DOCSLIB.ORG

The Cross of Reality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Cross of Reality 1 Bonhoeffer and Karl Holl If we seek to locate Bonhoeffer’s position on the map of the twentieth-century theological landscape, invariably many comparisons will be made, many relationships examined, and nuances in his thought emphasized; a survey of the Bonhoeffer literature indicates the extent to which this has already been done. Such a study is done to help us better understand his context, but it also brings clarity to his theological position. Bonhoeffer’s theological background was that of liberal theology, which was the dominant voice in Berlin. But he was also a part of the twentieth century in that he was influenced by the two strong reform movements in early-twentieth-century German theology: the Luther renaissance (represented by Karl Holl) and dialectical theology (Karl Barth and others). Even though he was influenced by both movements, he maintained a critical distance from them. This is indicative of Bonhoeffer’s theological orientation. He remained fiercely independent in his thinking, consistently claiming Luther as his only real ally. So while he learned from Holl and found inspiration 33 THE CROSS OF REALITY from Barth, he finds an alternative to both of them in Luther.1 It is this influence of Luther that separates Bonhoeffer from Barth as well as from his teachers. The integration of these influences by Bonhoeffer gives his theology its own independent voice.2 Bonhoeffer’s Independent Theological Stance One of the first persons to critically evaluate Bonhoeffer’s theology was his dissertation advisor, Reinhold Seeberg. In his written evaluation of , Bonhoeffer’s doctoral Sanctorum Communio dissertation, Seeberg’s comments show the extent to which 1. Seeing the deficiencies in twentieth century theology, Bonhoeffer concludes his analysis with what might be seen as a programmatic statement for his own theology: “Luther was able to write and his piece on usury at the same time. Why can’t we do On the Bonadage of the Will that anymore? ” (DBWE 11:24). The extent of Luther’s influence on Who will show us Luther? Bonhoeffer’s theological project has been pointed out by Wayne Floyd, “Editor’s Introduction to the English Edition,” , DBWE 2:7, for example, where he concludes that the Act and Being heart of Bonhoeffer’s argument in was “deeply indebted to theological insights Act and Being from Martin Luther, especially his ” Lectures on Galatians. 2. After submitting Barth’s theology to examination in his lectures on systematic theology in the twentieth century along the same lines as begun in Bonhoeffer makes Act and Being, the following statement that, in essence, is descriptive of his theological task: “Lutherans of today should be ashamed that they don’t know how to define the Lutheran understanding of revelation by differentiating it both from Catholic substance thinking and from Reformed actualism” (DBWE 11:243n331; this is an alternative rendering of Bonhoeffer’s lecture, as recorded by Otto Dudzus). Commenting on this work, Jonathan Sorum, “The Eschatological Boundary in Bonhoeffer’s ‘Nachfolge,’” (ThD diss., Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary, 1994), 29, draws the following conclusion: “Luther could do both dogmatics and ethics at the same time. For him, everything was of a piece; dogmatics, ethics, God, human beings, and world were all one reality, but precisely God’s being God is what made everything else real. Bonhoeffer seeks to follow Luther. Any understanding of the theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer must begin with an understanding of his understanding of the theology of Martin Luther, for Bonhoeffer’s task was nothing else that to ‘show us Luther.’” See also Joachim von Soosten, “Editor’s Afterword to the German Edition,” , DBWE 1, where Sanctorum Communio he describes the nature of Bonhoeffer’s disagreement with Barth growing out of his Lutheran commitments (292, 305). It is the nature of such tensions between Barth and Bonhoeffer that leads Cliff Green to conclude that in spite of what Bonhoeffer learned from Barth and his siding with Barth over against his teachers, “nevertheless, in his alignment with Barth, Bonhoeffer remained typically independent (“Editor’s Introduction to the English Edition,” Sanctorum , DBWE 1:3). For a further description of the relation/influences of Holl/Barth, see Communion Hans Pfeifer,“Editor’s Afterword to the German Edition,” , The Young Bonhoeffer 1918–1927 DBWE 9:571ff. 34 BONHOEFFER AND KARL HOLL Bonhoeffer as a young scholar garnered the respect of one of the leading theologians of the day: The author is not only well oriented in the theological field but also thoroughly acquainted with sociology. He is decidedly gifted in systematic thinking, as demonstrated by the dialectic in the structure of his work both in general and in particular. He seeks to discover his way on his own. He is always prepared for intelligent discussion of other opinions. Even