-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Bonhoffer, Barth, Lewis....should Christians consider the words of "non-traditional" thinkers?
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
Mikey
Active Member
what do you mean by "non-traditional"?
Should we read them? Yes.
We should decide to read, not based on groupings, but by individual books. A writer my be great on one topic but not another.
I can't say I've read all these authors, but I found Bonhoeffers book "The Cost of Discipleship" great.
By "non-traditional" I mean views different from what we would traditionally view as evangelical Baptist doctrine.
Bonhoeffer, for example, is often noted for his rejection of substitution atonement and his neo-orthodox views. His words often fall well into contemporary evangelical conversation (like his comments on "cheap grace"), but part of this "cheap grace" of which he was so critical is the idea of the cross as legal satisfaction for sin, which is often held by those quoting him.
Perhaps "traditional" isn't the best word but I couldn't think of another. I hope this helps clarify my question.
As with any writing, no matter the genre or purpose, sifting acceptability through the sieve of Scripture is always best.
Merely taking as truthful even of the best writer is never a good habit.
For example, culture, historical times and influences, and even health may certainly impact the perspectives of even multiple author textbooks, much more single author works.
Merely taking as truthful even of the best writer is never a good habit.
For example, culture, historical times and influences, and even health may certainly impact the perspectives of even multiple author textbooks, much more single author works.
I believe that there is immense value in the writings of people like Bonhoeffer, Barth, Wright and Torrance. This value is not so much in their conclusions as it is in their observations. Each of these men came to different conclusions, but in many instances expressed similar concerns with “traditional” Protestant theology (the way of viewing Christ, the Atonement, God, etc. articulated during the Reformation period).
As an illustration
I may go to three doctors who each identify the same problem with my heart but provide different diagnoses and different recommended treatments. All three may provide misdiagnosis, but that does not mean I do not have a medical condition.
As an example
Karl Barth was probably one of the most influential theologians of his time. Romans is one of my favorites, and Church Dogmatics is a staple of Christian theology. But his views grew apart from the “traditional” as they developed. N. T. Wright was at one time considered the foremost expert on Paul. When he came to question the traditional view of Justification he was branded a “heretic” my many who had been indebted to his earlier efforts.
These men, who had been previously considered “experts” became suspect because they saw something in the “status quo” that they viewed as problematic and they became “heretics” based their “solutions”. But this does not mean a problem did not exist.
As an illustration
I may go to three doctors who each identify the same problem with my heart but provide different diagnoses and different recommended treatments. All three may provide misdiagnosis, but that does not mean I do not have a medical condition.
As an example
Karl Barth was probably one of the most influential theologians of his time. Romans is one of my favorites, and Church Dogmatics is a staple of Christian theology. But his views grew apart from the “traditional” as they developed. N. T. Wright was at one time considered the foremost expert on Paul. When he came to question the traditional view of Justification he was branded a “heretic” my many who had been indebted to his earlier efforts.
These men, who had been previously considered “experts” became suspect because they saw something in the “status quo” that they viewed as problematic and they became “heretics” based their “solutions”. But this does not mean a problem did not exist.
Jon... I've read some of C.S. Lewis probably Narnia and some of Screw tape and have probably been exposed to Bonhoeffer and as far as the other ones I don't delve into that area... Tend more to the theological thinkers and the historical writing and the ancients... Don't read many non-traditional ones as I have a tradition not to!... Brother Glen
I read the Narnia Chronicles as a kid ....child, not goat…I know how y’all Calvinists can beJon... I've read some of C.S. Lewis probably Narnia and some of Screw tape and have probably been exposed to Bonhoeffer and as far as the other ones I don't delve into that area... Tend more to the theological thinkers and the historical writing and the ancients... Don't read many non-traditional ones as I have a tradition not to!... Brother Glen
, and my son’s seen all the movies, so I guess we’ve made that a tradition too. Perhaps “non-traditional” isn’t the right word, but “neo-orthodox” doesn’t always fit either.I think that we can read other authors whoa re not in my case Calvinists/reformed/Baptist, but the trick is to always filter what they are saying thru the lens of scripture, and take from them what if profitable, and discard that which is not!
