TRUE OR NO?

[prism]

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- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

 

[atpollard]

I don’t think so.

Mr Bonhoeffer is not “the Word of God”, so we cannot assume his words to be infallible truth.
I know of no verse that claims that only those that have left EVERYTHING are saved.
I know of no verse that advocates salvation by grace and human merit.
Therefore, Mr Bonhoeffer is likely guilty of hyperbole.

 

[Papa Smurf]

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- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Hello Prism, do you know what this quote is taken from (as it would probably be very helpful to understand Bonhoeffer is saying in context before answering your title question).

Thanks

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf

 

[prism]

Hello Prism, do you know what this quote is taken from (as it would probably be very helpful to understand Bonhoeffer is saying in context before answering your title question).

Thanks

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf

It's from the book The Cost of Discipleship

"As the answer to a sum it is perfectly true, but as the initial data it is a piece of self-deception. For acquired knowledge cannot be divorced from the existence in which it is acquired.

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.

Such a man knows that the call to discipleship is a gift of grace and that the call is inseparable from the grace. But those who try to use this grace as a dispensation from following Christ are simply deceiving themselves."

.

 

[prism]

I don’t think so.

Mr Bonhoeffer is not “the Word of God”, so we cannot assume his words to be infallible truth.
I know of no verse that claims that only those that have left EVERYTHING are saved.
I know of no verse that advocates salvation by grace and human merit.
Therefore, Mr Bonhoeffer is likely guilty of hyperbole.

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

 

[makesends]

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- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

I disagree. Well ...not that he has the right, but most of us (I think) that have the witness of the Spirit of God to our spirit, have the evidence of that witness, that it is not our just desert, but only grace alone.

However, I will admit, that Bonhoeffer may have been referring to what we have sometimes mentioned on this site, that whatever good we regenerated do, to include any virtue or faithfulness, is also by the grace of God, and not by our effort.

 

[John Bauer]

True, I would say. The call to follow Christ and the gift of grace are inseparable. To know grace is not merely to assent intellectually but to experience it in costly obedience—leaving self-will, safety nets, careers, security, or comfort for the sake of Christ. Real grace empowers obedience; to treat it as an excuse for disobedience—"as a dispensation from following Christ"—is to hollow it out.

One has to remember that Bonhoeffer was writing from the background of 1930s German Protestantism, where he saw the church reducing the gospel to abstract principles, accommodating itself to cultural nationalism, and neglecting the radical call of Jesus. For him, you cannot possess it as a doctrinal talisman while refusing the costly path of discipleship. Grace is real only in union with the crucified and risen Christ, and thus always carries with it the call to follow him.

 

[prism]

True, I would say. The call to follow Christ and the gift of grace are inseparable. To know grace is not merely to assent intellectually but to experience it in costly obedience—leaving self-will, safety nets, careers, security, or comfort for the sake of Christ. Real grace empowers obedience; to treat it as an excuse for disobedience—"as a dispensation from following Christ"—is to hollow it out.

One has to remember that Bonhoeffer was writing from the background of 1930s German Protestantism, where he saw the church reducing the gospel to abstract principles, accommodating itself to cultural nationalism, and neglecting the radical call of Jesus. For him, you cannot possess it as a doctrinal talisman while refusing the costly path of discipleship. Grace is real only in union with the crucified and risen Christ, and thus always carries with it the call to follow him.

That's pretty much what Bonhoeffer was saying. The two are inseparable.

 

[Josheb]

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- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Depends on context.

The elect are justified by the blood of Christ before a single one of them know what to believe (i.e., in what to have faith). 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.

Bonhoeffer, being a good Lutheran, could in archetypal disregard for the "epistle of straw," declaring it undermined salvation by grace through faith alone. Understandable since, in Catholic doctrine, justification and salvation are nearly synonymous and Luther was a "true" Catholic . Most of us, however, would not say "the man who has left all to follow Christ" has left the book of James and the whole of scripture .

