Lex Aeterna

A Defense of the Orthodox Lutheran Doctrine of God's Law and Critique of Gerhard Forde

Cooper

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781498240086
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Martin Luther's theological revolution depended in a significant part upon the distinction between law and gospel. Within the last hundred years, several authors have reevaluated the reformer's understanding of this paradigm in light of its development within the Lutheran orthodox tradition. Some authors have argued that the Lutheran scholastic view of God's law departs from that of Luther. Specifically, it is contended that the Lutheran orthodox argued for a definition of the law which defines it as God's eternal will in contradiction to Luther's approach, wherein the law is defined almost exclusively in negative terms, as a temporal order to eventually be replaced and superseded by the gospel.In this work, Jordan Cooper argues for the continued validity of the Lutheran orthodox definition of the law. Throughout this text, he contrasts the perspective of Radical Lutheran theologians, like Gerhard Forde, with that of earlier Lutheran writers such as Martin Chemnitz and Johann Gerhard. It is argued that Forde's view is inadequate to address contemporary ethical and pastoral issues, and that the Lutheran scholastic doctrine of the law as God's eternal will remains a necessary concept for the contemporary church.

1

Introduction

Background

The distinction between the law and the gospel is at the heart of Lutheran Reformational theology.1 Due to this fact, there have been several debates in Lutheran history surrounding the correct understanding of these two concepts. Already among the second-generation Reformers, a debate began surrounding the third use of the law in the Christian life. This was settled in Article VI of the Formula of Concord. The debates regarding the third use of the law and the relationship between God’s commands and his promises did not end in 1580, however. Within the last hundred years, there has been a broad discussion relating to the Lutheran law-gospel paradigm.

In this work, it is contended that the shifts which have occurred in the theological world regarding law and gospel lead to a number of problems in expositing the doctrine of the divine law. In modern Lutheran theology, the eternal nature of God’s law has been neglected, and in many places, rejected outright. This has led to a radical revision of the entire theological enterprise from a Lutheran perspective. For this reason, many critiques of the Lutheran tradition rely on a caricature of historical views, rather than a careful exposition of the theological categories inherent in historic Lutheranism. I contend, in contrast to these contemporary movements, that the recovery of the traditional Lutheran approach to the law is a beneficial, and necessary, move for the modern church. Not only is this understanding of the law necessary for the Lutheran church, but the insights of historic Lutheran theologians regarding this topic can be immensely beneficial for the church catholic. Recovering those insights would also allow the church to open up dialogue between theological traditions which have often viewed the Lutheran Reformation with suspicion due to its seeming antinomianism and disparagement of the goodness of God’s law.

The contemporary debates surrounding the distinction between law and gospel in Lutheranism are perhaps exemplified within the writings of German theologian Werner Elert. In various writings, especially his monumental work The Structure of Lutheranism (1962), Elert expounds upon the distinction between law and gospel in largely existential categories.2 In opposition to Barth’s reversal of the law-gospel distinction, Elert argues that law always precedes gospel. God’s word of command follows his word of promise.3 Yet, Elert defines the law primarily in relation to its effect upon the one hearing it. In this way, the law and condemnation became almost synonymous concepts. Elert denies the traditional confessional teaching regarding the third use of the law, viewing it as a Reformed invention which wrongfully infiltrated Lutheranism through Philip Melanchthon.

Among those who follow within the existential Lutheran tradition is Gerhard Forde. In his doctoral dissertation, published as The Law-Gospel Debate (1969), Forde traces the debates surrounding law and gospel and the third use of the law from the late nineteenth-through the mid-twentieth centuries. Though critical of Elert on a number of points, Forde adopts his rejection of the third use of the law, and similarly defines law by its effects upon the hearer. Forde expounded upon these ideas in a number of books and essays throughout his career. In Justification by Faith: A Matter of Death and Life (1990), Forde places the doctrine of justification within a death-life paradigm. This death-life distinction is, for Forde, synonymous with the distinction between law and gospel. In defining the traditional Lutheran paradigm in such a manner, Forde rejects the formulations of Lutheran scholasticism and the later confessional documents. This redefinition of law and gospel is also apparent in the manner in which he treats the subject of atonement in Where God Meets Man (1972) and other writings. In this work, Forde contends that Jesus does not obey the law on behalf of humanity, because salvation would then remain in the hands of the law rather than the gospel. Forde discusses these and other issues in his chapters on justification and the Christian life in Christian Dogmatics.4 In this work, Forde clearly outlines his opposition to the third use of the law as explained in the Formula of Concord.

