Walther vs. Forde on the Law in the life of the believer

Bringing into sharp relief one of the irreconcilable differences between C.F.W. Walther, a representative of Orthodox Lutheranism, and Gerhard O. Forde, who offers his own unique brand of Erlangenist-derived Lutheranism, are the following passages on the Law in the life of the believer. The first by Walther is taken from the “Restoration of the Divine Image of Christ,” a sermon for the Twelfth Sunday after Trinity, 1846. Walther’s text is Mark 7:31-37. The second is a few passages from Forde’s “Law and Sexual Behavior,” published by Lutheran Quarterly in 1995, nearly 150 years later. Note the clear difference between their interpretations of Romans 3:31. Oh, what a difference five generations make! First, here’s Walther:

But blessed are we! We are not destined to remain in this misery. For that very reason God’s Son became like us, that we should again become like God. He assumed the likeness of a sinner to bring us back to the likeness of God. Thus John writes, “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.” (1 John 3:8). And Peter preaches, “Whom (referring to Christ) the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” (Acts 3:21).

Consequently we dare not think that God’s Son became a man only to fulfill the Law for us by His holy life. He did not suffer for our sins and die on the cross only to win for us the forgiveness of our sins, to deliver us from the punishment we deserve, to reconcile us with God, and despite our sins unlock heaven and salvation to us. This is how many see Christ. They, therefore, seek nothing in Christ but comfort for their restless conscience. That they should actually again become holy is of no concern to them at all. However, they are caught in a great most dangerous error.

In our text Christ not only mercifully received the deaf and dumb man and assured him of His grace, He also treated him, actually healed him from all his infirmities, restored hearing and speech to him and made him a healthy man. Exactly thus Christ not only wants to forgive all men their sins, but also to free them from their sins. He not only wants to declare them righteous by grace, but He also wants to make them truly righteous. He not only came to comfort and soothe their hearts, but also to cleanse and sanctify them. He came not only to reconcile them with God, but also to reunite them with God, not only to make them acceptable to God, but to make them like God. In short, He came to restore the entire lost image of God in them. He came to lead them back into the state of innocence, to make them perfectly healthy in body and soul, and thus finally to bring them to the blessed goal for which God destined them from eternity and called them into existence…

Not only is the abolition of sin in man part of the restoration of the divine image, but also man’s renewal and sanctification. It is indeed true that no man can work any righteousness which avails before God. Therefore Christ fulfilled the Law for us, so that, believing in Him, we might be declared righteous by grace for His sake. But we dare not think that Christ by His grace abolished the Law, and that now we need not fulfill it. Definitely not! The Law is the declared, eternally unchangeable will of God. It is, therefore, not in the least revoked by the Gospel. It must, therefore, be fulfilled to the very smallest letter not only by Christ but also by every individual person. Just this – to bring man again to this ultimate, completely perfect fulfillment of God’s Law – is the final purpose of the whole redemption of Jesus Christ. Clearly He says, “Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-19). Therefore St. Paul also says, “Do we then make void the Law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the Law.” (Romans 3:31).

Forde believes that the Law ends, completely, full stop, in Christ. Not that the Law does not continue to serve a negative purpose by restraining sin in the civil sphere (true, such a restraint benefits society, but this is no “positive use of the law” because for Forde and those like him, the Law must always and everywhere accuse), nor that Law does not continue its condemning feature in pointing out our sin. Rather, in Forde’s line of thinking, the Law bears no relation to the new man at all! Note how Forde posits a false dichotomy: either one is under the Law, or one is in Christ. Of course, a third alternative exists: believers no longer are under the Law, but are in the Law… in Christ! In fact, this is exactly how the Formula of Concord puts it:

Therefore they delight indeed in God’s Law according to the inner man, but the law in their members struggles against the law in their mind; hence they are never without the Law, and nevertheless are not under, but in the Law, and live and walk in the Law of the Lord, and yet do nothing from constraint of the Law.

