{"id":4875,"date":"2019-09-17T04:36:44","date_gmt":"2019-09-17T11:36:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/?p=4875"},"modified":"2019-09-17T08:26:48","modified_gmt":"2019-09-17T15:26:48","slug":"the-new-book-the-essential-forde-is-pseudo-forde-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/?p=4875","title":{"rendered":"The new book, <em>The Essential Forde<\/em>, is pseudo-Forde (3)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<center><a href=\"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/The-new-book-The-Essential-Forde-3.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Click here for PDF version<\/a> <\/center><br>\n\n\n\n<p><em>The Essential Forde <\/em>includes\nfour chapters of Forde\u2019s doctoral dissertation, <em>The Law-Gospel Debate.<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn1\">[1]<\/a>While there is nothing wrong with presenting\nhis work on the history of the law-gospel debate in the nineteenth century, Forde\u2019s\ndissertation is about the theology of others, not his own theology. Moreover,\ndissertations are written for specialists, hardly the kind of material suited\n\u201cto introduce Forde to a new generation of pastors, theologians, and church\nleaders who do not know him directly,\u201d as Steven Paulson writes of the editors\u2019\npurpose.<a href=\"#_ftn2\">[2]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Why not present \u201claw and gospel\u201d in Forde himself?! Below is\na representative statement on law and gospel by Forde from the US\nLutheran-Catholic Dialogue VII. By round seven of the dialogue Forde had become\nthe de facto leader of the Lutheran team. Keep in mind that across table sat\nRoman Catholic experts, including Avery Dulles, George Tavard, and Carl Peter,\nready to challenge the slightest misstep:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p style=\"margin-left:7%; margin-right:7%;\">\u201cThe law does not open the future,\nit closes it. It only reveals what should or might have been when it is too\nlate and the future is sealed, unless there is another possibility. To live\nunder the law is always to be attempting to repair or atone for yesterday; thus\nyesterday always controls tomorrow. The law kills and brings death, not life,\nfor yesterday is always yesterday. <strong>Grace,\nthe gift of God\u2019s eschatological kingdom in the promise of the gospel, is\nhumanity\u2019s tomorrow.<\/strong> Since that is the case, <strong>the law <em>must<\/em> function to cut\noff every human attempt to create its own tomorrow.<\/strong> The letter, the literal\nhistory, must do its work to cut off every form of metaphysical or religious\nescape. We do not have some transcendent scheme of meaning which somehow\nprotects us from history, rather <strong>we are\ncast <em>into <\/em>history with nothing but\nfaith, to wait and hope.<\/strong> The dialectic makes us historical beings. \u2018If we\nhave died with him, we shall also live with him\u2019 (2 Tim 2:11).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p style=\"margin-left:7%; margin-right:7%;\"><strong>The law and its office or function is therefore strictly limited to\nthis age.<\/strong> It is accuser. That is its chief function, its office. As accuser\nit stands inviolate, unrelenting, without any \u2018veil,\u2019 until that to which it\npoints arrives. As long as sin and death remain, the law remains. Unfaith, sin,\ndeath, and the law are inseparable partners. Until the ultimate triumph of the\neschatological kingdom, the law will sound. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p style=\"margin-left:7%; margin-right:7%;\">All of this raises the inevitable\nquestion about whether there is not a more \u2018positive\u2019 use of the law in\nLutheran theology. Here it should be remembered that Lutherans do speak of the\n\u2018civil use\u2019 of the law, the so-called first use. But that use, too, it should\nbe noted, was a use restricted to \u2018this age.\u2019 In its civil use the law\nrestrains evil and establishes order for the care of human society. God uses\nthe law in this sense to hold the world in readiness for the gospel and keep it\nfrom collapsing into the chaos which threatens it. Under the civil use of law\nit is quite possible to speak of the goodness and \u2018civil righteousness\u2019 of\nhuman activity even though it does not reach beyond this age. If this use of\nthe law is overextended, however, if one begins to take the law into one\u2019s own\nhands in order to bring in one\u2019s own version of the kingdom, tyranny results\nand <strong>resistance must be mounted.<\/strong> <strong>Precisely the proper distinction between\nlaw and gospel limits and humanizes the law.<\/strong> The purpose of the law in its\ncivil use is to take care of the world and of human beings, not to tyrannize\nthem.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn3\">[3]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Forde here focuses on the key dynamic of law and gospel: \u201c<strong>Precisely<\/strong> the <strong>proper<\/strong> distinction between law and gospel <strong>limits and humanizes the law.<\/strong>\u201d Through his career Forde shows that\nwhen law and gospel are <strong>properly<\/strong>\ndistinguished, the law is not eternal, reason is the proper tool in God\u2019s\nleft-hand kingdom, and there are only two uses of law, not three:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>1. The law is not eternal, supernatural; it is natural and changes.