In my ongoing effort to monitor the way that Calvinism has captured the imagination of Americans, the following:
Now here in America, we live in the Land of Calvinist culture and Calvinism—being a particularly potent form of heresy—has mutated into its opposite with peculiarly potent force. It retains its joylessness and icy fear that someone, somewhere, is having a good time as it turns everything fun into an exercise in moralism, even when it kills off God and replaces him with social do-goodism. So instead of preachments on observing the Sabbath, we get homilies on having a green vacation. My favorite of these was on NPR a decade or so ago, in which the canon law for obtaining carbon credit indulgences while vacationing was laid out in Talmudic granular detail along with this final buzz-killing caveat: “But can we ever really justify taking vacation at all so long as there is ecological damage happening anywhere in the world?” Love that.
Likewise, the Calvinist missionary impulse and the Calvinist work ethic continue unabated in our culture long after the Calvinist belief in God is dead. Only now the mission is to export hedonistic democratic capitalism with an entirely different Madonna as our icon, preaching an unholy trinity of Mammon, Moloch, and Venus to the world.
Chesterton once remarked that in America we have a feast to celebrate the arrival of the Pilgrims and in England they should have a feast to celebrate their departure. As the English were to discover under Cromwell, Calvinism is famously on the lookout for impurity and tends to seize on those sacrificial victims (such as Charles I) upon whom scorn can be heaped as the group periodically purges itself of shame by means of a scapegoat.
Is it okay to scapegoat Calvinism if its adherents are already guilty of scapegoating? Sort of like being intolerant of intolerance?
Old Life 
Re: the author — if your blog is called “Catholic and Enjoying It!” you may be trying to hard. Or compensating. Or something.
LikeLike
As for the question in the post title, there is an area of the world where gloomy state-church Lutheranism may be fairly blamed for a certain bleakness, restraint, misery, and self-loathing: Scandinavia, now famously exporting a brand of TV crime drama known as Nordic Noir. Of one recent Swedish-Danish cooperative effort (“The Bridge”) one of the stars says, “”We are caught up in the darkness. We are caught up in the paranoid (stuff). The darkness, the evil and the misery – we just do those best.”
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/jan/31/the-bridge-kim-bodnia-darkness-misery
LikeLike
Yeah – their article is so full of stereotypes and false boundary markers that it’s difficult to tell exactly who it is they’re intending to offend. And, as DGH mentions, look who it is that’s doing the talking, given their historical behavior in this country.
LikeLike
Why not Lutheranism? Because American Lutheranism is Garrison Keillor, tattooed lady-pastors, and liturgical dance-offs. The ELCA is little more than TEC-lite.
The last time my church (LCMS) made any sort of public face for itself was during the halcyon days of the HHS mandate hearings. The leader of our church was in front of a camera just long enough for a meme to be made of him – something about fat, mustachioed patriarchal white dudes.
On the one side you have the E”L”CA, who are itching to reach the diversity and stagnancy of their Scandinavian counterparts, and on the other you have the alphabet soup of Confessional Lutheran synods who only rear their ugly heads when something really annoying happens. And then they go back into their hole.
Frankly, Lutheran churches are insular enough to feel a little cold, and definitely stick to themselves. They’re close-knit enough to feel cliquey but not sexy enough to have that Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic tribalism.
The most the vast majority of people hear about Confessional Lutheranism comes in the form of this: http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/04/my-journey-into-the-orthodox-church
We, like you OPC-types, are just way-stations to Constantinople or Rome. We just don’t have the misunderstood whipping boys that you Calvinists have (double-predestination, Spiritual Presence). We have our own whipping boys. Such that we are Nazis. Or that we are Anti-Catholic Know-Nothings. Or that we support the Kaiser.
LikeLike
For the record, I am actually an Anti-Catholic Know-Nothing.
But I don’t support the Kaiser – he was a Calvinist.
LikeLike
Seth, but you do have the gospel. Not a bad thing, that.
LikeLike
Seth, there are good pockets of L, have been very helpful to me.
LikeLike
Yeah DGH, but in defense of Seth’s very accurate appraisal of the state of Lutheranism in this country, “which” Gospel? The one the E”L”CA (BTW, Seth, I like your use of the quotation marks around the L) has is a false social gospel that trumpets worldliness. And unfortunately – since they’re the largest synod – they are the ones the public stereotypes as “Lutherans.” And yes, Kent, there are pockets of faithful confessional Lutherans, but they are small and hidden (even within the LCMS) for the most part and are therefore much like the sideline NAPARC communions.
