What is Reddit's opinion of The Cost of Discipleship?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

> I believe in Jesus as my savior but it feels like my faith just ends there. You wouldn't be able to tell I'm a Christian by my heart or actions.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer would call that cheap grace; the grace you bestow on yourself without discipleship.

> So how do I get a true, transformative faith?

A great start would be reading and working through The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was born in Breslau in 1906. The son of a famous German psychiatrist, he studied in Berlin and New York City. He left the safety of America to return to Germany and continue his public repudiation of the Nazis, which led to his arrest in 1943. Linked to the group of conspirators whose attempted assassination of Hitler failed, he was hanged in a concentration camp in April 1945 just a few weeks before Germany surrendered.

> So what is the point of trying to be better?

The phrase "cheap grace" was used by Dietrich Bonheoffer in his book The Cost of Discipleship.

Drawing on the Sermon on the Mount, Dietrich Bonhoeffer answers these timeless questions by providing a seminal reading of the dichotomy between "cheap grace" and "costly grace."

"Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves...grace without discipleship.Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner.

It'a a good read.

Serious answer: leaving it up to someone’s individual perceptions of “insert blank” helping them to love yourself, others, and celebrate God can be problematic.

Christian liberty is a thing and within that framework is causing another to stumble.

Many confuse and conflate liberty and freedom. Freedom is not the freedom to do whatever you please — that’s anarchy.

Liberty is freedom within set boundaries. Liberty denotes freedom to engage in privileges recognized under a code of conduct (aka law) that’s essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free people.

Christian liberty operates within God’s codes of conduct AND the Christian must take into account the perceptions of the weaker brother or sister in Christ.

In his book The Cost of Discipleship draws on the Sermon on the Mount to answer timeless questions on the dichotomy between "cheap grace" and "costly grace."

Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves — grace without discipleship.

Can a Christian smoke pot with gay atheist furrys?

Perhaps but how does a Christian doing that affect the gay atheist furries perception of God? Does it make them recognize their sin, submit to grace and convert to Christianity?

How does that affect the perceptions of a weaker Christian who sees me doing that? Does it make them believe a Christian can act just like any another worldly person?

I’m pretty liberal on social issues but just pointing out that a broad sweeping “You’ll be fine” might be too general.

The issue is “once saved always saved” can lead some to abuse our Christian liberty and ignore the cost of discipleship.

It’s true that Christianity isn’t primarily a religion of rituals, codes and laws BUT that doesn’t mean Christians can ignore the law and works to just do whatever we like.

For comprehensive overview I highly recommend The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. “Drawing on the Sermon on the Mount, Dietrich Bonhoeffer answers these timeless questions by providing a seminal reading of the dichotomy between "cheap grace" and "costly grace." "Cheap grace," Bonhoeffer wrote, "is the grace we bestow on ourselves...grace without discipleship....Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the girl which must be asked for, the door at which a man must know....It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life."

You're getting a lot of pushback here. I don't want to stumble into an argument here, but I would point you to Bonhoeffer's modern classic <em>The Cost of Discipleship</em>, which touches on this topic.

I would highly suggest The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer Its an awesome book. Aside from the Bible its one of two books I like best.

I recommend a book called &quot;The Cost of Discipleship&quot; by Deitrich Bonheoffer. It's theology is first rate, and it will bring you to that certain and undeniable and inescapable "edge" of Jesus' call, where the decisive step is taken, which is not a work but a simple act of obedience at the outer limit of human freedom. The choice is still your own however, if you want to take on Jesus' yoke and be joined to Him in fellowship, or not. If you read it carefully, then you will come into the understanding and comprehension that's evading you, or that you've been evading perhaps even because of what Bonheoffer argues, very effectively, is a "cheap grace" prevalent in modern contemporary Christendom.

It puts forward a powerful argument that every "Christian" ought to be made aware of, so that they will understand in no uncertain terms the defense that they've unwittingly put up against having an authentic experience of being in fellowship with Jesus as a domain of true life and all possibility.