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>\u201cThis is what it means to say that whereas the\nkingdom to come is a kingdom of grace the kingdom of this world is a kingdom of\nlaw\u2026.<strong>Law belongs to earth, not to\nheaven. It is natural, not supernatural<\/strong>\u2026.That is why Luther did not speak\nof law as something static and unchangeable. <strong>Laws will and must change in their form as the times demand.<\/strong> <strong>Luther, for instance, refused to grant\neternal status even to the laws of Moses.<\/strong> They are strictly \u2018natural,\u2019 he\nsaid, not unlike the common law of any nation. Men on this earth simply don\u2019t\nhave access to eternal laws.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn4\">[4]<\/a><\/li><li>\u201cFaith in the end of the law leads to the view\nthat its purpose is to take care of this world, not to prepare for the next.\nThat means we do not possess absolute, unchangeable laws. If the law no longer\ntakes care of this world, it can and must be changed. As even Luther put it, we\nmust write our own decalogue to fit the times.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn5\">[5]<\/a><\/li><li>&nbsp;\u201cThe only\nway to overcome the problem of the hiddenness of God not preached is by God\npreached. But that will <strong>not happen by\nattempting to infer God\u2019s will from the law.<\/strong>\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn6\">[6]<\/a><\/li><li>\u201cOnce justification had again been reasserted in\nradical fashion, it was natural that heavy pressure would be brought to bear on\nthe received understanding of law. John Agricola rightly sensed that\njustification by faith could not simply be combined with <strong>the older idea of law as an eternal order<\/strong>, still evident in some of\nPhilip Melanchthon\u2019s theological constructions.<a href=\"#_ftn7\">[7]<\/a><\/li><li>\u201cThe Reformation\u2019s insistence on justification\nby faith as an eschatological event brought with it a reassertion of <strong>the functional understanding of law.<\/strong>\nLuther especially insisted that law must be clearly distinguished from gospel\nand the proper \u2018uses\u2019 of the law carefully explained. The distinction between\nlaw and gospel and the doctrine of the uses of law are of <strong>primary importance<\/strong> because <strong>they\ncontain virtually everything we want to say<\/strong> subsequently about the\nChristian life.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn8\">[8]<\/a><\/li><li>\u201cThroughout this <em>locus \u2018<\/em>law\u2019 is to be taken in a functional rather than a material\nsense. \u2018The law\u2019 in this sense is demand, that voice which \u2018accuses,\u2019 as the\nreformers put it, arising from anywhere and everywhere, insisting that we do\nour duty and fulfill our being. Anything which does that exercises the function\nor \u2018office\u2019 of the law. Law is not a specifiable set of propositions, but is\none way communication functions when we are alienated, estranged, and bound. <strong>This understanding of law transcends the\nusual kind of argument<\/strong>, as when, for instance, it is maintained that \u2018law\u2019\nshould be understood as \u2018Torah,\u2019 a gracious gift in the covenant rather than a\nharsh imposition, or when it is said that Paul misunderstood the law. Such\nexegetical considerations, important in their own right, are not decisive for\nthe question at hand. It makes no difference at the outset, therefore, whether\n\u2018the law\u2019 involved is biblical, the natural law, the law of being, the law of\nChrist, or the faces of starving children on the television screen. <strong>It is the way the communication functions,\nits \u2018use,\u2019 that matters.<\/strong> The assumption we fallen humans make is that the\nlaw is the way, that we can be saved by response to a demand, by \u2018the works of\nthe law.\u2019 We assume we can end the voice by acceding to its demands.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn9\">[9]<\/a><\/li><li>\u201cThe <strong>law\nis limited to this age<\/strong>, and only where faith grasps that will the law be\naccorded <strong>its proper place.<\/strong>\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn10\">[10]<\/a><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>2. Reason rules in God\u2019s left-hand kingdom.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>\u201cMen on this earth simply don\u2019t have access to\neternal laws. But men do have the gift of <strong>reason<\/strong>\nand the accumulated wisdom of the ages as well as the Bible. <strong>Here is the task for man\u2019s reason and\ncreated gifts.<\/strong> Once cured of religious and mythological ambitions, they can\nbe put to work as they ought: taking care of men. For in the final analysis,\nall man\u2019s vocations are to be enlisted in the battle against the devil.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn11\">[11]<\/a>\n<\/li><li>\u201cLaw is to be used for political purposes, i.e.,\nfor taking care of people here on earth in as good, loving, and just manner as\ncan be managed. <strong>Reason<\/strong>,i.e., <strong>critical investigation using the best available wisdom<\/strong> <strong>and analysis<\/strong> of the concrete human\nsituation in given instances,is to\nbe the arbiter in the political use of the law.<strong>\u201d<\/strong><a href=\"#_ftn12\">[12]<\/a><\/li><li>\u201cIt is not enough just to say that a given\ncommand is \u2018The Word of God\u2019\u2026 <strong>in\nquestions of the civil use of law<\/strong>\u2026<strong>each\ncase has to be argued individually<\/strong>\u2026.The fundamental concern of the civil\nuse of the law is for the care of the social order\u2026.What the law enjoins is\nlove of and service to the neighbor. <strong>That\nis its fundamental and ineradicable content.