LikeLike
I’m just happy that the author acknowledged the “Calvinist missionary impulse.” Now if I could only get my Baptists friends to understand this…
LikeLike
Because they are down with Luther?
“48. Before his encounter with Luther, Cardinal Cajetan had studied the Wittenberg professor’s writings very carefully and had even written treatises on them. But Cajetan interpreted Luther within his own conceptual framework and thus misunderstood him on the assurance of faith, even while correctly representing the details of his position. For his part, Luther was not familiar with the cardinal’s theology, and the interrogation, which allowed only for limited discussion, pressured Luther to recant. It did not provide an opportunity for Luther to understand the cardinal’s position. It is a tragedy that two of the most outstanding theologians of the sixteenth century encountered one another in a trial of heresy.
…
50. Meanwhile, in Rome, the process against Luther continued and, eventually, Pope Leo X decided to act. To fulfill his “pastoral office,” Pope Leo X felt obliged to protect the “orthodox faith” from those who “twist and adulterate the Scriptures” so that they are “no longer the Gospel of Christ.”(14) Thus the pope issued the bull Exsurge Domine (15 June 1520), which condemned forty-one propositions drawn from various publications by Luther. Although they can all be found in Luther’s writings and are quoted correctly, they are taken out of their respective contexts. Exsurge Domine describes these propositions as “heretical or scandalous, or false, or offensive to pious ears, or dangerous to simple minds, or subversive to catholic truth,”(15) without specifying which qualification applies to which proposition. At the end of the bull, the pope expressed frustration that Luther had failed to respond to any of his overtures for discussion, although he remained hopeful that Luther would experience conversion of heart and turn away from his errors. Pope Leo gave Luther sixty days either to recant his “errors” or face excommunication.
…
146. Luther’s main objection to Catholic eucharistic doctrine was directed against an understanding of the Mass as a sacrifice. The theology of the eucharist as real remembrance (anamnesis, Realgedächtnis), in which the unique and once-for-all sufficient sacrifice of Christ (Heb 9:1–10:18) makes itself present for the participation of the faithful, was no longer fully understood in late medieval times. Thus, many took the celebration of the Mass to be another sacrifice in addition to the one sacrifice of Christ. According to a theory stemming from Duns Scotus, the multiplication of Masses was thought to effect a multiplication of grace and to apply this grace to individual persons. That is why at Luther’s time, for example, thousands of private masses were said every year at the castle church of Wittenberg.”
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/lutheran-fed-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_2013_dal-conflitto-alla-comunione_en.html
LikeLike
(all about) I have just enough of this to hit the post button.
https://www.google.com/search?q=motivation+office+space&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=bEhMU4LkJaGwygHP9YDgBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1179&bih=592
LikeLike
“Now here in America, we live in the Land of Calvinist culture and Calvinism—being a particularly potent form of heresy”.
Well actually, Mark, Calvinism is the Gospel and Catholicism is the penultimate form of heresy (second to Liberalism)
To George: There are also pockets of faithful and hidden WELS people. The ELCA is neither Lutheran nor Christian.
LikeLike
There are pockets of good, centrist Lutherans still…in a few places in the world.
By centrist I mean the type that were not afraid to stick to the radical gospel that Luther espoused.
Many have gone overboard towards the self (ELCA)…and many have gone overboard towards a Southern Baptist view of Scripture (LCMS and others), and holding to a “3rd use” of the law which just lets the fox back into the henhouse.
If you want to hear the real stuff, a la Luther…then look for Fordeian Lutherans. Steven Paulson is one, and his new book, “Lutheran Theology” is spot on.
My pastor is another (amongst many others) and you can hear his excellent, freedom (of the Christian) based preaching and teaching anytime by clicking on my name.
LikeLike
Try this one, since Maundy Thursday is in a few days:
[audio src="http://theoldadam.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/the-last-day-of-jesus-life.mp3" /]
And then someone tell me where he’s gone off the rails.
LikeLike
D. Hart, I appreciate your reminder of the Gospel. It is there still, even if it is small. Although I would say that Confessional Lutheran is still alive (if not well) in the LCMS. I would also posit its not necessarily hidden. Indeed, the leader of our synod, Pr. Matt Harrison, is a fine theologian and a humble man – a far cry from the triumphalist Lutherans who seem to be a favorite whipping boy in these parts. Indeed, Pr. Harrison has released and prefaced numerous collections of the writings of Hermann Sasse, who many consider to be a leading light for many Confessional Lutherans in America. If anyone is interested, please pick up a copy of The Lonely Way: Select Essays and Letters of Hermann Sasse. He is brilliant writer, and his works, I think, would be of great comfort to any Confessional – certainly not just to Lutherans. I would urge everyone to at least give him the ol’ college try.