The arguments that we put up in the back of our mind to avoid obedience to His call are most absurd and pathetic, so be forewarned!

What i've discerned from it is that there's a very compassionate and uncompromising nature to what Jesus is asking at the threshold where worlds collide, which is only gracious on His part, but that it also contains a certain stalwart mirth and charm which refuses to budge from His center of joy and happiness that requires true faith in Him to be appreciated. He's a real charmer that Jesus, but his reason and logic is indomitable.

There's a new argument here that I've not encountered anywhere else that might even be sufficient to cause a prior atheist to courageously drop all his prior conceptions and be the first out of the boat to take Jesus' hand of friendship and love.

What you’re asserting here is “cheap grace.” You should read The Cost of Discipleship

I think the misrepresentation of the Protestant solas is the equivalent to misrepresenting Catholicism’s devotion to Mary.

Many assume that you translate the two Latin terms – and that relates the entire principle. It does not. Contemporary assumptions are far from the teaching of the Reformers. In fact it explicitly contradicts what they were teaching.

Sola 101:

1. The solas are not Protestant doctrine.

2. The solas are principles that emerged from the Reformation. They were created to teach the layman how one is saved.

3. As such the solas are expressed as an adage in slogan form in order to make them memorable.

4. Traditionally there are 3 solas that emerged from the Reformation: faith, grace, scripture.

5. They are expressed as: “We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone on the basis of scripture alone.”

Grace alone

Grace is God’s favor gifted to those who do not and cannot warrant it. Bonhoeffer described “cheap grace”, the grace we bestow on ourselves, grace without discipleship. I highly recommend Bonhoeffer’s book The Cost of Discipleship

Faith Alone A common teaching of Reformers was while justification is by faith alone, faith is never alone and faith that justifies is not solitary. Lutherans do not reject good works and we do not believe works are meaningless. Justification sola fide has nothing to do with a call to such solitary faith. This is one of the most glaring and striking ways of getting the Reformation wrong. For the Reformers, justification is by faith alone, but faith is never alone.” I highly recommend (Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings.

Scripture Alone

Sola scriptura is not bible onlyism. Sola scriptura is not a license to interpret scripture however you like.

Sola scriptura acknowledges God is Sovereign and highest ultimate authority.

Sola scriptura acknowledges God’s Word is inspired and entirely sufficient to relate how one is saved.

Sola scriptura allows for secondary authorities and even allows for revelation.

For example:

1. The ecumenical creeds are not in the Bible, yet Lutherans believe and confess them.

Why?

Because they’re grounded in scripture, harmonize scripture and do not contradict scripture.

2. The word Trinity isn’t in the Bible yet Lutherans believe and confess the Trinity.

Why?

Because the concept is grounded in scripture, harmonizes scripture and doesn’t contradict scripture.

3. The Latin terms for God’s omni attributes aren’t found in scripture yet Lutherans believe God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

Why?

Because they’re grounded in scripture, harmonize scripture and do not contradict scripture.

> Thanks for answering

Sure, thanks for allowing me to explain.

> I understand Protestantism is broad, I just understood it in opposition to Catholicism: no tradition, no Pope and faith alone. I guess I was (at least partly) wrong.

“Protestantism” is much too broad in scope to be used in comparisons to Catholicism. See false equivalence.

Some Protestant denominations have traditions and accept tradition; and “faith alone” is defined and used very differently.

For example:

1. The Reformers upheld the importance of the early creeds and ecumenical councils, not to mention many of the writings of individual church fathers, as secondary authorities that helped to regulate the right interpretation of Scripture

The ecumenical creeds are not in the bible yet Lutherans believe and confess them.