Paul wrote about justification predominantly in the context of the Law of Moses as a supposed means of justification and he wholly (and correctly) rejected that premise. James wrote about justification in the context of converts thinking they needed not do anything but claim faith as they idly sat around their little bigoted cliques showing preferential treatment, ignoring the needs of widows and orphans (quite possibly due to a twisting of Paul's writings among the Jewish converts). Paul and James were not in conflict with one another, and I suspect they taught that at Union Seminary circa 1930, but Bonhoeffer went back to Germany having to sort his non-denominational education out with the denominational doctrines. I can imagine it was somewhat like Wesley trying to sort out the Moravian influence with his Anglican education. If his writings are any indication, Lutheran did a much better job of reconciliation. "The Cost of Discipleship is impressive, but the trilogy of his posthumous writings ("Cost of...," Letters from...," and "Life Together" is jaw-dropping amazing). The guy who declared "cheap grace" antithetical to the teachings of Christ cannot be summarized in the premise "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." No discipleship? Cheap grace. No Church attendance? Cheap grace. No Church discipline? Cheap grace. No repentance? Cheap grace.

James 2:18
But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”

Bonhoeffer believed grace was costly (it cost the Son his life) and cost the believer his life, too. He, therefore, understood and appreciated the practical application of James both in terms of justification and the normal life of a Christian in community.

”Christianity means community through Jesus Christ and in Jesus Christ. No Christian community is any more or less than this… We belong to one another only through and in Jesus Christ. What does this mean? It means, first, that a Christian needs others because of Christ. It means, second, that a Christian comes to others only through Christ. It means, third, that in Jesus Christ we have been chosen from eternity, accepted in time, and united for eternity. First, the Christian is a man who no longer seeks his salvation, his deliverance, his justification in himself, but in Jesus Christ alone. He knows that God’s word in Jesus pronounces him guilty, even when he does not feel his guilt, and God’s word in Jesus Christ pronounces him not guilty and righteous, even when he does not feel that he is righteous at all. The Christian no longer lives of himself, by his own claims and his own justification. He lives wholly by God’s word pronounced upon him, whether the word declares him guilty or innocent.”​

”In Christian brotherhood everything depends upon its being clear right from the beginning, first, that Christian brotherhood is not an ideal, but a divine reality. Second, that Christian brotherhood is a spiritual and not a psychic reality.”​

”He who loves his dream of a community more than the Christian community itself becomes a destroyer of the latter, even though his personal intentions may be ever so honest and earnest and sacrificial.”​

from "Life Together"​

Consider the antithesis of anything written in those quotes. Would we say the practicer of antithesis was justified at all? Would Bonhoeffer say that person is justified by grace, and would that be cheap grace or the costly alternative? Paul wrote eloquently about the pagan who, being a law unto themselves, still needed Christ and, having received Christ, still needed the Law of the Spirit. Neither the Law of Moses nor the "Law" of the Gentiles justifies anyone.

Paul did not think salvation by grace through faith was the end of the point. He included commentary explicitly excluding any self-claim of contribution and just as explicitly stating the purpose of the how and means.


Ephesians 2:4-10
4But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Those created in Christ perform. It is the stated purpose of salvation. If the larger matter of salvation be so, how then can justification be by grace through faith alone without purpose?

 

[Josheb]

Oops! Forgot to answer the question asked. Yes, Bonhoeffer was correct. Only the man who has acted in a manner consistent with the calling and left everything can lay claim to justification. However, that should not be construed to say either asceticism is the only way to be a Christian, nor that Bonhoeffer, having lost everything himself, was a superior Christian.

 

[makesends]

Oops! Forgot to answer the question asked. Yes, Bonhoeffer was correct. Only the man who has acted in a manner consistent with the calling and left everything can lay claim to justification. However, that should not be construed to say either asceticism is the only way to be a Christian, nor that Bonhoeffer, having lost everything himself, was a superior Christian.

Yeah, but who among us can claim that status? I doubt even the apostle Paul would have.

 

[Josheb]

Yeah, but who among us can claim that status? I doubt even the apostle Paul would have.

Is that rhetorically asked, or do you really want an answer?