As for Forde, Steven, I disagree. Although I would think you’ve seen those arguments played out as nauseum in Lutheran circles as much as I have, so I wouldn’t want to bring that here. My rule of thumb is to stick to Luther, Sasse, Gerhard, and Chemnitz.
LikeLike
Sorry, Steve, not Steven.
LikeLike
We do have one scapegoat, and we trust in His FINISHED WORK with its ONE SACRIFICE and its ONE OFFERING.
But if you are sacramental enough, you still have the opportunity for getting united again and again, not only by eating Him while He’s now living, but having Him eat you….you in Him, and Him in you. Only somebody who denies the incarnation would dare deny this sacramental union.
Hebrews 10: He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10 And by that will we HAVE BEEN sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time A SINGLE SACRIFICE for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a SINGLE OFFERING he HAS perfected for all time those who are being sanctified…
19 Therefore, brothers…we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh…
LikeLike
Mr. Martin – you seem to enjoy throwing around Luther’s name a lot in order to justify your ELCA’s version of what he taught. Do you own a copy of the Book of Concord? Here is an excerpt on HE himself taught on the third use of the law. He not only clearly condemns nomism (the legalism among some protestants which you seem to be ferreting out), but also antinomianism (Luther’s own word for lawlessness). Since you evidently want to land in the middle or centrist or moderate or whatever mediocre label you want to use, but seem to lean toward antinomianism by the way you condemn the third use of the law, why do you continue to toss the name of Luther into the fray? [BTW, I did check out your web site and, moreover, did a background check on this Gerhard Forde of yours. Given his background*, exactly why should I want to pay attention to anything he has to say?]
————————————————————————————–
The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord
VI. The Third Use of the Law
1] Since the Law of God is useful, 1. not only to the end that external discipline and decency are maintained by it against wild, disobedient men; 2. likewise, that through it men are brought to a knowledge of their sins; 3. but also that, when they have been born anew by the Spirit of God, converted to the Lord, and thus the veil of Moses has been lifted from them, they live and walk in the law, a dissension has occurred between some few theologians concerning this third and last use of the Law. 2] For the one side taught and maintained that the regenerate do not learn the new obedience, or in what good works they ought to walk, from the Law, and that this teaching [concerning good works] is not to be urged thence [from the law], because they have been made free by the Son of God, have become the temples of His Spirit, and therefore do freely of themselves what God requires of them, by the prompting and impulse of the Holy Ghost, just as the sun of itself, without any [foreign] impulse, completes its ordinary course. 3] Over against this the other side taught: Although the truly believing are verily moved by God’s Spirit, and thus, according to the inner man, do God’s will from a free spirit, yet it is just the Holy Ghost who uses the written law for instruction with them, by which the truly believing also learn to serve God, not according to their own thoughts, but according to His written Law and Word, which is a sure rule and standard of a godly life and walk, how to order it in accordance with the eternal and immutable will of God.
4] For the explanation and final settlement of this dissent we unanimously believe, teach, and confess that although the truly believing and truly converted to God and justified Christians are liberated and made free from the curse of the Law, yet they should daily exercise themselves in the Law of the Lord, as it is written, Ps. 1:2;119:1: Blessed is the man whose delight is in the Law of the Lord, and in His Law doth he meditate day and night. For the Law is a mirror in which the will of God, and what pleases Him, are exactly portrayed, and which should [therefore] be constantly held up to the believers and be diligently urged upon them without ceasing.
5] For although the Law is not made for a righteous man, as the apostle testifies 1 Tim. 1:9, but for the unrighteous, yet this is not to be understood in the bare meaning, that the justified are to live without law. For the Law of God has been written in their heart, and also to the first man immediately after his creation a law was given according to which he was to conduct himself. But the meaning of St. Paul is that the Law cannot burden with its curse those who have been reconciled to God through Christ; nor must it vex the regenerate with its coercion, because they have pleasure in God’s Law after the inner man.
