That Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the rebel and heretic, was certainly no martyr for the truth (Part 1: “The Cost of Discipleship”)

It has unfortunately become common, even within the LCMS, to praise Dietrich Bonhoeffer as an alleged “Lutheran martyr.” Now, all who make this claim are undoubtedly aware of this so-called saint’s repeated displays of rebellion against his fatherland, even including participating in an attempted assassination of its leader, so they cannot be excused by any kind of ignorance in their declarations regarding his “martyrdom.” However, many are (apparently) unaware that is inappropriate even to call Bonhoeffer a “Lutheran,” for he rejected Lutheranism not only with his actions (for all Lutherans have condemned rebels as devil’s martyrs), he also condemned it in his writings.

Introduction to “The Cost of Discipleship”

The Cost of Discipleship, being the most read of Bonhoeffer’s works, is a proper place to begin. Bonhoeffer’s acceptance of the criticism of modern preaching (p. 29), because it comes with his rejection of doctrine (p. 30), is certainly not spoken in the Spirit of Christ, but that of Satan. On page 31, Bonhoeffer rejects the concept that the Church “dictates to [men] what must be believed … in order to be saved” as “tyranny and oppression over the souls of men.”

“Cheap” and “costly” grace and the rejection of the vicarious satisfaction of Christ

Chapter one, “Costly Grace,” begins with the dubious statement: “CHEAP grace is the deadly enemy of our church. We are fighting today against cheap grace.” It is because of this statement (and that which flows from it) that I did not mention his praises of the Gospel as the easy yoke of Christ, for Bonhoeffer everywhere most horribly confuses Law and Gospel, as shall become apparent. Bonhoeffer defines “cheap grace” thus (p. 35):

Grace as a doctrine, a principle, a system. It means forgiveness of sins proclaimed as a general truth [universal, objective justification], the love of God taught as the Christian ‘conception’ of God. An intellectual assent to that idea is held to be of itself sufficient to secure remission of sins. The church which holds the correct doctrine of grace, it is supposed, ipso facto a part in that grace. In such a church the world finds a cheap covering for its sins; no contrition is required, still less any real desire to be delivered from sin. Cheap grace therefore amounts to a denial of the living Word of God, in fact, a denial of the Incarnation of the Word of God.

Now, if it were the case that Bonhoeffer only condemned the Epicureans who give themselves the name of “Church,” this could be interpreted rightly. Unfortunately, however, he continues:

Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner. Grace alone does everything, they say, and so everything can remain as it was before. ‘All for sin could not atone.’ The world goes in the same old way, and we are still sinners ‘even in the best life’ as Luther said. Well, then, let the Christian live like the rest of the world, let him model himself on the world’s standards in every sphere of life, and not presumptuously aspire to live a different life under grace from his old life under sin. That was the heresy of the enthusiasts, the Anabaptists and their kind. Let the Christian beware of rebelling against the free and boundless grace of God and desecrating it. Let him not attempt to erect a new religion of the letter by endeavoring to live a life of obedience to the commandments of Jesus Christ! The world has been justified by grace [universal, objective justification]. The Christian knows that and takes it seriously. Therefore — let him live like the rest of the world! … Let the Christian rest content with his worldliness and with this renunciation of any higher standard than the world. … Let him be comforted and rest assured in his possession of this grace — for grace alone does everything. Instead of following Christ, let the Christian enjoy the consolations of his grace!

I must say a few words on this complete rejection of Christianity, which Bonhoeffer’s adherents, for some reason, never bring up. According to Bonhoeffer, the “cheap grace” of the Lutherans, seen especially in their adherence to the sola gratia, makes it so that “no contrition is required” and the Christian “models himself on the world’s standards in every sphere of life,” “rests content with his worldliness,” and avoids following Christ. This charge is most unjust, as all the works of every orthodox Lutheran show (see, e.g., Chemnitz’s Examen, vol. 1 and 2).

Now, in opposition to the “cheap grace” of the Lutherans, Bonhoeffer presents his “costly grace” thus:

Costly grace is the Gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock.