As with any human author, we eat the fruit and spit out the pips. C.S. Lewis, for example, wrote some wonderful stuff. I often recommend new Christians to read The Screwtape Letters, but I wouldn't read him for doctrine.
I agree, mostly. I do not advocate reading any human author for doctrine. I suppose the challenge is the crux of what we swallow and spit out is determined by subjective interpretation (e.g., Lewis spit out as pips some of what you and I swallowed as fruit).
Do you believe the observations these authors made (the problems), even as they disagreed on the solutions, are something that should be considered?
I think what we're both saying is that we should be Bereans; constantly checking out what we read against the word of God.
BTW, I think N.T. Wright is much more dangerous than Lewis, because he's more doctrinal in his teaching and so very nearly right while being wrong.
I've read very little by Barth, but I heard a lecture once on a revival that took place in France between the wars. It eventually foundered on Barthianism inasmuch as the churches that sprung up in the revival eventually joined and were subsumed into semi-orthodox churches that paid a degree of homage to the Bible but didn't believe it all to be the very word of God.
I'm not sure about Wright being more "dangerous" than Lewis. With Wright people realize it is his theology. With Lewis theology is "sugar coated" (as Lewis wasn't a theologian). It seems it is easier to Influence the way people think with honey rather than a straight on assault.
For example, I know several Baptists who view Lewis' fiction in the first Narnia book as an allegory of Christ laying down his life (which it is). But few have objected to the allegory (some have). Younger generations are exposed to a model of the Atonement that is contrary to what they are directly taught. The same parents may be reluctant to present Wright's view.
NT Wright very dangerous, as he is right on certain things such as the resurrection of Jesus, and so many Evangelicals will tend to give him more support in other matters than they should , but his take on the new Pauline perspective is just wrong, as he attacks the very heart of Pauline Justification!
What I reads on Barth was that his work on Romans from 1918 I think, was a commentary that was conservative compared to the critical/liberal stuff going on at that time, but later on, he got really into His view on scriptures are inspired to us once we are saved and spoken to by the Spirit Himself!
Lewis as far as I know never claimed that the Church had fully misunderstand Pauline Justification, as Wright has claimed, and that He has the right way to view it!
I don't care for Bonhoeffer or Barth at all. I like C.S. Lewis. I never have read the others. I am sick of neo-orthodox and consider it liberal theology.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
I consider CS Lewis immensely helpful in the area of apologetics. He had been an atheist, was willing to think things through, and was quite good at pinpointing the real issue. He did not claim to be a theologian, but did bring his own expertise to bear, and was a good communicator.
I would not agree with barth, but in theological circles one would have to know of and understand his theology!
The one book that I reread many times was mere Christianity!
Brother, you need to read C.S. Lewis more carefully (or not at all). And, in fact, Wright.
Lewis did not claim that the Church misunderstood Pauline Justification (but he did claim that Reformed theology had). Wright does not claim that the Church misunderstood Pauline Justification (but he did claim that Reformed theology has).
Anyway, @RighteousnessTemperance& is correct. Lewis was a wonderful defender of the Christian faith, and much of this through the discipline of philosophy (the reasons he converted). N.T. Wright is often compared to C.S. Lewis because aspects of their theology is very similar, but Lewis was not an actual theologian. Personally, I believe both wrong but both can provide valuable observations.
I agree with C.S. Lewis that God could never be justified in punishing Christ, and I agree with N.T. Wright that the Reformed way of viewing Justification needs to be examined more carefully (I've studied Lewis but not Wright). I hold neither of their conclusions in regard to solutions that may "fix" Reformed Theology. For me, I consider RT for what it is - Reformed Catholic Theology. Is it better than its pre-reformed form? Yes, of course. But it's still of RCC trajectory. It's still "Latin". And I'm thankful that it is on the decline. At the same time I'm cautious about what may take its place. The advancement of neo-Anabaptist theology is, IMHO, a concern.
God the Father was NOT punishing Jesus due to what Jesus had done, nay, he was punishing Jesus for the sale of what WE had done!
And Wright does state that Reformed theology totally misunderstood the Pauline Justification, and that he finally has the light on what paul rerally meant, but He claims that ONLY because he hates the idea of the Pst viewpoint!