And now, here’s Forde.

Christ and Christ alone is the end of the law to faith (Rom. 10:4). But if Christ is the end of the law to faith does that mean that law is now “overthrown” as Paul puts it in Romans 3:31? Is the law rendered useless? By no means, Paul replies. Rather the law is “upheld” or “established,” set in its rightful place. As I have argued elsewhere,[5] the proper Christian understanding of law therefore “resonates,” to borrow an image from chemistry, between two poles. The first is the gospel declaration that Christ is the end of the law that everyone who has faith may be justified (Rom. 10:4). The second is a question posed for us: “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith?” To which the reply is, “By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” Faith in the end, that is, does not impatiently try to abrogate the law, but puts it in its proper place (Rom. 3:31).

We need to look at this “resonance” more closely. Christ is the end of the law that those who have faith may be justified. That is the first and most crucial pole in the resonance. One cannot begin to understand the place of law in theology unless one is absolutely clear that in Christ it is all over, done with. This is simply another way to say that law is not the way of salvation. There is no way one can buy salvation by the doing of the law. The issue before us is not directly one of salvation. Proper behavior does not merit salvation. Salvation begins not when law begins but when law ends. In Christ we are free from the law. Legalism is over as and to the degree that one is in Christ.

But it must be noted carefully that only Christ is the end of the law, nothing else, no one else. Human beings have just two possibilities in this regard. We can live either “under the law” or “in Christ.” And for the time being, of course, since we are simultaneously just by faith and sinners in actuality, we live under both. But only Christ is the end of the law and only when Christ conquers all does law stop.

 

 

Luther: Christians keep the Ten Commandments

A falsehood bubbling out of the dark cauldron of the Fordean Brotherhood is this: While the Christian “does good works” or “follows the will of Christ,” such doing or following is exclusive of “obeying the Ten Commandments”. The problem with this take on things? It is unbiblical, unconfessional, and unChristian. While our Savior fulfilled the Law for us through His perfect life, God still desires that we keep His commandments and takes great joy in our doing so. Why? Because our commandment-keeping is His Spirit’s work through our God-given faith in His Son. Here’s Luther on the Christian’s ongoing obligation to keep God’s Law:

“True it is that the Law or the Ten Commandments have not been annulled so that we are exempt from them and not allowed to have them. For Christ set us free from the curse, not from the obedience of the law. No, that is not what God wants. He wants us to keep the Commandments with total commitment and diligence; but not to put our trust in it when we have done so or despair if we have not. See to it, then, that you distinguish the two words rightly, not giving more to the Law than its due, otherwise you lose the Gospel.”

Martin Luther, “The Distinction between the Law and the Gospel: A Sermon by Martin Luther, January 1, 1532,” trans. Willard L. Burce, Concordia Journal 18 [April, 1992]; 160). WA 36,37

Note how in the previous passage and in the next that Luther carefully distinguishes in what way the commandments no longer apply to believers: Christians are “exempt” of the commandments vis-à-vis their curse (above); the commandments “cease” in that they do not damn believers (below). See, unlike what the Fordeans teach, Jesus fulfilled the Law perfectly for us (active obedience) and suffered the Law’s condemnation and God’s wrath for us (passive obedience). Fordeans reject both of these, given their rejection of the “legal scheme”. Clearly, Luther believed in the “legal scheme”!

The Ten Commandments, which deal with holy life and conduct toward God and man, cease too, in the sense that they cannot damn us believers in Christ. He became subject to the Law in order to redeem us who were under the Law (Gal. 4:5). Yes, He became a curse for us to save us from the curse of the Law (Gal. 3:13). However, the Ten Commandments are still in force and do concern us Christians so far as obedience to them is concerned. For the righteousness demanded by the Law is fulfilled in the believers through the grace and the assistance of the Holy Spirit, whom they receive.”