 

[prism]

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

How would that align with ...
Romans 5:18 ESV
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men?
(not rhetorical)

 

[prism]

Maybe it would be better to ask if Bonhoeffer's quote conflicted with the doctrine of imputation?
Yes, if we are speaking of 'justification'.
No, if we are speaking of 'fruitfulness'.
Or can we speak in those categories?

 

[EarlyActs]

Good thing we don't have make this decision; it's up to God.

 

[Josheb]

How would that align with ...
Romans 5:18 ESV
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men?
(not rhetorical)

Bonhoeffer is writing about humans other than Jesus and Paul is writing exclusively about Jesus. Once that is established much of my op-reply applies. The Christian leaves everything to follow the one man whose one act of righteousness lads to justification. That justification begins, first, in the eternal ordaining of God for the elect, but more temporally begins at Calvary and the shed blood that justifies which, as I stated, was accomplished before any Christian knew what to believe. All of that precedes and is predicate to any profession of faith. We are justified by the blood long before we're justified by faith. Without the former there'd be no gifting of faith in that predicate.

 

[prism]

Bonhoeffer is writing about humans other than Jesus and Paul is writing exclusively about Jesus.

Paul is stating how a man is justified (declared righteous)before God.
Perhaps Bonhoeffer is speaking in terms of bearing fruit before God?
In either case I disagree that Paul is writing exclusively about Jesus.
Paul's comparison of Jesus to Adam is to show our only hope of justification is found in the Obedience of the 2nd Adam.

 

[Josheb]

Paul is stating how a man is justified (declared righteous) before God.

.....by another person's actions, not his own.

Perhaps Bonhoeffer is speaking in terms of bearing fruit before God?

Maybe, but that's not how I read it. He's saying that a person has not evidenced his justification if he hasn't forsaken everything for Christ.

Luke 14:25-35
25Now large crowds were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them, 26“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. 27“Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? 29Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, 30saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ 31“Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32“Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. 33So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions. 34Therefore, salt is good; but if even salt has become tasteless, with what will it be seasoned? 35It is useless either for the soil or for the manure pile; it is thrown out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Jesus said a person couldn't be his disciple. Bonhoeffer is using the concept of justification, but they're making the same point. Jesus has to be everything.

1 Corinthians 2:2
For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.

Was Peter a disciple? How about Paul? Did they literally leave all to follow Christ? Yes and no. They kept their clothes. Paul kept his entourage . He kept his profession as a tentmaker. He kept his risk of self-exaltation (or the thorn in his side that kept him from manifesting it) . James kept his seat on the council. We know Peter was married so, presumably he kept his wife in marriage even as he left to go establish congregations among the Jews in other locales. Bonhoeffer kept his writing, his family, his friends, his home. They were all eventually taken from him but there is a huge difference between leaving something and having that something taken from you. Was Bonhoeffer hypocritical while writing "Cost of Discipleship"? No, I think not. What did I say at the beginning.

Depends on context.

In either case I disagree that Paul is writing exclusively about Jesus.

Well, the words state what the words state and the words of the verse quoted state a man is justified by the work of another, NOT his own act(s). leaving everything would be an action of the already justified individual and I do not believe Bonhoeffer was suggesting a person could justify himself simply be leaving everything of his own behind to follow Christ.

Matthew 19:27
Then Peter responded and said to Him, “Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?”

Was Peter at that time justified before God? No! Temporally speaking, Calvary hadn't happened. No blood for Peter had yet been spent. God had claimed his life, but the payment had yet to be made. Leaving everything and following Jesus at that point was nothing more than an earthly work of sinful flesh. It had no salvific merit whatsoever. By the time Jesus his last meal the crowd of disciples was large. By the time he stepped on Golgotha it had dwindled ad by the time he entered the grave everyone (with the possible exception of his mother and John) had abandoned him. Leaving everything to follow Jesus did not justify a single one of them. AFTER the price had been paid and the purchase was made those justified by the cross and the blood shed thereon would be expected to leave everything and thereby evidence their existing justification, the existence of their justification.

Jesus has to be everything. Gotta leave everything else to follow Jesus.

Paul's comparison of Jesus to Adam is to show our only hope of justification is found in the Obedience of the 2nd Adam.