<\/strong>\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn13\">[13]<\/a><\/li><li>\u201c[The two kingdoms doctrine\u2019s] great\ncontribution to the problem of social ethics is exactly to strip men of their\nmythologies. For the very fact that it insists that whatever other Kingdom\nthere is, the eschatological one comes solely and absolutely by God\u2019s power\nalone means that the only real task for men is to repent, to turn around and\ntake care of this world as best they know how \u2013 without myth, but with <strong>reason, love and justice; to be pragmatic<\/strong>:\nto solve problems concretely.&nbsp; The\neschatological vision makes it clear that <strong>the\nsecular is our sacred task<\/strong>. It tears the mask from our pretensions and bids\nus become human beings. That, I think, is the real significance of Luther\u2019s\nresistance to the Peasant\u2019s Revolt, whatever we may think of his final action.\nHe saw quite clearly that if one is to apply this principle, then there could\nbe <strong>absolutely no exceptions.<\/strong> Not\neven those who undertake revolutions for the sake of so-called \u2018Christian\nprinciples\u2019 can be excepted. Nobody, Prince, Peasant, Preacher, President or\nwhat have you, carries out a revolution or a political program in the name of\nChrist. That is so first of all because Luther categorically refused to allow\nChrist to become a club with which to beat anyone (a \u2018New Law\u2019 as he called it),\nand secondly because revolutions and political programs can be carried through\nonly in the name of humanity without appeal to either myth or religion. Luther\nmeans that quite radically. <strong>You don\u2019t\nneed Christ, or even the Bible, necessarily, to tell you what to do in social\nmatters. You have reason, use it!<\/strong><a href=\"#_ftn14\">[14]<\/a><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>3. The law has two uses, not three.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>\u201cFrom the eschatological perspective the\nlegitimate concerns badly expressed in the idea of a <strong>third use<\/strong> of the law can be sorted out. First, one who has been\ngrasped by the eschatological vision looks on law differently from one who has\nnot. But that is not to say that one sees a \u2018third\u2019 use. What one sees is\nprecisely the difference between law and gospel, so that <strong>law can be established in its <em>first<\/em>\ntwo uses this side of the eschaton.<\/strong> Before that vision or when it fades,\nlaw is misused as a way of salvation, a means of escape. One does not know the\ndifference between law and gospel. <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Second, one grasped by the eschatological\nvision will recognize <strong>the continuing\nneed for the law. But this too does not mean a third use.<\/strong> Rather, just\nbecause of \u2018rebirth\u2019 in faith, one will see how much one is a sinner and will\nbe until the end. One will see that one is not yet a \u2018Christian.\u2019 One will see\nprecisely that one has no particular advantages over those who are not yet\nreborn. One will see one\u2019s solidarity with the rest of the human race and wait\nand hope until the end, leaving the heroics and pretensions to spiritual\nathletes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The idea of a third use of the law after\nrebirth thus obscures the eschatological nature of that event and consequently\nmistakes our relationship to this world. \u2018Rebirth\u2019 does not mean premature\ntranslation in time into a state different from that of the rest of humankind,\nin which one is now privileged to use the law differently. That would be a\nfalse eschatology. Rebirth, since it leads to the understanding of self as <em>simul iustus et peccator<\/em>, simply cannot\nshare such an idea of conversion. One is never converted in that sense, because\none must be converted anew each day. Until the end, therefore, one grasped by\nthe eschatological vision will know that he or she <strong>needs the law<\/strong> in precisely the same way that the rest of humankind\nneeds it: <strong>to restrain evil and convict\nof sin.<\/strong>\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn15\">[15]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>\u201cFormula of Concord (Article VI) vacillates on\nthe issue. On the one hand, it speaks of a third use of the law to be applied\nto the regenerate, but then it goes on to say it is necessary because\nregeneration is incomplete in this life. It is an attempt to have it both ways\nand thus threatens only to obscure the issue.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn16\">[16]<\/a><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201c<strong>Precisely<\/strong> the <strong>proper<\/strong> distinction between law and\ngospel <strong>limits and humanizes the law.<\/strong>\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn17\">[17]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The above quotations<\/strong>\npresent the key elements of the <strong>real<\/strong>\nForde. <br><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\">[1]<\/a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Gerhard O. Forde, <em>The Law Gospel Debate<\/em>. <em>An\nInterpretation of Its Historical Development<\/em> (Minneapolis: Augsburg\nPublishing, 1969).