All in all, Bonhoeffer’s “costly grace” is nothing but Calvinistic-pietistic particularism.

On page 38, Bonhoeffer praises monasticism as keeping the Roman Church from “altogether losing the earlier vision” of “costly grace.” On pages 41 and 42, Bonhoeffer makes a false distinction between the orthodox Lutherans and Luther, saying that the orthodoxy of the former “spelt the end and destruction of the Reformation as the revelation on earth of the costly grace of God. The justification of the sinner in the world degenerated into the justification of sin [!!!] and the world [universal, objective justification]. Costly grace was turned into cheap grace without discipleship.” He then (pp. 44 f.) accuses Lutherans of having “exalted that doctrine [the sola gratia] to the position of God himself. … We justified the world and condemned as heretics those who tried to follow Christ [the Calvinists and other enthusiasts are meant]. … Cheap grace had won the day.” Against this condemnation of universal justification, Bonhoeffer elsewhere (e.g., p. 81) speaks like a Christian, though he is like a blind man describing color.

Bonhoeffer’s faith-creating obedience and the rejection of the distinction between Law and Gospel

At the very beginning of the second chapter (p. 48), Bonhoeffer makes the assertion that, when the apostles followed Christ, they did not at the same time confess their faith in Him. It is therefore expected, if very saddening, when he (p. 49) asserts that the call to follow Christ “transcends the difference between the Law and the Gospel. Christ calls, the disciple follows; that is grace and commandment in one.” Against this unchristian teaching, all Lutherans cry out together with Melanchthon: “All Scripture ought to be distributed into these two principal topics, the Law and the promises!” (See C. F. W. Walther, Law and Gospel [DE].) Consistent with his rejection of the distinction between Law and Gospel, he later (pp. 53–57) asserts:

The road to faith passes through obedience to the call of Jesus.

… Only he who is obedient believes.

… Faith only becomes faith in the act [good work] of obedience.

… Only the obedient believe. If we are to believe, we must obey a concrete command. … Only this new existence, created through obedience, can make faith possible.

… The step of obedience must be taken before faith can be possible.

On page 55, Bonhoeffer makes known his critical attitude against the Lutheran Confessions for not emphasizing external works (that is, sins) done prior to faith. On pages 57–59, he gives the following consolation:

Are you worried because you find it so hard to believe? No one should be surprised at the difficulty of faith, if there is some part of his life where he is consciously resisting or disobeying the commandment of Jesus. Is there some part of your life which you are refusing to surrender at his behest? … If so, you must not be surprised that you have not received the Holy Spirit, that prayer becomes difficult, or that your prayer for faith remains unanswered. [!!]

… When people complain, for instance, that they find it hard to believe, it is a sign of deliberate or unconscious disobedience. … The pastor should give up arguing with him and stop taking his difficulties seriously.

Bonhoeffer thus confesses that, according to his lofty spirit, there are some who, though they earnestly pray God to grant them faith, do not have it. Against this, all Lutherans and the Scriptures of the Holy Spirit say: He that desires faith certainly has it, though it be weak. On page 58, Bonhoeffer challenges those who opposes his enthusiasm thus:

If anyone rushes forward and challenges this point in an excess of Protestant zeal, let him ask himself whether he is not after all allowing himself to become an advocate of cheap grace.

One can therefore see that Bonhoeffer’s earlier praises of Luther were nothing but deception.

In his explanation of the story of the rich young man (pp. 61–66), Bonhoeffer, as an opponent of grace, pretends as though the man were not a self-righteous hypocrite whose sins Christ shows with the words, “If you would be perfect,” etc., and this is because of his rejection of the distinction between Law and Gospel. Similar is his explanation of the parable of the Good Samaritan (pp. 66–68). At the end of this chapter (p. 68), Bonhoeffer pretends that, in dealing with the rich young man, Christ did not only give him the command of the Law, but rather (according to Bonhoeffer) called him “to the grace of discipleship.”