That is true..... except for that word "only." You know my view on this. It's called onlyism; the practice of inserting the word "only" into a verse where it does not exist. It's ironic in this case because we're discussing Bonhoeffer's statement on justification and folks have been divided, polarized, by siding with only one side or another when the fact is all four causal statements in scripture on justification and both Paul and James reconcile with each other. There is no divide. There are no poles with which to side. Paul was making a comparison of Jesus to Adam, but that is not only what he was doing. He was also attributing the justification of the saint to the work of Jesus, not the work of the saint. One act of righteousness by Jesus leads to the justification (and life) for others (who did not commit the righteous act).



Note: I disagree with the definition of justification provided in Post 17. I know and accept that the definition provided is a commonly used one, but it is a theological definition, an extra-scriptural doctrinal definition, not the literal definition of the word as the NT writers used it. I can accept that definition for the purpose of this discussion (at least for the time being) but I make note this definition is a theologically doctrinal definition. Justification is a legal term. The Greeks used the term to simply mean standing or the possession of grounds sufficient to plead one's case. Strong's will tell use the word means to free or acquit, but the Greeks used the term to both guilty AND innocent. They applied it to those later exonerated AND those later found guilty. Justification simply means possessing grounds to stand before God in order to make ones case. Because the verdict on humanity had already been rendered (see John 3:18) no one had any grounds whatsoever to stand before God and plead their case. All had already been judged and all had already been condemned. Calvary changed that state of existence. Calvary provided a basis for a person to stand before God and plead his case. His case was,

"Father God, I stand before you covered in the shed blood of your resurrected Son without whom I could not stand before you."

There is no other case to present that saves. In order to present that case a person must first stand before God.

Bonhoeffer probably wasn't using the word in that way, but that does not change the fact that is what Paul meant. No one gets into the courtroom without having their robes washed white in the blood of Christ. The hearing has already been had. The judgment has already been rendered. Everyone has been condemned.

Court will open back up on sentencing day. We call it Judgment Day but John 3 makes it very clear the judgment has already been made. What we're really looking forward to is sentencing day, the day when God metes out the just recompense for sin. To those found in Christ grace is the sentence. To everyone else it's off to the fiery lake for destruction.


The declaration of righteousness is a declaration of a credited righteousness, not a righteousness the person justified possesses by his own doing. Leaving everything to follow Christ does not itself cause one to become righteous. It simply evidences the fact the declaration of righteousness is real, valid, and efficacious in one's life.
.

 

[prism]

.....by another person's actions, not his own.

Maybe, but that's not how I read it. He's saying that a person has not evidenced his justification if he hasn't forsaken everything for Christ.

Luke 14:25-35
25Now large crowds were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them, 26“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. 27“Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? 29Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, 30saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ 31“Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32“Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. 33So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions. 34Therefore, salt is good; but if even salt has become tasteless, with what will it be seasoned? 35It is useless either for the soil or for the manure pile; it is thrown out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Jesus said a person couldn't be his disciple. Bonhoeffer is using the concept of justification, but they're making the same point. Jesus has to be everything.

1 Corinthians 2:2
For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.

Was Peter a disciple? How about Paul? Did they literally leave all to follow Christ? Yes and no. They kept their clothes. Paul kept his entourage . He kept his profession as a tentmaker. He kept his risk of self-exaltation (or the thorn in his side that kept him from manifesting it) . James kept his seat on the council. We know Peter was married so, presumably he kept his wife in marriage even as he left to go establish congregations among the Jews in other locales. Bonhoeffer kept his writing, his family, his friends, his home. They were all eventually taken from him but there is a huge difference between leaving something and having that something taken from you. Was Bonhoeffer hypocritical while writing "Cost of Discipleship"? No, I think not. What did I say at the beginning.

Depends on context.

Well, the words state what the words state and the words of the verse quoted state a man is justified by the work of another, NOT his own act(s). leaving everything would be an action of the already justified individual and I do not believe Bonhoeffer was suggesting a person could justify himself simply be leaving everything of his own behind to follow Christ.

Matthew 19:27
Then Peter responded and said to Him, “Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?”