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\">[2]<\/a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Steven Paulson, \u201cForde Lives!\u201d <em>The Essential Forde. Gerhard O. Forde.\nDistinguishing Law and Gospel<\/em>. Eds. Nicholas Hopman, Mark C. Mattes, and\nSteven D. Paulson (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2019) 18.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref3\">[3]<\/a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Gerhard O. Forde, \u201cForensic Justification\nand the Law in Lutheran Theology,\u201d <em>Justification\nby Faith. Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII<\/em>. Eds. H. George Anderson,\nT. Austin Murphy, and Joseph A. Burgess (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985) 300-301. Bolding\nadded here and below for emphasis. See also <em>Where\nGod Meets Man<\/em> (Minneapolis, Augsburg Publishing, 1972) 110-12. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref4\">[4]<\/a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Forde, <em>Where\nGod Meets Man<\/em>, 110-11.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref5\">[5]<\/a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Forde, \u201c<em>Lex\nsemper accusat<\/em>? Nineteenth Century Roots of Our Current Dilemma,\u201d <em>dialog <\/em>9 (1970) 274; <em>A More Radical Gospel. <\/em>Eds. Mark C.\nMattes and Steven D. Paulson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004) 49; <em>The Essential Forde<\/em>, 193.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref6\">[6]<\/a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Forde, \u201cPostscript to the Captivation of the\nWill,\u201d<em> Lutheran Quarterly <\/em>19:1 (2005)\n79; Forde, <em>The Captivation of the Will<\/em>.\nEd. Steven D. Paulson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005) 79.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref7\">[7]<\/a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Forde, \u201cJustification and This World,\u201d <em>Christian Dogmatics. <\/em>Eds. Carl E. Braaten\nand Robert W. Jenson (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) II:448.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref8\">[8]<\/a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Forde, \u201cJustification,\u201d <em>Christian Dogmatics<\/em>, II:415.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref9\">[9]<\/a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Forde, \u201cJustification,\u201d <em>Christian Dogmatics<\/em>, II:400.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref10\">[10]<\/a>&nbsp;&nbsp; Forde, <em>Theology\nis for Proclamation<\/em> (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990) 100.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref11\">[11]<\/a> &nbsp; Forde, <em>Where\nGod Meets Man<\/em>, 110-11.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref12\">[12]<\/a> &nbsp; Forde, \u201cThe Viability of Luther Today: A North\nAmerican Perspective,\u201d <em>Word &amp; World <\/em>7\n(1987) 27.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref13\">[13]<\/a> &nbsp; Forde, \u201cLaw and Sexual Behavior,\u201d <em>Lutheran Quarterly <\/em>9:1 (Spring, 1995)\n8-9, 18. <em>The Essential Forde<\/em>, 155,\n165. \u201cIneradicable\u201d here does not mean \u201ceternal law.\u201d Forde: \u201cLaw belongs to\nearth, not heaven. It is natural, not supernatural,\u201d <em>Where God Meets Man<\/em>, 111.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref14\">[14]<\/a> &nbsp; Forde, \u201cThe Revolt and the Wedding: An Essay\non Social Ethics in the Perspective of Luther\u2019s Theology,\u201d <em>The Reformation and the Revolution<\/em> (Sioux Falls: Augustana College\nPress, 1970) 85-86.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref15\">[15]<\/a> &nbsp; Forde, \u201cJustification and this World, <em>Christian Dogmatics <\/em>II: 449-50.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref16\">[16]<\/a> &nbsp; Forde, \u201cJustification and this World,\u201d <em>Christian Dogmatics<\/em> II:460, footnote 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref17\">[17]<\/a> &nbsp; Forde, \u201cForensic Justification and Law in\nLutheran Theology,\u201d <em>Justification by\nFaith. Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII<\/em>,301.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Essential Forde includes four chapters of Forde\u2019s doctoral dissertation, The Law-Gospel Debate. While there is nothing wrong with presenting his work on the history of the law-gospel debate in the nineteenth century, Forde\u2019s dissertation is about the theology of others, not his own theology. Moreover, dissertations are written for specialists, hardly the kind of material suited \u201cto introduce Forde to a new generation of pastors, theologians, and church leaders who do not know him directly,\u201d as Steven Paulson writes of the editors\u2019 purpose.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4875","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4875","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4875"}],"version-history":[{"count":22,"href":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4875\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4953,"href":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4875\/revisions\/4953"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4875"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4875"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4875"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}