A Critique of the Theology of Gerhard Forde
On today’s program I addressed the theology of the late ELCA theologian Gerhard Forde, and the beliefs of “radical Lutheranism.” I looked at some of the major issues in his book Where God Meets Man, and demonstrated how he departs from Scripture, the catholic church, and the Lutheran tradition. Don’t miss this program!
- UPDATE – Complementary reading: “What Exactly is the Problem with Gerhard Forde and the ‘Radical Lutherans’?”
Jun 12, 2014 @ 04:30:00
Your program was great and very helpful. I’m not Lutheran, but I have been doing some study on the Law Gospel distinction as well as Theology of the Cross vs Theology of Glory. I recently got a book by Forde called “On Being A Theologian of the Cross” (It was actually recommended on The Resurgence blog along time go). Anyway, since Lutheran theology is new to me is there anything I should be on the look out for in this book? Are some of the same errors you mentioned in the podcast found in this book as well? Thanks.
Jun 12, 2014 @ 05:17:00
Yes, they are, and it’s fairly subtle the way he does it, but he denies the Fall–by denying that there was any condition of original righteousness and holy free will from which Adam and Eve _could_ fall (pp. 6 and 57-8 in my edition, which I think is the newest one), and also and the substitutionary atonement (pp. 6 and 75-6). Those are the big ones, though the book is frequently annoying in other ways.
Jun 12, 2014 @ 11:40:00
Wow, thank you so much. On the program, Jordan said that you can find some of the good theology in Forde (which sounds to be in small measure) in other books that don’t have all these errors. Would you recommend any other books that deal with the Theology of Glory vs Theology of the Cross?
Jun 12, 2014 @ 12:32:00
The best book on the subject is Walter VonLoewenich’s “Luther’s Theology of the Cross.” It’s out of print, so you will have to find a used copy.
Jun 12, 2014 @ 12:50:00
Thanks for the help.
Jun 14, 2014 @ 16:01:00
I’ve heard Dr. Deutschlander’s book on the topic good.
http://online.nph.net/p-1532-the-theology-of-the-cross.aspx
Jun 12, 2014 @ 13:57:00
Did I hear right that Forde denied the vicarious atonement of Christ? If that’s the case, how is he not labeled, as at the very least, extremely heterodox, if not an outright heretic!?!
Jun 12, 2014 @ 20:47:00
Good question J. Dean. It’s strange that more Lutherans don’t find this extremely problematic.
Jun 16, 2014 @ 00:33:00
J. Dean I would seriously recommend a great deal of discernment before you believe everything in this critique. Jordan is right to critique Forde because indeed there are a lot of people who really put a great deal of stock in Forde’s teaching. But I honestly believe Jordan goes way too far, and I have studied Forde a lot. And I know Jordan has also, but I am just saying I know what I am talking about. I also know a lot of people who have read Forde just as much and come to much different conclusions.
In regards to the vicarious atonement question. What Forde rejects is atonement theories in general because they tend to view the atonement through too narrow a scope. He does not deny that vicarious atonement happened on the cross, he just rejects attempts to limit the cross to that.
On his podcast Jordan suggested that if the death and resurrection of Christ never happened it wouldn’t make a difference in Forde’s theology. Well that is simply not true but I’ll let you decide for yourself. Here is a quote from Forde’s book “Theology is for proclamation”.
“The cross and the resurrection put an entirely different light on the life and work of Jesus the preacher. For the fact is-and none of his followers could ignore it-that his preaching, teaching, miracles, and whatever claim he made or implied about himself led only to the cross. All his followers forsook him and fled. In one way or another they were all implicated.One of their own had betrayed him. One of their own had denied him. All seemed ignorant or confused about who he was or what it was all about. Yet in the resurrection God had simply cancelled out the rejection, done a new thing, brought life out of death. The stone that the builders rejected had become the head of the corner.
This meant from the beginning that the teachings and deeds of Jesus could be viewed properly only in the light of the cross. They were not important as detachable, timeless truths, but rather as the words and deeds that got Jesus into trouble and incited the people of this age to crucify him. God alone vindicates him, not his deeds or his teachings. The historical Jesus has no disciples. They forsook him and fled. Modern disciples do the same in one way or another. We need to be confronted by the reality that the teachings, the wonder-working, the apocalyptic preaching-all of it-went down with him to the grave. He was ‘crucified, dead and buried.’ And a great stone was rolled over the door to the tomb. He had no disciples left to carry on his teachings. When he was dead and buried his disciples did not get together in a liberal clique and comfort themselves with the fact that they still had his teachings. It was over. Mostly, his disciples seemed afraid that they might share his fate! Little did they know how well-founded their fears were! Mark’s gospel ends (16:8) with the women at the tomb being so overcome by this fear that ‘they said nothing to anyone’. It was apparent, therefore, that when God raised Jesus from the dead, the preaching and teaching of Jesus could only be handed on as the Word of the cross.”-Gerhard Forde-Theology is for Proclamation
So does that sound like someone who holds to such a low view of the death and resurrection of Christ that if they did not happen it would not make a difference in his theology?? To be sure there is much to critique with Forde, but I would suggest reading some more before you believe Jordan’s assertions. Perhaps a way to look at your question of why there aren’t more people signalling the alarm bells about Forde, is instead of wondering why others are not raising the warning flag like Jordan, maybe you should wonder why Jordan is when so many others in his same circles are not. I would submit this article from Concordia Theological Quarterly written by Jack Kilcrease, who is critical of Forde but presents a much more balanced view of Forde’s strengths and weaknesses.