Bonhoeffer the enthusiast

In chapter 3 (pp. 69 ff.), Bonhoeffer makes the absurd contention that the examples of the calls of the apostles and Jesus’ command to rich young man should be taken as general precepts, and he condemns the authority of Scripture in the process. He also ignores the fact that the command, “To Him you shall listen,” is contained in the Old Testament Scriptures. On page 74, Bonhoeffer condemns all his opponents as legalists, which title rightfully belongs to him. Everything else which belongs to this chapter has been adequately addressed above.

Bonhoeffer on the cross and his confusion on the Church

At the beginning of this chapter (pp. 76 f.), Bonhoeffer wrongly identifies the Rock of the Church with St. Peter, saying that he “has been appointed to the primacy.” On page 80, Bonhoeffer, speaking quite admirably of the cross, says too much, saying that Christians “bear the sins of others,” which only belongs to Christ. Bonhoeffer’s treatment of the yoke of Christ in this chapter (p. 82) is infinitely superior to his earlier one.

Bonhoeffer on the Sermon on the Mount

Matthew 5

Bonhoeffer identifies (pp. 106 f.) “Reformation theology” as a “sinister motive” “which in practice means conformity to the world.” By this he means to reject the Church as being the invisible congregation of saints scattered throughout the world, replacing it with a church with “extraordinary visibility.” Of course, Bonhoeffer does not here mean the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the true visible Church of God on earth. Bonhoeffer continues this false teaching in greater detail in the chapter “The Visible Community.” He also (loc. cit.) artificially limits good works to “poverty, peregrination, meekness, peaceableness, and finally persecution and rejection.”

In dealing with the saying of Christ: “Think not that I came to destroy the Law or the prophets,” etc. (pp. 109 ff.), Bonhoeffer says that, if it be believed that the Gospel, as the “higher Word” of God, abrogates the Law, God is denied. He therefore concludes:

There is … no communion with God apart from fulfillment of the Law.

Softening this impious expression a bit, Bonhoeffer then amends it to “perfect communion with God,” lest he be taken seriously in his pronouncements. But Bonhoeffer then condemns Christian liberty as “enthusiasm” and “libertarianism.” He follows this up by saying that Christians, being bound to Christ, “must obey the Law as he does.” He then says, against all Christians, that “to teach [the Law] in such a way that it cannot be fulfilled … has no warrant from Jesus. … If men cleave to him who fulfilled the Law and follow him, they will find themselves both teaching and fulfilling the Law. Only the doer of the Law can remain in communion with Jesus.” He continues in this vein:

With the disciple also righteousness could only take the form of obedience to the Law. No one who failed to do the Law could be accounted righteous. But the disciple had the advantage over the Pharisee in that his doing of the Law is in fact perfect. … Their righteousness consists precisely in their following [Jesus], and in the beatitudes the reward of the kingdom of heaven has been promised to it. … It belongs only to the poor, the tempted, the hungry, the meek, the peacemakers, the persecuted. … It is the visible righteousness. … It is the new Law, the Law of Christ.

Dealing with vv. 21–26 (pp. 115 ff.), Bonhoeffer pretends that “brother” is identical with “neighbor.” He also condemns the perfect hatred of Christ and all Christians, and thereby attempts to protect himself. This colors his quite inept interpretation of the passage. Dealing with vv. 33–37 (pp. 122 ff.), Bonhoeffer condemns in his usual seditious manner the Lutherans for having made a “questionable” decision in their affirmation of legally demanded oaths as not contradicting the Word of Christ. Addressing vv. 38–42 (pp. 126 ff.), Bonhoeffer rejects the scriptural threefold distinction of the Old Testament Law. He also condemns the distinction between the office and the person as “wholly alien to the teaching of Jesus.” Then what, I might ask, was Jesus thinking when He referred to the Pharisees as sitting on the seat of Moses (Matt. 23), while He still condemned them? When he has taken up vv. 43–48 (pp. 131 ff.), Bonhoeffer condemns the Lutheran princes who defended their subjects in the Thirty Years’ War. If Bonhoeffer’s argument (p. 133) is taken seriously, then a Christian must love and bless Antichrist himself, the murderous pope.

