but, for now, I am endeavoring to engage the op and the comment made in Post 19.

It would be just another opinion, unless your words are as good as Scripture. But do it if you wish.

Too forensic for you? Then I'll keep it simple: Is the Bonhoeffer quote true or not?

Thanks for the condescending remark.
I wasn't sure if Bonhoeffer's quote was true or not, hence this thread.

 

[Josheb]

Calvin wrote a commentary on every book of the Bible except Revelation.
Luther died an antisemite.

And how is that relevant to this op? How is it relevant to whether or not they died faithful to their convictions?

people were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, and they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

I did. That post is a red herring supplemented by anecdotal report and an argument from silence. Every line of the post commits a logical fallacy and, therefore, has received all the reply it warrants.

Thanks for the condescending remark.

Never happened.

I wasn't sure if Bonhoeffer's quote was true or not, hence this thread.

Thanks for an answer to the question asked. Now that a handful of folks have weighed in, have you any surety regarding the truthfulness of Bonhoeffer's statement?

 

[prism]

And how is that relevant to this op? How is it relevant to whether or not they died faithful to their convictions?

You asked, I gave my answer.

I did. That post is a red herring supplemented by anecdotal report and an argument from silence. Every line of the post commits a logical fallacy and, therefore, has received all the reply it warrants.

Show me what post # you quoted me from. I don't recall saying anything like,...

"people were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, and they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all." ( I followed the arrow link and it's just not there).

Never happened.

Yes it did.

Thanks for an answer to the question asked. Now that a handful of folks have weighed in, have you any surety regarding the truthfulness of Bonhoeffer's statement?

No surety, just more opinions is all,

 

[Josheb]

No surety, just more opinions is all,

What do you think might provide surety?

 

[prism]

What do you think might provide surety?

God's Word.

 

[Josheb]

God's Word.

I laid out a case filled with references to scripture. Was that not sufficiently persuasive? Would you like me to be more specific with scripture?

 

[prism]

I laid out a case filled with references to scripture. Was that not sufficiently persuasive? Would you like me to be more specific with scripture?

Are you referring to post #9 or #15?

 

[Josheb]

Are you referring to post #9 or #15?

Posts 9, 10, and 18. Lots of scripture in those posts. Some of scripture contained in those posts is quoted, some of it referenced without citation (which is why I asked if more specificity is wanted). In addition, the Bonhoeffer quote was approached in a couple of different ways (so it is not a single case that affirms the truth of the quote given certain contexts). What was precluded was the idea fleshly behavior causes justification (if that's what Bonhoeffer meant then the statement is incorrect, but such a view would clash with Bonhoeffer's writing elsewhere in "Cost..." and the other books of his "trilogy"). Bonhoeffer's view of cheap grace, not just scripture, precludes us reading Bonhoeffer to be making such a claim.


I laid out a case filled with references to scripture. Was that not sufficiently persuasive? Would you like me to be more specific with scripture?

 

[prism]

Posts 9, 10, and 18. Lots of scripture in those posts.

in #9, you gave a muddled response of 'Depends on context.'
Posts 10 &18 contained no Scripture references.

 

[Josheb]

in #9, you gave a muddled response of 'Depends on context.'
Posts 10 &18 contained no Scripture references.

ooooo... how edifying.


I just re-read Post 9 and aside from a missing quotation mark, a misplaced closed parenthesis, and a pair of misspelled words it's reasoning is sound. There are a few references to Luther, Wesley, and Bonhoeffer that might be obscure to someone is unfamiliar with those stories, but those can be easily clarified. Tell me what you would like to see. Rather than criticism alone, let's try to partake of a more goal-oriented conversation. One poster commended Post 9 so I wonder why it is thought to be "muddled." How could Post 9 been improved? Post 10 does contain scripture references, they're not labeled but the post directly refers to the scriptures on justification and leaving everything previously cited, and as far as Post 18 goes there are four passages from the Bible quoted in that post(!) and at least nine other well-known passages were referenced but not quoted. A case filled with references to scripture was made. Perhaps a different numbered post was read.

So, I will ask again: Was that not sufficiently persuasive? Would you like me to be more specific with scripture? You said God's word would provide surety. What kind of scripture pertaining to which clause in the Bonhoeffer quote would provide surety? You said you want more than another opinion. Then do more than post another opinion!



The only man who has the right to say that he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ. If I deconstructed the quote and looked for scripture to support its various clauses I'd find something like the following:

Justified by grace:

Romans 3:21-26
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Galatians 5:4
You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Titus 3:4-7
But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.


