Featured Bonhoffer, Barth, Lewis....should Christians consider the words of "non-traditional" thinkers?

Do you believe there is value for Christians to consider what “non-traditional” Christian writers like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Karl Barth, N.T. Wright, C.S. Lewis and T. F. Torrance have contributed? If so, what? If not, why not?

 

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.

 

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.

 

I read the Narnia Chronicles as a kid ....child, not goat…I know how y’all Calvinists can be , 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 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'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.

 

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.