if one does not share his opinions, one will readily acknowledge the scientific interest and the energy of the argumentation. They are only the converse of the many good qualities of the work: Its enthusiasm for Christianity, the precise systematics in the method of the entire study, the inner concentration of his task, the ingenious particularity of his view, and his critical ability to cope with over views. On the whole, the work can be characterized as a very satisfactory model of serious academic erudition.3 In addition to praising Bonhoeffer’s intellectual skills, Seeberg notes Bonhoeffer’s , seeking “to discover his way on his own.” independence He recognized that Bonhoeffer did not simply repeat the language and thought patterns of his teachers; both in the way he approached his subject and his overall orientation indicated an independence that could not be easily categorized.4 Independence was a characteristic of Bonhoeffer’s long before this point in his academic career, however; it was a characteristic of Bonhoeffer’s person as well as his thought. He was never subject to hero worship and was always able to approach a subject or person with an independent spirit (only his family members exerted such an influence on him that even to the end of his life their basic orientation and philosophy of life would shape the decisions he would make). 3. DBWE 9:176–77. 4. Bonhoeffer’s text indicates independence of another sort as well. What he proposed was a “systematic” rather than a “historical” study. This methodological independence sets him apart from his teachers and the mainstream liberal theology of the nineteenth century. See Cliff Green, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 25. Bonhoeffer: A Theology of Sociality 35 THE CROSS OF REALITY Even his choice to become a theologian is one that is marked by his independence. In spite of the overwhelming influence of his family, Bonhoeffer chose a profession that would enable him to make a contribution in ways that others in his family would not. According to Bethge, At the root of his choice [to become a theologian] was a basic drive toward independence. This did not exclude his insatiable appetite for all kinds of different knowledge, but the driving force in his life was the need for unchallenged self-realization. The presence of theologians among his forebears made his choice of career not that unusual; while this no doubt played a part, it was hardly a decisive factor. His isolation among his brothers and sisters was probably of far greater importance; it may have nourished his urge to surpass them all.5 This independence was noted by fellow students as well. Perhaps while it is not an expert judgment, it nevertheless sheds light on Bonhoeffer’s theological make-up, which was exhibited quite early. One fellow student from Adolf von Harnack’s 1925–26 seminar on Augustine, Helmut Goes, for example, observed, I had already noticed Dietrich Bonhoeffer at the very first sessions. Not just because he surpassed almost all of us in theological knowledge and ability; that was for me the most impressive thing. But what really drew me to Bonhoeffer was that here was someone who did not merely study and absorb the words and writings of some master, but who thought for himself and already knew what he wanted and also wanted what he knew. I actually had the experience (and to me it was rather alarming and a tremendous novelty) of seeing the young blond student contradict the revered polyhistorian His Excellency von Harnack politely, but on objective theological grounds. Harnack replied, but the student contradicted him again and again. I no longer know the topic of discussion—Karl Barth was mentioned—but I still recall the secret enthusiasm that I felt for this free, critical and independent theological thought.6 5. , 37. DB-ER 36 BONHOEFFER AND KARL HOLL While such an observation may not carry the same weight as that of Bonhoeffer’s professors, it nevertheless sheds light on Bonhoeffer’s theological make-up, which, as these observations point out, was exhibited early. Because of that independent spirit, differences with his teachers emerged at an early date as well; by his own admission Bonhoeffer said that he felt out of place in Berlin. In a December 25, 1931 letter to his friend Erwin Sutz, for example, he shared this observation: “My theological origin is gradually becoming suspect here, and they seem to have somewhat the feeling that they have been nurturing a viper in their bosom.”7 The same conclusion can be drawn with regard to his relationship to Karl Barth. At the same time as he was distancing himself from his Berlin teachers, Bonhoeffer found Barth to be a positive source for theological reflection, while maintaining a critical distance.8 He did not refrain from challenging Barth, especially when it “conflicted with the more deeply ingrained convictions animating his own understanding of how theology was related to both faith and experience.”9 According to Bonhoeffer, Barth’s emphasis on God’s majesty threatened the concreteness of God’s revelation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Preliminary Investigation and Critique of the Ethics of Dietrich Bonhoeffer