AE 22:38-39.

Strange sanctification, part 3: Paulson

Here is some strange verbiage regarding Christ, the Law and the believer from Dr. Steven D. Paulson (Professor of Systematic Theology at Luther Seminary) appearing in a new book from Concordia Publishing House. Paulson unfortunately relies on a false dichotomy (either Christ wills the Law, or He doesn’t) by suggesting that Christ “does not will the Law” either for our justification (to which all Orthodox Lutherans would agree) or for our sanctification (which violates the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions). As such, Paulson’s “unwilling Christ” reduces sanctification to justification, and rules out any “progress” (full of our stumbles and falls and getting ups again, to be sure!) God may make in conforming us to the image of His Son (Rom. 8:29):

“[The royal ass] has a true lord in the saddle for whom ‘we readily will and do what he wills.’ And what is it that Christ wills? This is odd indeed! Christ does not will the Law, but wills the beast’s forgiveness—apart from the Law. He rides strangely, by justifying a sinner. Christ’s will is not “obedience” to Law, as it was for both the scholastics who preceded Luther and the orthodox who came after him. That kind of obedience takes time and implies a free will progressing in its pilgrimage from moment to moment.”

Steven D. Paulson, “A Royal Ass,” in The Necessary Distinction: A Continuing Conversation on Law & Gospel (St. Louis: CPH, 2017), 270.

 

 

Strange atonement: Paulson and Hopman

Prof. Dr. Steven D. Paulson and the Rev. Nicholas Hopman, writing in the spring of 2016, present a strange version of the atonement in “Christ, the Hated God.” It appears that they reject the vicarious satisfaction of Jesus Christ as well as Christ’s obedience to the Law on our behalf. Further, it appears that they reject the necessity of Christ shedding His blood on the cross as payment for our sins, the payment of which satisfied God’s wrath. God save us; this is horrible even to write.

Following in the footsteps of the late Gerhard O. Forde, they propose an “atonement” that lies completely outside of the Law, that is, outside of the “legal scheme.” This is a key element in Fordian teaching, which impinges tremendously not only on the doctrines of Law and Gospel, but on justification and sanctification. They clearly reject the Orthodox Lutheran doctrine on the atonement; in fact, in this piece Paulson and Hopman hold it up for ridicule. Theirs truly is a different theology. Here they are:

The symptom of the legal scheme infecting Christ’s atonement is to say that God needs our help in maintaining the sputtering law. In this way, the crucifixion is told as if it were fulfilling God’s own desire or maintaining his eternal essence by somehow completing work that sinners left undone. In short, a sinner needs the cross as the last chance of completing the law. Or, more subtly, God needed the cross for his own self in the form of a sacrificial offering. Yet, when the story of Christ is reversed God neither needs the law, nor the cross within the law. Sinners were the ones who crucified Christ, not the Father’s inner need or the law’s external demands. For that reason we say that God was not forced by his own inner necessity or essence to express his wrath at sin. God’s wrath does not emerge from within him, but from without among sinners. Neither is wrath quelled by mere punishment for sin. God does not need catharsis in order to accept sinners into his kingdom, nor is he waiting for sinners to fulfill the law before he can act.

Lutheran Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 1, spring (2016). 

 

Death match: Brug vs. Forde

Continuing from a paper presented by Prof. Dr. John F. Brug in 1993, we find Brug’s assessment of Forde’s presentation of both justification and sanctification in Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification. Brug draws on this work and on Forde’s previous contribution in Christian Dogmatics to draw his conclusions:

Unfortunately, the “Lutheran” section of Christian Spirituality is not Lutheran. It does, however, give us one sample of how the Lutheran teaching of sanctification is being distorted in contemporary Lutheranism. It is too bad that the editors did not get a more faithful representative of the Lutheran position… The spokesman they chose, Gerhard Forde, was a major contributor to the ill-named Christian Dogmatics… Forde’s doctrinal position provides a typical example of the ELCA doctrine of justification, which lack and objective atonement for sin, and of the ELCA doctrine of sanctification, which effectively eliminates from sanctification both the third use of the law and the struggle against sin.