2. Trinity: the Latin term is not in the bible, yet Lutherans believe and confess the Trinity.

3. God’s Omni attributes: the Latin omni terms are not in the bible, yet Lutherans believe and confess God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

4. Many of the Reformers, including Martin Luther, insisted that Mary is the mother of God (in a Trinitarian context). Lutherans believe and confess that Jesus is God manifest, and as such, that Mary is the mother of God. We reject Nestorianism that insists that the two natures of Christ have no communion whatever with one another.

To compare doctrines and beliefs, it’s best to pick a denomination. There’s no Protestant Church with collectively held doctrines or beliefs.

> As for faith alone, if it justifies the sinner, does that not mean that a person doesn't need works if he has faith?

That’s an “if/then” conditional question so we have to unpack it:

Q: Does faith justify the sinner?

A: Yes. We hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Q: Are we saved by deeds/works?

A: No, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Q: Are deeds/works meaningless?

A: No, of course not. Works and deeds are evidences (fruits) of one who has faith. Not having a righteousness of our own that comes from the law but that which comes through faith in Christ – the righteousness from God – that depends on faith.

Faith and works are friends; friends don’t need reconciled. Faith without works and discipleship is what Lutherans call “cheap grace”. *"Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession ... Cheap is grace without discipleship ..." The Cost of Discipleship, Dietrich Bonhoeffer

I highly recommend the book Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings by James R. Payton Jr.

The Cost of Discipleship, Dietrich Bonheoffer.

Screwtape Letters, CS Lewis

The Gospel of the Lord: How the Early Church Wrote the Story of Jesus by Michael Bird

The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ by Brant Pitre.

Counting to God (former atheist) Douglas Ell.

Walking the Bible: A Journey by Land Through the Five Books of Moses, Bruce Feiler

> Well first of all there are hundreds of bible verses saying believe including 101 in John. You have the books of Paul.

That’s self-evident and why I commented the way I did.

> To say “cherry picking” is kinda off.

No it’s not. We can see you didn’t cite other verses, John or Paul.

You claimed “you only gotta do 1 thing” to reconcile all your doctrine around salvation then copy/pasted two verses.

> In the clearest way possible How does that not matter to you.

It does matter to me; didn’t say it didn’t. What I’m saying is it’s not the only source the Church uses to reconcile doctrine of salvation.

> Gimme some verses you think don’t. I answered your question.. My question is Does this verse matter to you yes or no?

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth. Again, I didn’t say it didn’t matter. Thanks.

• Satan believes in God. He won’t be saved. James teaches the demons believe too (James 2:19) but again they won’t be saved either.

• “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” Matthew 7:21-23

Conclusion: Seems Satan and demons believe and aren’t saved; it seems other people who say they believe in God won’t be saved either.

• “By grace we’ve been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Ephesians 2:8-10

• “In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 5:16

• “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.” James 2:26

Conclusion: it would seem faith and works are friends and they don’t need reconciled. My works are fruits, natural byproducts of my faith, and serve to draw others to the Gospel.

> You can cherry pick all day but the question is literally asked and answered as clear as possible.

You do realize you’re the one who cherry picked right?

Pro tip: don't try to squeeze yourself into God's judgment seat to help Him judge sinners. My friend I highly suggest The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He goes into great detail about “cheap grace”.

> So why did God not make us strong?

Like the children song goes, “They are weak while He is strong.”

God is making us strong and resistant to sin through our relationship with Him; this is the cost of discipleship. This concept is detailed in the book The Cost of Discipleship by German/Lutheran theologist Deitrich Bonhoeffer. The concept is centered on an exposition of the Sermon on the Mount, in which Bonhoeffer spells out what he believes it means to follow Christ.

The antidote is Christ’s blood. God heaped the sins of the world on Jesus and His death and resurrection essentially cured sin and death. So to inoculate ourselves we receive the body and blood of Christ (aka sacraments.)

Someone who constantly returns to their sin is like a dog that returns to it’s vomit to repeat it’s folly. But a disciple of Christ is a student. A student fails but learns from failure; learns to walk with Christ who corrects them. A student is set on a path of sanctification. Sanctification is the spiritual growth that follows justification. God works sanctification only through the means of grace. Through the Holy Spirit's work faith is increased daily, love strengthened, and the image of God renewed. By walking in the faith, through experience we learn to love without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good.