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Master's Theses Theses and Dissertations 1968 A Preliminary Investigation and Critique of the Ethics of Dietrich Bonhoeffer David W. Clark Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Clark, David W., "A Preliminary Investigation and Critique of the Ethics of Dietrich Bonhoeffer" (1968). Master's Theses. 2118. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/2118 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1968 David W. Clark A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AND CRITIQUE OF THE ETHICS OF DIETRICH BONHOEFFER by David W. Clark A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate School, Loyola University, Ohicago, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for !he Degree of Master of Arts J~e 1968 PREFACE This paper is a preliminary investigation of the "Christian Ethics" of Dietrich Bonhoeffer in terms of its self-consistency and sufficiency for moral guidance. As Christian, Bonhoefferts ethic serves as a concrete instance of the ways in which reli­ gious dogmas are both regulative and formative of human behavioro Accordingly, this paper will study (a) the internal consistency of the revealed data and structural principles within Bonhoef­ ferts system, and (b) the significance of biblical directives for moral decisionso The question of Bonhoefferfs "success," then, presents a double problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Christ and Revelatory Community in Bonhoeffer's Reception of Hegel
    Dogmatik in der Moderne Edited by Christian Danz, Jörg Dierken, Hans-Peter Großhans und Friederike Nüssel 22 David S. Robinson Christ and Revelatory Community in Bonhoeffer’s Reception of Hegel Mohr Siebeck David S. Robinson, born 1980; 2003 BA; 2008 MDiv; 2017 PhD in Systematic Theology and Ethics from The University of Edinburgh; currently Post-Doctoral Fellow in Theo- logy and Science at Regent College and Research Associate at Vancouver School of Theology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. orcid.org / 0000-0002-8552-4369 ISBN 978-3-16-155963-1 / eISBN 978-3-16-156148-1 DOI 10.1628 / 978-3-16-156148-1 ISSN 1869-3962 / eISSN 2569-3913 (Dogmatik in der Moderne) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbiblio- graphie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2018 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that per- mitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies parti- cularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed on non-aging paper by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany. For my mother and father Acknowledgements This book is based on the Ph.D. thesis that I completed at the University of Edinburgh in 2017. I begin with thanks to my primary supervisor, David Fer- gusson, for guiding the final revision period and for encouraging engagement with the broader scholarly community, providing professional opportunities to that end.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Theology
    CURRENT THEOLOGY CHANGES IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF LUTHER: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE YOUNG LUTHER Is Luther a Lutheran? Is there such a thing as a Lutheran theology or a Lutheran interpretation of Luther? The evaluation and re-evaluation of Martin Luther is an old yet current and urgent problem. It has always been urgent for Protestants to know the Reformers in order to know their tradition. Today it is especially important for both Protes­ tants and Roman Catholics to understand the Reformation. On the Protes­ tant side, contemporary theology has been influenced extensively by the Reformers. Thus one must be sure historically that the sixteenth century has not been distorted by contemporary interests, and systematically that the riches and relevance of Reformation theology have been fully realized. Traditionally, Roman Catholics have been interested in the Reformation more to attack it than to understand it. This is changing. Today Roman Catholics seek to understand the Reformation in order to achieve a theologi­ cal rapprochement with its heirs. Christian theologians of all traditions must understand the Reformation in order to understand theology. Theology as the many-splendored experience of the Church must appropriate the decisive product and critique of the Middle Ages. Actually, the task of understanding the Reformers is very complex. The search for the historical Luther has never yielded many permanent conclu­ sions. The interpretation of the "real'* Luther has changed from generation to generation. Today there is a re-evaluation of Luther going on—but historically this has always been the case, in varying degrees. One of the critical questions of modern Luther studies is the development of the young Luther.