For Forde, Law and Gospel are not distinct scriptural teachings which assert certain propositions. They are rather two different styles of communicating an existential religious encounter of the vaguest kind.

In his presentation of justification in the locus of Braaten and Jenson entitled “Christian Life,” Forde’s downgrading of the biblical concept of the Law was a major factor in his failure to present Christ’s work of atonement as a real payment for sin. Forde strongly emphasizes the unconditional nature of justification, but his version of justification is not founded on a real objective payment for sin, a meeting of the demands of God’s law.

Forde’s trashing of the biblical concept of law naturally also wreaks havoc on his presentation of sanctification in Christian Spirituality. He defines sanctification as the art of getting used to justification. This makes sanctification simply the enjoyment of our status as children of God. Forde dismisses from sanctification both the role of the Law and the struggle of the believer. He classifies sanctification as the Holy Spirit’s work, not ours, in such a way as to virtually eliminate the struggle against sin which is prominent in the life of the believer according to the New Testament… His skillful use of clever words and false dilemmas produces a vague amorphous doctrine. Forde undercuts the believer’s effort in sanctification with his pet slogan, “We are not moving toward the goal, but the goal is moving toward us.” How does this square with Philippians 3:12-16?

Taken together, Forde’s two contributions are an excellent illustration of the truth that a defective presentation of justification and a defective presentation of sanctification are natural, almost inevitable, companions. Antinomianism is the fraternal twin of antigospelism.

John F. Brug, “The Lutheran Doctrine of Sanctification and Its Rivals,” presented at the North Atlantic District Conference (WELS) on June 15-16, 1993, 12-13.

 

Strange sanctification, part 2: Luther vs. Forde and Paulson

The late Gerhard O. Forde and Steven D. Paulson (currently Professor of Systematic Theology at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, MN) share similar views about Christian doctrine, including the virtues. What are virtues? Simply put, virtues are moral excellences, qualities of character. For Aristotle and the Christian tradition that tried to incorporate his views into Christian theology, the virtues are taught then habituated, or practiced, until one becomes virtuous, let us say, “righteous.”

Luther upended all that in the broader context of justification by rejecting the place of habituated qualities of character within the scope of a sinner attempting to become righteous by his own efforts. Rather, for him, one must first be imputed by God to be righteous before one practices righteousness. But Forde and Paulson take that in a different direction by denouncing any attempt even by the believer to practice righteousness. In their view, the pursuit of virtue or piety by Christians is streng verboten. This, of course militates against not only the intent behind Luther’s contentions against the harmful philosophizing of Christian theology, but also against biblical theology itself.

Here one need only need to look at St. Paul’s injunction in Ephesians 4 to “put off” the old man and to “put on” the new man, the latter which willingly and freely obeys God’s commandments in grateful obedience to His grace. Take a look sometime, won’t you, at Ephesians 4:17-32 in particular and see how St. Paul describes sanctification in the Christians life? Try your hand at picking out the specific commandments he references in this passages. For now, here’s Luther, Forde and Paulson:

Virtually the entire Ethics of Aristotle is the worst enemy of grace. This is in opposition to the scholastics.

According to [Aristotle] righteousness follows upon actions and originates in them. But according to God, righteousness precedes works…

Martin Luther, Disputation against Scholastic Theology (1517). LW 31:12; also 25:152.

The quest to be a virtuous or pious person is not a Christian quest.

Gerhard O. Forde, “The Christian Life,” in Christian Dogmatics, vol. 2., Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson, eds., (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1984), 438.

Virtue is not the goal of life; virtue is our problem.

Steven D. Paulson, Lutheran Theology, (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 2.

