So I think you’re identifying a huge problem in “Radical Lutheranism” and the insistence on combatting it is helpful. However, I’m wondering if you could list a bunch of names besides Forde/Paulson who are currently contributing, long form, to this problem. It’d be nice to know if I’m familiar with them or not. If not, then I’ll try to become familiar with them. I’ll probably have to reread the above post, then I might have something halfway coherent and intelligent to say.

However, I can’t help but wonder if you are not painting in overly broad strokes. For instance you take Forde to task for his assertion that God did not have to send Jesus to fulfill the law. I have always understood that to mean that God didn’t have do anything for us after the fall; as opposed to your implication that he is saying that the cross was not necessary for the law to be fulfilled. Also at one point you cite a quote from Dr Forde where he is critical of the idea of faith as a pre-requisite for salvation and seem to want to imply that Dr Forde was a universalist, which is simply not true. And then my favorite kenard; the accusation that he rejects vicarious satisfaction. What he rejects is atonement theories in general because they narrow the scope of the atonement. It does not mean he rejects the substance of vicarious satisfaction he just doesn’t limit the atonement to vicarious satisfaction.

You seem to make the same mistake with Dr Forde that the “radical Lutherans” themselves make with their interpretation of “Lex Semper Accusat” where they infer that recognizing that the law always accuses means that it only accuses, and use that as a rationalization for their rejection of third-use. And with Dr Forde you cite his assertion that the Gospel comes through preaching and then seem to infer that he places no value on the historical reality itself, which I believe is a gross misrepresentation of his theology.

Along those lines, given that you seem so perplexed that Dr Forde’s teaching continues to have an influence in Lutheranism, I can’t help but wonder why not have someone from within LCMS who has defended Dr Forde on your show and give them a chance to answer any questions you come up with? You mentioned that Dr Pless has been an advocate of Dr Forde. Well if Dr Forde is even half as dangerous as you and others like Robert Baker seem to think then wouldn’t they have noticed? What’s the worst that could happen? You find out that you have been misreading Dr Forde?

http://online.nph.net/p-1532-the-theology-of-the-cross.aspx