    [Show full text]
  • University Microfilms 300 North Z U B Road Ann Arbor
    INFORMATION TO USERS This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Theology and Secularization Theory in Germany, 1918-1939: Emanuel Hirsch As a Phenomenon of His Time
    Harvard Divinity School Political Theology and Secularization Theory in Germany, 1918-1939: Emanuel Hirsch as a Phenomenon of His Time Author(s): John Stroup Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 80, No. 3 (Jul., 1987), pp. 321-368 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509576 . Accessed: 18/11/2013 17:40 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Cambridge University Press and Harvard Divinity School are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Harvard Theological Review. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:40:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions HTR80:3 (1987) 321 -68 POLITICAL THEOLOGY AND SECULARIZATION THEORY IN GERMANY, 1918-1939: EMANUEL HIRSCH AS A PHENOMENON OF HIS TIME * John Stroup Yale Divinity School According to Goethe, "writing history is a way of getting the past off your back." In the twentieth century, Protestant theology has a heavy burden on its back-the readiness of some of its most distinguished representatives to embrace totalitarian regimes, notably Adolf Hitler's "Third Reich." In this matter the historian's task is not to jettison but to ensure that the burden on Prot- estants is not too lightly cast aside-an easy temptation if we imagine that the theologians who turned to Hitler did so with the express desire of embracing a monster.
    [Show full text]
  • Editor's Introduction to the English Edition
    EDINTRO:EDINTRO.QXD 2/17/2009 10:29 AM Page 1 W AYNE W HITSON F LOYD, JR . EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION TO THE ENGLISH EDITION Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s name was introduced to the English-speaking world through the appreciative reception that was given to certain of his writings in the generation following the second world war. Titles such as The Cost of Discipleship, Life Together, Ethics, and Letters and Papers from Prison summoned an image of a courageous pastor and thoughtful the- ologian who rose above the confusion and inaction of his age not only to speak prophetic words of clarity but also to take costly actions of resis- tance against the horrors of National Socialism. His provocative words became a staple among those themselves searching for an adequate response to a ‘world come of age’ in the 1950s and 1960s. He evoked a fearless openness to the challenges of modernity, a way to be Christian without succumbing to mere religiosity, a spiritual path that led into the midst of this world, evoking a compassionate and redemptive embrace of both life’s gifts and its deep wounds and needs. Far less well known and read, however, were the works that come from the first half of Bonhoeffer’s adult life — the writings from the time of his academic preparation for an anticipated professional life as a univer- sity professor, as well as those that were the first fruits of his academic vocation. To be ignorant, however, of his first dissertation Sanctorum Communio,[1] or the university lectures later published as Creation and [1.] Sanctorum Communio was Bonhoeffer’s doctoral dissertation, the first of two theses that were required of a candidate wishing to receive a doctorate and to teach in a German university.