Was Peter at that time justified before God? No! Temporally speaking, Calvary hadn't happened. No blood for Peter had yet been spent. God had claimed his life, but the payment had yet to be made. Leaving everything and following Jesus at that point was nothing more than an earthly work of sinful flesh. It had no salvific merit whatsoever. By the time Jesus his last meal the crowd of disciples was large. By the time he stepped on Golgotha it had dwindled ad by the time he entered the grave everyone (with the possible exception of his mother and John) had abandoned him. Leaving everything to follow Jesus did not justify a single one of them. AFTER the price had been paid and the purchase was made those justified by the cross and the blood shed thereon would be expected to leave everything and thereby evidence their existing justification, the existence of their justification.

Jesus has to be everything. Gotta leave everything else to follow Jesus.

That is true..... except for that word "only." You know my view on this. It's called onlyism; the practice of inserting the word "only" into a verse where it does not exist. It's ironic in this case because we're discussing Bonhoeffer's statement on justification and folks have been divided, polarized, by siding with only one side or another when the fact is all four causal statements in scripture on justification and both Paul and James reconcile with each other. There is no divide. There are no poles with which to side. Paul was making a comparison of Jesus to Adam, but that is not only what he was doing. He was also attributing the justification of the saint to the work of Jesus, not the work of the saint. One act of righteousness by Jesus leads to the justification (and life) for others (who did not commit the righteous act).



Note: I disagree with the definition of justification provided in Post 17. I know and accept that the definition provided is a commonly used one, but it is a theological definition, an extra-scriptural doctrinal definition, not the literal definition of the word as the NT writers used it. I can accept that definition for the purpose of this discussion (at least for the time being) but I make note this definition is a theologically doctrinal definition. Justification is a legal term. The Greeks used the term to simply mean standing or the possession of grounds sufficient to plead one's case. Strong's will tell use the word means to free or acquit, but the Greeks used the term to both guilty AND innocent. They applied it to those later exonerated AND those later found guilty. Justification simply means possessing grounds to stand before God in order to make ones case. Because the verdict on humanity had already been rendered (see John 3:18) no one had any grounds whatsoever to stand before God and plead their case. All had already been judged and all had already been condemned. Calvary changed that state of existence. Calvary provided a basis for a person to stand before God and plead his case. His case was,

"Father God, I stand before you covered in the shed blood of your resurrected Son without whom I could not stand before you."

There is no other case to present that saves. In order to present that case a person must first stand before God.

Bonhoeffer probably wasn't using the word in that way, but that does not change the fact that is what Paul meant. No one gets into the courtroom without having their robes washed white in the blood of Christ. The hearing has already been had. The judgment has already been rendered. Everyone has been condemned.

Court will open back up on sentencing day. We call it Judgment Day but John 3 makes it very clear the judgment has already been made. What we're really looking forward to is sentencing day, the day when God metes out the just recompense for sin. To those found in Christ grace is the sentence. To everyone else it's off to the fiery lake for destruction.


The declaration of righteousness is a declaration of a credited righteousness, not a righteousness the person justified possesses by his own doing. Leaving everything to follow Christ does not itself cause one to become righteous. It simply evidences the fact the declaration of righteousness is real, valid, and efficacious in one's life.
.

Too long to respond to. ( Is that a tactic of yours?)
Anyhow, enough has been said where we each have made our view clear, whether we agree or disagree.

 

[Josheb]

Too long to respond to.

No, it is not.

( Is that a tactic of yours?)

No, it is not. I'll gladly break the post down into smaller increments and repost them if you like.

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

• Hmmm...
  
  If that is true, then that comment was unnecessary because enough has been said.
• I do not think that is correct because, unless you and I wholly agree, you have not been fully forthcoming with an alternative point of view, and I would like to read any such alternative.
• The portions of the prior post that went unread might provide further content for op-relevant discussion.
• Explicitly stating points of agreement and disagreement is often helpful. Not every point of disagreement has to be reconciled but doing so is mutually edifying. To the degree that we serve one another in that capacity it is one of the explicitly stated goals of Christian discourse. Just saying.

Make me work.