The freedom to be good is the true nature of the kind of freedom God intended for us, the freedom to be good, and to love as we are loved. It does not have to involve a duality of good and evil.

C.S. Lewis is pretty good, but his theology pales in comparison to Deitrich Bonheoffer's &quot;The Cost of Discipleship&quot;.

We ought to consider the nature of the fall (and the provision for it's resolution in time and history), as trying to be like God (when that was already our true state of being to begin with ie: made in God's image and walking hand in hand with God in paradise), and eating of the tree of the duality of the knowledge of good and evil or standing as if in judgement of it. This threw us out of paradise and out of childlike obedience to the goodness of God.

Now what is the cross of Jesus Christ if it is not also the Tree of Life, as the resolution to the age old problem of evil?

This doesn't make us perfect or free from sin, but it invites us to become ever more involved in a childlike obedience to the law of life and love, and that's true life as we were meant and created to live it. There's no trying to be good in order not to be bad, in it.

There is no evil in Christ or any necessity or justification for it.

Freedom then has nothing to do with choosing between good and evil. That's a lie.

There's a paradox here involving free will, in so far as we are meant to be under the control of the Spirit which is radically free, but for which there is no inclination towards sin or evil.

LOSS of freedom occurs when we buy into the lie that freedom is a choice between good and evil. That's the tempter's first and last lie, that and the idea of trying to be God (as judge of good and evil), or to try to edge God out of the equation when we were created, by God, to be in relationship with God who is forever transcedent, although innerent.

I think it's poor theology on Lewis' part to see it like this, which retains the duality.

The weeds that were sown in the field will eventually be bundled up and throw away or burned up. To reach that point is the work and Word of the Church as the Body of Christ and the Tabernacle of God. We must get the world out of the Church and move the Church into the world until the lie has nowhere left to hide. This is the new Creation, one person at a time, which carries with it the capacity to redeem the whole of the Creation due to man's place in it as observer and participant made in God's own image. It's God's plan and purpose to redeem the world from the fall, which Jesus as the new Adam and first born from the dead was God-sent, to bring about.

I suppose then that movies will need a new plot-line when we get to that place, eventually, although they could show the myriad ways looking back in hindsight that the end, and the new beginning that saved the world, was brought about. Most of them would therefore be tragic comedies as we cry and laugh at who we once were or took ourselves to be. Then, when there is no more suffering, and no more starvation, and no more sickness, and no more unnecessary tears, and NO MORE WAR, and we've realized heaven on Earth by the work and word of Jesus Christ ("thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven"), we'll take to the stars, or the stars will come to us like a Bridegroom prepared for Earth as the Bride (who knows, anything's possible).

Sounds crazy i realize, but this is the work and purpose of the Church in the world because Jesus came, not to condemn the world, but so that, through Him, the world might be saved (and preserved for all generations from age to age).

"God has no wish for any other means of perfecting his creation than by our help. He will not reveal his Kingdom until we have laid its foundations" ~ Martin Buber

thoughts on a participatory eschatology: http://realitysandwich.com/167830/ecodoom_redemption_mad_movement/

P.S. Of course it is by God's Sovereign Grace that all the work is done, if we'll allow it.. It's a partnership. It's the way God made it to be, for the sake of love and freedom, and maybe even fun and enjoyment.. "so do not fear little ones, nor let your hearts be troubled, for it pleased our Father to share His kingdom with all His children." (maybe paraphrased slightly, sorry)

Will the evil continue to do evil and will we still need police and a legal system? of course. Even the happy ending of Revelation says as much, that after the judgement passes over the earth, the good will continue to do good and the evil, evil, but the world will never be the same once God receives His Bride and and comes to co-habitate with her, in perpetuity.