Therefore, the premise of justification by grace is explicitly and well-established in God's word. The question is who and how can claim that as a "right"? Personally, I am not a big fan of speaking about "rights" because there are no entitlements in scripture except those given to use by God. I can find only one explicit reference to to a right to anything related to salvation or justification and that is Revelation 22:14.

Revelation 22:14
Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.


To the degree "rights" are intended to assert something deserved, the only thing to which we have a right is our own destruction. Salvation by grace is a gift. So I would question Bonhoeffer's use of "right" were it not for the fact his statement is somewhat rhetorical and not to be taken literally when it comes to the prospect he is genuinely asserting any form of deservedness or entitlement.


Justified by grace alone:

I've already covered the purported discrepancies between Paul at Romans 3:28 and James at James 2:24. Nowhere does scripture say justification is by grace alone but justified by grace has already been proven scriptural (both in thesis and in antithesis). Scripture makes at least six statements regarding "justified by..."

Matthew 12:37 = justified by one's words
Romans 3:28 = justified by faith apart from the works of the Law
Romans 5:9 = justified by Christ's blood
Romans 4:25 & 5:16 = justification by Christ's sacrifice
Titus 3:7 = justified by grace
James 2:21-24 = Abraham being justified by works when he offered Isaac, Rahab justified when she received the messengers, and justified by works as evidenced by those two examples

Therefore, the matter of "aloneness" can be rejected prima facie but, again, since Bonhoeffer is making a rhetorical reference that qualifier, "alone" must be kept in context as something Bonhoeffer is not literally asserting.



Left all:

I've already covered that in terms of being called a disciple and what "everything" means in scripture since the apostles left everything but did not leave everything. Leaving everything cannot mean asceticism and Bonhoeffer could not have intended his words to be construed that way because in "Letters from Prison," he described how deprivation brought out the worst in some and the best in others, or the best and worst in the same person on day from another. Furthermore, Christianity has a lengthy history in which ascetics existed, and they all came to the same conclusion: deprivation made them more aware of their sin and need for Christ and did not, in itself, make them better Christians.


Following Christ:

I have also already addressed the premise that following Christ in and of itself does not justify anyone because it is a work and no one is justified by works alone. The only works that justify are those commensurate to one's faith. That point takes us back to the supposed disparity between Paul and James that doesn't actually exist because Paul expected Christians to behave in a manner consistent with their profession of faith when it came to all aspects of conversion and salvation thereof.


There's plenty of scripture to affirm Bonhoeffer's statement once the statement is correctly understood.

 

[prism]

. Having accessed the provision of grace (i.e., that shed blood) through the provision of grace (i.e., the gift of faith) the believer must act faithful (as evidence of that gifted faith) by the internal working of God in regeneration, sanctification, and all else that is the believer's inheritance in Christ.

This sounds muddled and incoherent and possibly off topic. (I can't tell as it is unintelligible.

I just re-read Post 9 and aside from a missing quotation mark, a misplaced closed parenthesis, and a pair of misspelled words it's reasoning is sound.

Obviously, I'm not referring to the grammar, but rather its coherence

Tell me what you would like to see. Rather than criticism alone, let's try to partake of a more goal-oriented conversation.

Yes let's.

One poster commended Post 9

I didn't realize this was a popularity contest.

so I wonder why it is thought to be "muddled."

See my comment above.

Post 10 does contain scripture references,

It does? Such as?

Only the man who has acted in a manner consistent with the calling and left everything can lay claim to justification.

How does that square with...
Romans 4:5 KJV
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

and as far as Post 18 goes there are four passages from the Bible quoted in that post(!) and at least nine other well-known passages were referenced but not quoted. A case filled with references to scripture was made. Perhaps a different numbered post was read.

Post #18 wasn't even in question. Sorry, I read it as #16.

So, I will ask again: Was that not sufficiently persuasive?

Not really.

Would you like me to be more specific with scripture?

Probably wouldn't help because we all bring to the table our preconceived fallen biases, which, like a filter colors our faulty reasoning...unless our title is God.

 

[prism]

Nowhere does scripture say justification is by grace alone

Romans 3:28 ESV
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Which works would you like to add?

 

[Josheb]

.

This sounds muddled and incoherent and possibly off topic. (I can't tell as it is unintelligible.

If it sounds muddled, then it must be muddled? Yes, accessing provision of grace through the provision of grace does appear circular, doesn't it. Easily clarified, though

• You've accessed God's provision of grace, yes?
• Christ's shed blood is a provision of grace, yes?
• The gift of faith is also God's provision, yes?
• Accessing Christ's blood through faith is also something you've done, yes?
• Accessing Christ's blood (provision A) through faith (provision B) is something you've done?
• Having accessed Christ's blood through faith, you must then act in a manner consistent with and commensurate to that access, yes?
• That action is due to the action of the Holy Spirit in your life, yes?
• That action is also due to the rest of the things inherited by you in your salvation, yes?