Sanctification in the Confessions: The Apology

Following the June 25, 1530 presentation of the Augsburg Confession by the Lutherans, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V ordered a response on behalf of the Roman Church. That response, called the Pontifical Confutation, or simply the “Confutation,” was delivered to the emperor on August 3. While the Lutherans were afforded no copy of the document, careful notes were taken of it, and Martin Luther’s co-worker, Philip Melanchthon, set about writing a response. The first version of the response, called the Apology (or “Defense”) of the Augsburg Confession, was quickly given to the Emperor on September 22 at the Diet of Augsburg. Melanchthon later set about revising and expanding the Apology, such that the final Latin and German versions were published in the spring and fall of 1531, respectively. Here’s Melanchthon writing on “Love and Keeping the Law.” Note carefully how “Law,” “commandments,” “spiritual and holy movements” and the “Decalogue” or Ten Commandments are carefully related:

2] It is written in the prophet, Jer. 31:33: I will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. And in Rom. 3:31, Paul says: Do we, then, make void the Law through faith? God forbid! Yea, we establish the Law. And Christ says, Matt. 19:17: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Likewise, 1 Cor. 13:3: If I have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 3] These and similar sentences testify that the Law ought to be begun in us, and be kept by us more and more [that we are to keep the Law when we have been justified by faith, and thus increase more and more in the Spirit]. Moreover, we speak not of ceremonies, but of that Law which gives commandment concerning the movements of the heart, namely, the Decalog. 4] Because, indeed, faith brings the Holy Ghost, and produces in hearts a new life, it is necessary that it should produce spiritual movements in hearts. And what these movements are, the prophet, Jer. 31:33 shows, when he says: I will put My Law into their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. Therefore, when we have been justified by faith and regenerated, we begin to fear and love God, to pray to Him, to expect from Him aid, to give thanks and praise Him, and to obey Him in afflictions. We begin also to love our neighbors, because our hearts have spiritual and holy movements [there is now, through the Spirit of Christ a new heart, mind, and spirit within]…

9] Although, therefore, civil works, i.e., the outward works of the Law, can be done, in a measure, without Christ and without the Holy Ghost [from our inborn light], nevertheless it appears from what we have said that those things which belong peculiarly to the divine Law, i.e., the affections of the heart towards God, which are commanded in the first table, cannot be rendered without the Holy Ghost. 10] But our adversaries are fine theologians; they regard the second table and political works; for the first table [in which is contained the highest theology, on which all depends] they care nothing, as though it were of no matter; or certainly they require only outward observances. They in no way consider the Law that is eternal, and placed far above the sense and intellect of all creatures [which concerns the very Deity, and the honor of the eternal Majesty], Deut. 6:5: Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thine heart. [This they treat as such a paltry small matter as if it did not belong to theology.]

“Of Love and Fulfilling the Law,” in Apology of the Augsburg Confession (V:III, or IV:II).

Contemporary Orthodox Lutheran sanctification

Prof. Dr. John F. Brug, who recently retired from decades of service in the parish and as a professor, including teaching Old Testament and Christian Doctrine for over three decades at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary in Mequon, WI, currently serves as an editor of The Wartburg Project. In a paper delivered in 1993, and within the context of commenting on a recently-released book, Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification, Dr. Brug commented on the true Lutheran teaching on sanctification. Below are some highlights:

“Sanctification” in the narrow sense of the term… [is] Scripture’s teaching concerning the process by which our inner and outer life is brought more and more into conformity with God’s will…

[Interspersing Bible passages supporting his thesis]: Producing sanctification in the lives of Christ’s people is one of the purposes of his death… Good works are part of God’s ongoing plan for the life of every Christian… Producing good works in the lives of people is a goal of Lutheran preaching and teaching… A preacher of the whole counsel of God urges his hearers to devote themselves to good works…