    [Show full text]
  • Dietrich Bonhoefer in the Theology of Karl Barth Matthew Puffer Valparaiso University
    Valparaiso University ValpoScholar Christ College Faculty Publications Christ College (Honors College) 2-18-2014 Dietrich Bonhoefer in the Theology of Karl Barth Matthew Puffer Valparaiso University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/cc_fac_pub Recommended Citation Puffer, Matthew, "Dietrich Bonhoefer in the Theology of Karl Barth" (2014). Christ College Faculty Publications. 52. https://scholar.valpo.edu/cc_fac_pub/52 This Book chapter/entry is brought to you for free and open access by the Christ College (Honors College) at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Christ College Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. 3 Dietrich Bonhoeffer in the Theology of Karl Barth By Matthew Puffer Little speculation is required to discern what “Karl Barth in conversa- tion with Dietrich Bonhoefer” might look like. Teir numerous interac- tions during the tumultuous years from 1931 to 1942 are both preserved in personal correspondence and noted extensively, particularly in Bonhoefer scholarship. Te signifcant indebtedness of Bonhoefer’s theology to Barth’s is widely recognized. It is apparent during his student years in Tübingen and Berlin, in the fnal extant chapters for his Ethics foreshortened by his arrest, as well as in Bonhoefer’s prison theology where dependence and divergence are simultaneously evident. Comparisons of Eberhard Bethge’s and Eberhard Busch’s respective biographies of Bonhoefer and Barth—or of almost any work on Barth’s theology and nearly any on Bonhoefer’s— bears out that Barth was of tremendous import to Bonhoefer’s theology.1 A signifcant void remains, however, in that little consideration has been given to the opposite trajectory—that is, to the infuence of the younger theologian upon his esteemed mentor.
    [Show full text]
  • The Perspective of Mosheim and Neander
    Concordia Seminary - Saint Louis Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary Doctor of Theology Dissertation Concordia Seminary Scholarship 5-1-1994 Integrity and Integration in Ecclesiastical Historiography: The eP rspective of Mosheim and Neander Paulo Buss Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.csl.edu/thd Part of the Christian Denominations and Sects Commons, and the History of Christianity Commons Recommended Citation Buss, Paulo, "Integrity and Integration in Ecclesiastical Historiography: The eP rspective of Mosheim and Neander" (1994). Doctor of Theology Dissertation. 9. http://scholar.csl.edu/thd/9 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Concordia Seminary Scholarship at Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctor of Theology Dissertation by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Copyright 1994 by Paulo W. Buss CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DEDICATION iii INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER I. THE BEGINNINGS OF LUTHERAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 11 Luther's view of History Knowledge of history History seen with human eyes God and History The church and its history Philosophy or theology of history? Uses of history Luther from the perspective of integrity and integration Luther's impact on historiography The Magdeburg Centuries Veit Ludwig von Seckendorff II. JOHANN LORENZ MOSHEIM 51 Life and works Writings and influence Mosheim's
    [Show full text]
  • “In Life and in Death”: Barth, Bonhoeffer, and the Path from the Great War to the Confessing Church
    “In Life and in Death”: Barth, Bonhoeffer, and the Path from the Great War to the Confessing Church “Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to obey in life and in death.” – Barmen Declaration, May 31, 1934 “You may be sure that we would not be capable of existing as a corps of sworn brothers if we did not have conviction and faith in a God who stands over us and our Fatherland, who created our people and this earth and sent us our Führer.” – Himmler on Religion, 19361 ANTHONY CHVALA-SMITH* Abstract: Karl Barth (1886-1968) and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) are associated with landmark achievements in twentieth-century Protestant theology, including their opposition to Nazism. Barth played a leading role in crafting the Barmen Declaration (1934), which gave a doctrinal basis for Protestant resistance to German nationalism, and Bonhoeffer articulated a pacifist ethic and trained pastors in an illegal seminary to resist Nazi ideology. This paper argues that both theologians’ resistance to fascism was shaped by their experience and interpretation of World War I. The Great War brought trauma to both figures: for Bonhoeffer the loss of his older brother in battle, and for Barth the loss of confidence in a modern theological paradigm that was powerless to help its devotees oppose the war. The thought of both theologians calls the contemporary church to oppose resurgent American nationalism and authoritarianism by unmasking its idolatrous mythic ground. Historians and theologians have long associated Karl Barth (1886-1968) and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) with landmark achievements in twentieth-century Protestant theology.