http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/KilcreaseFordesDoctrineOfTheLaw.pdf
Jun 17, 2014 @ 17:41:00
Have you actually read the book in discussion, “Where God Meets Man”? He very blatantly rejects vicarious atonement throughout the book. There really is no question on that point. His essay on atonement in the Christian Dogmatics text talks about this a great deal. He argues that Jesus died “for us” but not “in our place.”
Jun 17, 2014 @ 22:33:00
Yes I have, but I will go back and look through it. It would probably be helpful for you to clarify in your critiques of his theology that he does say that he say Jesus died for us, and expound on what you think he sees as the distinction between “for us” and “in our place”. Certainly that is a red flag, but I still believe you take it to an absurd extreme. Nevertheless you acknowledge that Dr Forde did at least acknowledge that Jesus died for us, which would show that the cross and resurrection most certainly made a difference in his theology, contrary to the assertion that you make at the end of your podcast that they don’t make a difference to his theology.
I would be interested to find out how someone like Dr John Pless or Dr Jack Kilcrease would surmise the distinction Dr Forde makes between “For us” and “In our place”. I wonder if you would be willing to have one of them on your podcast. I know Dr Kilcrease would be willing to do it.
Jun 13, 2014 @ 15:41:00
What books/authors would you recommend to a new or pre Lutheran? Could that be a topic for a podcast? As a pre Lutheran,Forde was a steady recommendation from Lutherans. I want to avoid doing that to others. I often recommend Veith’ s “Spirituality of the Cross.”
Jun 14, 2014 @ 03:27:13
The two books I always recommend are Veith’s Spirituality of the Cross, and Gerberding’s The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church. After that I would recommend looking at Lutheranism 101 and the Confessions themselves.
Jun 14, 2014 @ 17:57:00
Peace be with you Jordan! Want to encourage you to go into the church history and philosophy behind the theologians you discuss. Your knowledge and insight are very beneficial to this laymen who in vocation witnesses the Lutheran tradition and Christian faith to a very wide variety of beliefs about the church. Having read “On Being a Theologian of the Cross” a few years back, before becoming a confessional Lutheran, any quick thoughts you might have on this book would be appreciated. Thanks for your hard work.
Jun 17, 2014 @ 17:42:00
That book has some decent points in reference to Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, but you will still find problematic aspects of his theology, such as his complete rejection of atonement theories and a denial of a literal fall.
Jun 15, 2014 @ 02:59:00
As a former ELCA pastor and grad of an ELCA seminary who was influenced by Forde’s writing in seminary I have appreciated the critiques of Forde’s theology that I have heard, though they were not always easy to hear. These critiques have played a big role in realizing scripture does not support women’s ordination and my coming to believe in the third use of the law.
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?
Jun 17, 2014 @ 17:44:00
Forde’s rejection of vicarious atonement is not a question. It is a continual and blunt assertion throughout Forde’s work.
Jun 16, 2014 @ 14:00:00
Hi Pastor Jordan.
You briefly mentioned that some of these radical Lutherans do not hold to the 3rd use of the Law, and even argue that Luther did not.
It is clearly laid out in the Small Catechism, Question 77 – “What is the purpose of the Law”. It lays out the 3 uses, curb, mirror and guide…without of course “guide” being the 3rd use.
So I guess I am wondering how it can be questioned that Luther held to a 3rd use if it is clearly spelled out in the Catechism which he wrote? Are there parts of the Catechism we have today that Luther did not write?
Thanks!
In Him,
Joe
Jun 18, 2014 @ 04:07:00
Correction: WITH of course “guide” being the 3rd use.
Exciting news – going to justandsinner.com | theology like a child
Jun 20, 2014 @ 14:12:15
[…] Pastor Cooper has a couple excellent podcasts up now: one that critiques, I think very effectively, Gerhard Forde and another that better explain the topic of theosis (i.e. the mystical union, or what some have […]
The growing influence of Erlangen theology and Gerhard Forde | theology like a child
Jun 23, 2014 @ 20:49:51
[…] on the theology of the late Gerhard Forde, who certainly has some affinities with the school. And his most recent podcast on some of the issues with Forde’ theology shows that he has done a great deal of reading not only of Forde, but Paulson, Bayer, and modern […]