Matthew 7

On pages 165–166 Bonhoeffer once again condemns the “cheap grace” of the wicked Christians — it is pure fanaticism. But in condemning us “fanatics” he also denigrates the Word of God, calling it “weaker than any ideology,” although God tells His people that His Word shall not return to Him empty, Isaiah 55, which certainly is not the case with ideologies.

All I will say concerning Bonhoeffer’s interpretation of the “narrow way” (p. 170) is that the reader should consider whether Bonhoeffer in his own life really faced his enemies “unarmed and defenseless, preferring to incur injustice rather than to do wrong” himself.

Continuing in his typical Pelagian fashion, Bonhoeffer is not afraid to utter the blasphemous words: “The grace of Jesus is a demand” (p. 173). I should hope that no Christian would require an explanation as to why he must either reject this blasphemy or reject the only saving God.

Scripture and doctrinal development

On page 206, there is the following footnote: “The direct testimony of the Scriptures is frequently confounded with ontological propositions. This error is the essence of fanaticism in all its forms. For example, if we take the statement that Christ is risen and present as an ontological proposition, it inevitably dissolves the unity of the Scriptures, for it leads us to speak of a mode of Christ’s presence which is different e.g. from that of the synoptic Jesus. The truth that Jesus Christ is risen and present to us is then taken as an independent statement with an ontological significance which can be applied critically to other ontological statements, and it is thus exalted into a theological principle. … But this is to tear it from its scriptural context and raise it to the status of an independent truth which can be experienced. The proclamation of the scriptural testimony is of quite a different character. The assertion that Christ is risen and present, is, when taken strictly as a testimony given in the Scriptures, true only as a word of the Scriptures. This word is the object of our faith. (!) There is no other conceivable way of approach to this truth except through this word. But this word testifies to the presence of both the Synoptic and the Pauline Christ. Our nearness to the one or the other is defined solely by the Word, i.e. by the scriptural testimony. Of course this is not to deny the obvious fact that the Pauline testimony and that of the Synoptists differ in respect both of their object (!!!) and their terminology, but both have to be interpreted in the light of the Scriptures as a whole. … The legitimacy of our view must be put to the test in every instance. Thus in the ensuing argument, our purpose is to show how St. Paul takes up the synoptic notion of following Christ and subjects it to further development. (!!!)”

It seems clear that Bonhoeffer’s foremost error is making “this word” “the object of our faith.” Rather, it is the Christ of whom the Word testifies that is the object of all true Christian faith. Bonhoeffer’s appeal to “the Scriptures as a whole” is simply a typical way that unbelievers have often feigned obedience to God’s Word, while nevertheless teaching against it. To say that St. Paul and the so-called Synoptic Gospels disagree concerning the object of faith (concerning which Bonhoeffer already taught falsely), is perhaps the clearest unbelief, as far as his arguments for his position are concerned. But the greatest unbelief is found in his conclusion: The assertion that Christ is risen and present is true only as a word of the Scriptures, which, according to Bonhoeffer, disagrees with itself. Thus it is an unreliable assertion, and we must therefore not base our faith upon the risen and present Christ.

The Word against the Sacraments

Bonhoeffer is soon unable to contain his further blasphemies against the Word, and says, “The word of preaching is insufficient to make us members of Christ’s Body; the sacraments also have to be added.” Against this, several things must be said. First, It is rightly said that the Sacraments are the visible Word. Thus it is a devilish deception when someone tries to convince the faithful that the Sacraments are somehow a better Word of God than the Word preached. Second, It is beyond all doubt that people have been saved, even after the institution of both Sacraments, without the Sacraments, but with only the Word of God, spoken or read. Also, All Christians are “members of Christ’s Body”; and they become members of His Body through faith in Him, not through the act of washing.

Concluding remarks on this and other writings of Bonhoeffer will come at the end of this series of articles, which will deal with the unionistic Bethel Confession next.

Altlutheraner