    [Show full text]
  • Intensifying Schroeder's Critique of Barth by Way of Bonhoeffer's Confession of Christ Gary M
    Luther Seminary Digital Commons @ Luther Seminary Faculty Publications Faculty & Staff choS larship 2005 God is a God Who Bears: Intensifying Schroeder's Critique of Barth by way of Bonhoeffer's Confession of Christ Gary M. Simpson Luther Seminary, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.luthersem.edu/faculty_articles Part of the Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Simpson, Gary M., "God is a God Who Bears: Intensifying Schroeder's Critique of Barth by way of Bonhoeffer's Confession of Christ" (2005). Faculty Publications. 301. https://digitalcommons.luthersem.edu/faculty_articles/301 Published Citation Simpson, Gary M. “God Is a God Who Bears: Intensifying Schroeder’s Critique of Barth by Way of Bonhoeffer’s Confession of Christ.” In Gospel Blazes in the Dark: A Festival of Writing Sparked in Honor of Edward H. Schroeder, edited by Steven C. Kuhl, 111–27. St. Louis, MO: Crossings Community, Inc., 2005. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty & Staff choS larship at Digital Commons @ Luther Seminary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Luther Seminary. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Gospel Blazes in the Dark 111 "God Is a God Who Bears": Intensifying Schroeder's Critique of Barth by Way of Bonhoeffer's Confession of Christ by Gary M. Simpson Early on, Edward H. Schroeder sharply criticized Karl Barth. The same can be said of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer, as everyone knows, was deeply indebted to Barth.
    [Show full text]
  • The Reformers' Understanding of Paul And
    TMSJ 16/2 (Fall 2005) 245-259 THE REFORMERS’ UNDERSTANDING OF PAUL AND THE LAW Irvin A. Busenitz Vice President for Academic Administration and Professor of Bible and Old Testament For about two thousand years the doctrine of justification by faith has been the bedrock of Christianity, but recently the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) has proposed that such a teaching rests on a misunderstanding of Paul that was propagated by the Reformers. The NPP advocates a view of second-temple Judaism that was free from legalism and focused on an exclusivism based on racial privilege. Such texts as Acts 13:38-39, Luke 18:14, and Rom 9:30-32 show that Judaism of that day was definitely legalistic, however. Rabbinic writings of the same period confirm that fact. Writings of early church fathers such as Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Chrysostom, and Augustine reflect the church’s belief in justification by faith as a contrast with early Jewish legalism. Thomas Aquinas and other Roman Catholic sources of the Middle Ages show a belief in Paul’s picture of Judaism as teaching justification by human merit. Luther continued the tradition of the church’s belief in justification by faith and its antithesis, the works of the law. Though differing slightly from Luther’s view of the law, Calvin concurred with him that justification before God was unattainable without divine intervention in regeneration. Evidence is clear that the Reformers were not merely reacting to conditions of their day as the NPP contends, but continued a tradition of justifica- tion by faith alone handed down from the early church.
    [Show full text]
  • War Time Preaching and Teaching
    War Time Preaching and Teaching War Time Preaching and Teaching By Jeffrey Jon Richards War Time Preaching and Teaching, by Jeffrey Jon Richards This book first published 2009 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2009 by Jeffrey Jon Richards All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-1255-2, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-1255-9 Dedicated to two wonderful daughters Lauren Meredith Richards Rosenfarb and Emily Katherine Richards TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface........................................................................................................ ix Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 A. Traditional Views of Bultmann and Bonhoeffer B. Towards an Interpretation of the Relationship of Bultmann and Bonhoeffer Chapter One............................................................................................... 25 Rudolf Bultmann’s Hermeneutics and His Sermons A. Introduction B. Hermeneutical Methodology C. Sermonic Exposition D. Hermeneutics and Preaching: Conclusion Chapter Two...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]