6] And, indeed, if the believing and elect children of God were completely renewed in this life by the indwelling Spirit, so that in their nature and all its powers they were entirely free from sin, they would need no law, and hence no one to drive them either, but they would do of themselves, and altogether voluntarily, without any instruction, admonition, urging or driving of the Law, what they are in duty bound to do according to God’s will; just as the sun, the moon, and all the constellations of heaven have their regular course of themselves, unobstructed, without admonition, urging, driving, force, or compulsion, according to the order of God which God once appointed for them, yea, just as the holy angels render an entirely voluntary obedience.
7] However, believers are not renewed in this life perfectly or completely, completive vel consummative [as the ancients say]; for although their sin is covered by the perfect obedience of Christ, so that it is not imputed to believers for condemnation, and also the mortification of the old Adam and the renewal in the spirit of their mind is begun through the Holy Ghost, nevertheless the old Adam clings to them still in their nature and all its internal and external powers. 8] Of this the apostle has written Rom. 7:18ff.: I know that in me [that is, in my flesh] dwelleth no good thing. And again: For that which I do I allow not; for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that I do; Likewise: I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin. Likewise, Gal. 5:17: The flesh lusteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
9] Therefore, because of these lusts of the flesh the truly believing, elect, and regenerate children of God need in this life not only the daily instruction and admonition, warning, and threatening of the Law, but also frequently punishments, that they may be roused [the old man is driven out of them] and follow the Spirit of God, as it is written Ps. 119:71: It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I might learn Thy statutes. And again, 1 Cor. 9:27: I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, lest that, by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. And again, Heb. 12:8: But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons; as Dr. Luther has fully explained this at greater length in the Summer Part of the Church Postil, on the Epistle for the Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity.
10] But we must also explain distinctively what the Gospel does, produces, and works towards the new obedience of believers, and what is the office of the Law in this matter, as regards the good works of believers.
11] For the Law says indeed that it is God’s will and command that we should walk in a new life, but it does not give the power and ability to begin and do it; but the Holy Ghost, who is given and received, not through the Law, but through the preaching of the Gospel, Gal. 3:14, renews the heart. 12] Thereafter the Holy Ghost employs the Law so as to teach the regenerate from it, and to point out and show them in the Ten Commandments what is the [good and] acceptable will of God, Rom. 12:2, in what good works God hath before ordained that they should walk, Eph. 2:10. He exhorts them thereto, and when they are idle, negligent, and rebellious in this matter because of the flesh, He reproves them on that account through the Law, so that He carries on both offices together: He slays and makes alive; He leads into hell and brings up again. For His office is not only to comfort, but also to reprove, as it is written: When the Holy Ghost is come, He will reprove the world (which includes also the old Adam) of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. 13] But sin is everything that is contrary to God’s Law. 14] And St. Paul says: All Scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, etc., and to reprove is the peculiar office of the Law. Therefore, as often as believers stumble, they are reproved by the Holy Spirit from the Law, and by the same Spirit are raised up and comforted again with the preaching of the Holy Gospel.
15] But in order that, as far as possible, all misunderstanding may be prevented, and the distinction between the works of the Law and those of the Spirit be properly taught and preserved it is to be noted with especial diligence that when we speak of good works which are in accordance with God’s Law (for otherwise they are not good works), then the word Law has only one sense, namely, the immutable will of God, according to which men are to conduct themselves in their lives.
16] The difference, however, is in the works, because of the difference in the men who strive to live according to this Law and will of God. For as long as man is not regenerate, and [therefore] conducts himself according to the Law and does the works because they are commanded thus, from fear of punishment or desire for reward, he is still under the Law, and his works are called by St. Paul properly works of the Law, for they are extorted by the Law, as those of slaves; and these are saints after the order of Cain [that is, hypocrites].
17] But when man is born anew by the Spirit of God, and liberated from the Law, that is, freed from this driver, and is led by the Spirit of Christ, he lives according to the immutable will of God comprised in the Law, and so far as he is born anew, does everything from a free, cheerful spirit; and these are called not properly works of the Law, but works and fruits of the Spirit, or as St. Paul names it, the law of the mind and the Law of Christ. For such men are no more under the Law, but under grace, as St. Paul says, Rom. 8:2 [Rom. 7:23; 1 Cor. 9:21 ].
18] But since believers are not completely renewed in this world, but the old Adam clings to them even to the grave, there also remains in them the struggle between the spirit and the flesh. 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.
19] But as far as the old Adam is concerned, which still clings to them, he must be driven not only with the Law, but also with punishments; nevertheless he does everything against his will and under coercion, no less than the godless are driven and held in obedience by the threats of the Law, 1 Cor. 9:27; Rom. 7:18. 19.