Assuming all those questions are answered in the affirmative...... no more muddledness. The @prism I've read present many cases for his beliefs could have worked through that sentence as I just did on his own.

Yes let's.

Waiting on you. You're the one who said you'd like to see God's word and something more than another opinion while the posts are either misread or not read in their entirety while explicit quotes from scripture are said not to exist, condescension is assigned and suspicion of "tactics" exist where neither are intended or present, and you say "we each have made our view clear" when your view is "I do not know,"

The lack of involvement combined with the petty comments makes the thread look like a lengthy troll. You're better than that. Show me content consistent with "Yes, let's try to partake in a more goal-oriented conversation."

 

[Josheb]

I didn't realize this was a popularity contest.

It's not. The Like is an indication someone understood the post while you, alternatively, think it muddled while seeking to partake in a goal-oriented discussion of the op.

It does? Such as?

Already answered that question.

Any reference to leaving everything, or losing everything, to follow Jesus can be couched in one of many verses. Three of the many are...

Matthew 10:39
The one who has found his life will lose it, and the one who has lost his life on My account will find it.

Luke 14:33
So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.

Philippians 3:7
But whatever things were gain to me, these things I have counted as loss because of Christ.

Certainly, all three of those verses and the larger passages in which they are said are familiar to you. Yes?

How does that square with...
Romans 4:5 KJV
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

I've already answered that question, too. There's two parts to that verse. One part is that it is God who justifies (not the person himself and not his faith and not his works). The second part is the example of Abraham. Romans 4:5 cannot be read to contradict the many places in which Paul exhorted fellow Christians to act in a manner consistent with a) their faith and b) obedience to God, His word, their profession of faith, and the Spirit at work within them. It was Abraham's faith that God credited as righteousness, but that faith was evidenced by Abraham's obedience and faithfulness. Faithfulness is operationalized faith. A faith that isn't operationalized is not faith. It's intellectual assent or self-deception, apathy, or something other than the kind of faith asserted, described and expected by God throughout the entirety of scripture.

Simply put, faith begets faithfulness. The faith by which we are justified begets faithfulness. The faith that is gifted by God, by hwhich we are justified begets faithfulness. Bonhoeffer simply used a rhetorical example of someone making claims of justification by faith alone who hasn't left everything to follow Christ. In his vernacular, that is cheap grace.

Post #18 wasn't even in question. Sorry, I read it as #16.

Yep. Which makes Post 34 wrong.

Probably wouldn't help because we all bring to the table our preconceived fallen biases, which, like a filter colors our faulty reasoning...unless our title is God.

Hmmm... So all the participants here are being asked to provide something that probably will not help because of your preconceived fallen biases? Isn't that an example of muddledness? Isn't it also disingenuous?

What preconceived biases are you bringing to this "table"? If there are many then list only three? How do you think your biases color your faulty reasoning (beside the fact you're not topically participating in the discussion of your own op)? Should I have understood, "Anyhow, enough has been said where we each have made our view clear, whether we agree or disagree," as code for "I don't genuinely want to discuss my own op, I just wanted to confirm my biased belief all anyone has is their opinion and no one can or will present a case containing God's word"? Has it been realized I have asked you to post your viewpoint on the Bonhoeffer quote at least thrice and it still hasn't been provided? Whether sure of its truthfulness or not, some view on the quote must be held, one sufficient to contribute to the thread.


When might expect that goal-oriented conversation you said you'd like to try? Ignore all of the above in Posts 38 and 39, and tell me what you think of the Bonhoeffer quote.

 

[prism]

• You've accessed God's provision of grace, yes?
• Christ's shed blood is a provision of grace, yes?
• The gift of faith is also God's provision, yes?
• Accessing Christ's blood through faith is also something you've done, yes?
• Accessing Christ's blood (provision A) through faith (provision B) is something you've done?
• Having accessed Christ's blood through faith, you must then act in a manner consistent with and commensurate to that access, yes?
• That action is due to the action of the Holy Spirit in your life, yes?
• That action is also due to the rest of the things inherited by you in your salvation, yes?

Is this another round of gotcha? I'm in no mood for it.

The lack of involvement combined with the petty comments makes the thread look like a lengthy troll. You're better than that. Show me content consistent with "Yes, let's try to partake in a more goal-oriented conversation."

You never had to participate, but you did, with what goal? To win at another game of Gotcha? It seems to be your favorite past time.