Sanctification is not only important in the life of every Christian. It is also necessary. Good works are not necessary as a payment for sin nor to earn or even to assure salvation. But they are necessary as something that God has commanded. They are further necessary as a natural consequence of the change that the Holy Spirit has produced in every Christian. Just as it is in the nature of a healthy apple tree to produce apples and of a grape vine to produce grapes, so it is the nature of a branch attached to Christ to produce Christlike fruits of faith. (Jn 15:5)…

Sanctification is a moral change which God works in every Christian. The Holy Spirit, working through the means of grace, produces an inner change in the hearts and minds of believers. As a result they do good works which glorify God. Christians cooperate with God in their sanctification. Sanctification, however, unlike justification, will never be complete in this lifetime. It is an ongoing process in which we become more like Christ.

John F. Brug, “The Lutheran Doctrine of Sanctification and Its Rivals,” (presented at the North Atlantic District Conference (WELS) on June 15-16, 1993).

 

 

 

Luther on good works

Luther, along with the Orthodox Lutherans who followed him, identified truly good works with the keeping of the Law, that is, obeying the Ten Commandments, by believers. While imperfect in this life, good works done in faith are indeed possible. Because of Christ, God overlooks the imperfection of our good works, and in this life and in the next rewards them solely by His grace. While Christ has fulfilled the Law completely for us through His pure and holy life and His bitter sufferings and death, we begin to fulfill the Law in this life as we are enabled by the Spirit working through the Gospel. Nevertheless, our perfection in body and soul will only be possible in the “life of the world to come.” Here’s Luther:

I. We ought first to know that there are no good works except those which God has commanded, even as there is no sin except that which God has forbidden. Therefore whoever wishes to know and to do good works needs nothing else than to know God’s commandments. Thus Christ says, Matthew xix, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” And when the young man asks Him, Matthew xix, what he shall do that he may inherit eternal life, Christ sets before him naught else but the Ten Commandments. Accordingly, we must learn how to distinguish among good works from the Commandments of God, and not from the appearance, the magnitude, or the number of the works themselves, nor from the judgment of men or of human law or custom, as we see has been done and still is done, because we are blind and despise the divine Commandments…

Faith, as the chief work, and no other work, has given us the name of “believers on Christ.” For all other works a heathen, a Jew, a Turk, a sinner, may also do; but to trust firmly that he pleases God, is possible only for a Christian who is enlightened and strengthened by grace…

So a Christian who lives in this confidence toward God, a knows all things, can do all things, undertakes all things that are to be done, and does everything cheerfully and freely; not that he may gather many merits and good works, but because it is a pleasure for him to please God thereby, and he serves God purely for nothing, content that his service pleases God.

Martin Luther, “A Treatise on Good Works, Along With the Letter of Dedication”(1520), Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 13,14,15.  (See also AE 44:23ff.)

Old school sanctification, part 2

In a much beloved work now receiving some additional notoriety, William H.T. Dau, who served as a parish pastor, president of Concordia College in Conover, NC, professor of dogmatics at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, editor of the Lutheran Witness, and the first Lutheran president of Valparaiso University, had this to say about sanctification. The work? C.F.W. Walther’s The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel.

The good and gracious will of God, then, had to embrace this kindness, that, after His Son had completed His work of redemption in the sinner’s place on earth, God sent His Holy Spirit to men by means of His Word. The Holy Spirit was to lead men to a true knowledge of their wretched and hopeless condition as lawbreakers and lead them to genuine spiritual sorrow over their sins, crush their natural conceit and stubbornness, and make them contrite. Next He was to make them understand the wonderful kindness of God in sending His Son to be their Savior; He was to make them accept by an act of faith the work of Christ as performed in their place, and then teach them to lead holy and righteous lives from gratitude to God and after the pattern of Christ’s life, until God would advance them after a life of progressive sanctification to be coheirs of Christ in everlasting glory.

W.H.T. Dau, “Preface and Introduction” in The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, (St. Louis: CPH, 1929).