20] So, too, this doctrine of the Law is needful for believers, in order that they may not hit upon a holiness and devotion of their own, and under the pretext of the Spirit of God set up a self-chosen worship, without God’s Word and command, as it is written Deut. 12:8,28,32: Ye shall not do … every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes, etc., but observe and hear all these words which I command thee. Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish therefrom.
21] So, too, the doctrine of the Law, in and with [the exercise of] the good works of believers, is necessary for the reason that otherwise man can easily imagine that his work and life are entirely pure and perfect. But the Law of God prescribes to believers good works in this way, that it shows and indicates at the same time, as in a mirror, that in this life they are still imperfect and impure in us, so that we must say with the beloved Paul, 1 Cor. 4:4: I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified. Thus Paul, when exhorting the regenerate to good works, presents to them expressly the Ten Commandments, Rom. 13:9; and that his good works are imperfect and impure he recognizes from the Law, Rom. 7:7ff ; and David declares Ps. 119:32: Viam mandatorum tuorum cucurri, I will run the way of Thy commandments; but enter not into judgment with Thy servant, for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified, Ps. 143:2.
22] But how and why the good works of believers, although in this life they are imperfect and impure because of sin in the flesh, are nevertheless acceptable and well-pleasing to God, is not taught by the Law, which requires an altogether perfect, pure obedience if it is to please God. But the Gospel teaches that our spiritual offerings are acceptable to God through faith for Christ’s sake, 1 Pet. 2:5; Heb. 11:4ff. 23] In this way Christians are not under the Law, but under grace, because by faith in Christ the persons are freed from the curse and condemnation of the Law; and because their good works, although they are still imperfect and impure, are acceptable to God through Christ; moreover, because so far as they have been born anew according to the inner man, they do what is pleasing to God, not by coercion of the Law, but by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, voluntarily and spontaneously from their hearts; however, they maintain nevertheless a constant struggle against the old Adam.
24] For the old Adam, as an intractable, refractory ass, is still a part of them, which must be coerced to the obedience of Christ, not only by the teaching, admonition, force and threatening of the Law, but also oftentimes by the club of punishments and troubles, until the body of sin is entirely put off, and man is perfectly renewed in the resurrection, when he will need neither the preaching of the Law nor its threatenings and punishments, as also the Gospel any longer; for these belong to this [mortal and] imperfect life. 25] But as they will behold God face to face, so they will, through the power of the indwelling Spirit of God, do the will of God [the heavenly Father] with unmingled joy, voluntarily, unconstrained, without any hindrance, with entire purity and perfection, and will rejoice in it eternally.
26] Accordingly, we reject and condemn as an error pernicious and detrimental to Christian discipline, as also to true godliness, the teaching that the Law, in the above-mentioned way and degree, should not be urged upon Christians and the true believers, but only upon the unbelieving, unchristians, and impenitent.
————————————————————————————
*Gerhard Olaf Forde was born in Pope County, Minnesota and raised near Starbuck. He received the B.A. degree from Luther College in 1950, attended the University of Wisconsin–Madison for one year, and then earned the Bachelor of Theology degree from Luther Seminary in 1955. He earned the Th.D. degree from Harvard Divinity School in 1967. Forde also studied at University of Tübingen and was the Lutheran tutor at Mansfield College, Oxford University, 1968-70. He also spent sabbatical years at Harvard (1972–73), Strasbourg (1979–80), and St. John’s University Institute for Ecumenical and Cultural Research, Collegeville, Minnesota (1988).
In addition, there’s this excerpt from the 2005 Lutheran Quarterly:
“… We should realize first of all that what is at stake on the current scene is certainly not Lutheranism as such. Lutheranism has no particular claim or right to existence. Rather, what is at stake is the radical gospel, radical grace, the eschatological nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ crucified and risen as put in its most uncompromising and unconditional form by St. Paul. What is at stake is a mode of doing theology and a practice in church and society derived from that radical statement of the gospel… I do want to pursue the proposition that Lutheranism especially in America might find its identity not by compromising with American religion but by becoming more radical about the gospel it has received. That is to say, Lutherans should become radicals, preachers of a gospel so radical that it puts the old to death and calls forth the new, and practitioners of the life that entails “for the time being…”
The folks on this blog site have enough to deal with given their own problems with the likes of Frame, Shepherd, Leithart, and Wright without the extra stress of “Lutheran rationalism.”