David Scaer, in his book Law and Gospel and the Means of Grace (2008), gives what is likely the most detailed discussion of the distinction between law and gospel from a contemporary confessional Lutheran perspective. Scaer maintains that in the Lutheran Confessions, the phrase “law and gospel” does often refer to God’s act of condemning and redeeming.5 This is not, however, the only way in which this formula is used. Scaer contends for the goodness of both the law and the gospel and argues that the law serves a positive function within the Christian life alongside its condemnatory use. Through an evaluation of twentieth-century Lutheran perspectives, Scaer rejects Elert’s denial of the third use as opposed to the Lutheran Confessions and Scripture.

Joel Biermann, in his book A Case for Character: Towards a Lutheran Virtue Ethics (2014), argues that the law-gospel paradigm has been wrongly utilized in much of contemporary Lutheran theology. He argues that a balanced approach to law and gospel has been replaced by law-gospel reductionism. In historic Lutheranism, the law and the gospel are viewed as distinct, but they are not contradictory. Yet, in the writings of some contemporary Lutheran figures like Gerhard Forde, these two words of God are viewed as a polarity; they contradict one another. Biermann alleges that this has led to the neglect of ethical discourse from the Lutheran pulpit. He argues that while the law-gospel paradigm remains essential for Lutheran theology and life, it is not exhaustive of biblical teaching. Biermann proposes another paradigm, which he labels “the three kinds of righteousness,” as a supplementary teaching to the traditional Lutheran law-gospel dichotomy. In this model, there is a distinction between righteousness coram mundo and righteousness coram Deo. Before God, the law condemns; before the world, it serves as a guide for the believer to follow. Thus, the law is a good gift of God, and though it accuses and kills, it does not only serve in this function.

There is a clear disparity between two views within Lutheran literature in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. There is one tradition, beginning with Elert, and exemplified in the writings of Gerhard Forde, which identifies the law and the gospel almost exclusively with existential realities. In contrast to this, several writers within the confessional Lutheran tradition, including David Scaer and Joel Biermann, have sought to recapture the importance of the traditional law-gospel paradigm. In this traditional schema, the law and the gospel refer to objective realities relating to God’s commands and promises. The third use of the law is thus a true and beneficial aspect of Christian, and particularly Lutheran, theology.

Problem and Objectives

The central premise of this work is that the Radical Lutheran movement, exemplified by the theology of Gerhard Forde, is not consistent with confessional Lutheranism, and that a historic understanding of the law must be recovered. Gerhard Forde, in his 1987 article “Radical Lutheranism,” proposes that the Lutheran church must move forward by holding to a radical conception of the doctrine of justification.6 He does this through an emphasis on the law as an instrument of death and the gospel as an instrument of life. This present work seeks to demonstrate that Forde’s central thesis is incompatible with the confessions because Forde argues for an approach to law and gospel (and consequently justification) which is based upon existential encounter rather than objective theological content. In opposition to Forde’s approach, a positive treatment of the law is explained in order to reestablish a traditional understanding of the distinction between law and gospel within Lutheranism.

Each figure within the broader Radical Lutheran movement has his or her own particular perspective. It would be impossible for a study of this size to scrutinize each figure extensively. Thus, this study is limited to the thought of Gerhard Forde. Other writers in the movement will be cited, but only insofar as they repeat or influence the doctrines of Forde. This study is also limited in its scope in reference to Forde’s theology. The redefinition of the law in Forde’s thought has implications for his approach to sanctification, worship, the doctrine of God, and many other doctrines. These ideas will only be touched on incidentally, however, so that the study can be more narrowly focused on the definition of law and gospel and the use of such a distinction. This study applies beyond the work of Forde himself, as he is simply representative of a broader theological tradition. Thus, readers unfamiliar with the particularities of Forde’s own thought will still benefit from reading this text.

Throughout this work, the contention is made that the views of Forde and the tradition following his views is incommensurate with the confessional tradition. The essential difference between Forde and the confessions is that Forde defines both the law and the gospel by their effects rather than their content. He uses law and gospel in reference to the opera Dei (works of God), whereas confessional Lutheranism describes law and gospel as the verba Dei (words of God). He argues that “The law is defined not only as a specific set of demands as such, but rather in terms of what it does to you.”7 Because of his approach to the law as that which kills, there is no posi...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Literature Review
• Chapter 3: The Scriptural and Theological Foundations for the Distinction between Law and Gospel in Confessional Lutheranism
• Chapter 4: The Distinction between Law and Gospel in the Theology of Gerhard Forde Compared and Contrasted with Confessional Lutheranism
• Chapter 5: Conclusion: Implications of the Dissonance between Gerhard Forde and Confessional Lutheranism
• Bibliography