LikeLike
Seth, which would you recommend most to Reformed folks? volume one or two of the Sasse, or this:
http://www.pastormattrichard.com/2012/10/book-review-fire-and-staff-preus.html
I haven’t ordered the book yet. Thanks for any suggestions.
LikeLike
George: “BTW, I did check out your web site and, moreover, did a background check on this Gerhard Forde of yours. Given his background*, exactly why should I want to pay attention to anything he has to say?”
You shouldn’t. Forde, inexplicably, became the golden boy in some Lutheran circles. He’s the paragon theologian for a) pastors who find the Confessions too complicated for their paradigm of preaching and b) Forde’s fellow “radicals” in the ELCA.
Also, good quotations from the Solid Declaration. I don’t understand why any Lutheran would act as if the Third Use is somehow alien to Lutheran theology. It’s right there, and has been from the get go.
But then those scholastics are just sooooooooooooo hard.
LikeLike
Forde asserts that goal of Jesus Christ was to be “. . . crucified by the legalistic order itself, so to bring a new order.”By killing Jesus, sinful humanity comes to recognize its bondage. In rejecting Jesus and his mercy, humanity is truly made conscious of its root-sin of opposition to God’s grace. God allows himself to be killed by us, states Forde, in order to “. . .makes it plain that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).” Jesus therefore did not die to fulfill the law or suffer the punishment for sins. Rather, he died in order to reveal a low anthropology— fallen humanity’s sin of self-justification and opposition to God’s grace.
Forde reduces the gospel to our experience of faith. To Forde, this matters more than what happened at the cross. For Forde, the gospel is not ultimately about the death of Christ. For Forde, the “gospel” becomes a teaching law which shows us that we need to die and be re-created as new persons of faith. In that we are made conscious of our sin by the death of Jesus, then we die in our experience.
Forde’s idea of our “inclusion” in Christ’s death is that Christ is NOT a substitute. For Forde, it’s not Christ’s death that ultimately matters because TO HIM IT’S DEATH BY PREACHING WHICH MATTERS. Forde’s idea is that God is “satisfied” not by Jesus’ death, but by our own death –which is an experience of trusting that which is preached.
LikeLike
Dear Mark,
Forde did not reduce the gospel to our experience of faith. Forde said that the Law kills and the Gospel makes alive. The Gospel then is not some abstract propositions which we can either accept or reject by way of mental assent. The Gospel is the living Word of God that does what it says and says what it does. It does not conform to our expectations, including systematic theology.
In other words, for Forde, the Gospel is not Law — that is, functions as Law — propositions or facts of a historical event by which we must assent or believe in order to be saved but the doing of the election itself — apart from the Law.
The proclamation of Word and Sacraments then are nothing else and nothing more than the Word of the *Cross* in the living present FOR YOU …
It is not that here are the facts, the propositions, the principles — believe these, then you’re saved. The proclamation of the Gospel in its oral and sacramental forms totally destroys our old beings and raises up the new beings — we are totally passive … we are either killed and be raised up again in newness of life OR we remain dead in our sins …
Forde rejected penal substitution precisely because we do not die, we are mere spectators, we remain continuous existing subjects … under the wrath of God, stuck in our divine ambition and aspirations …
What Forde advocated was a vicarious substitution in which instead of “in the place of” the sinner, Christ comes to be in our place — ahead of us and so we can only die IN HIM … and be raised up IN HIM … the Cross then marks the end of our old beings … the old age, the old creation, the Old Adam … this of course destroys the legal scheme …
Christ precisely came to fulfil the Law in order to END the Law … justification is apart from the Law because right RELATIONSHIP between God and the creature is never ever based on the Law … but totally apart from the Law … by grace …
Predestination by its very nature is APART from the Law … this is why predestination is synonymous with justification — the sovereign and unconditional decree to justify and sanctify a sinner apart from the Law … by the sheer power of the Word …
Theology cannot end the Law, cannot save, cannot justify … only proclamation does … that’s what Forde was trying to get at … And just like revelation, theology is grounded in proclamation — the distinction between the un-preached (hidden) and preached (revealed) God without which one undercuts BOTH the ABSOLUTE sovereignty and gratuitousness of God … the Gospel is nothing else but the proclamation of the unconditional forgiveness of sins (flat-out — just like that) by a God Who in His hiddenness DOES ALL IN ALL …
That’s the Gospel … of pure consolation and comfort …
LikeLike
Seth,
Forde, as well as Nestingen (and many others) was sticking about as close to Luther…and Paul…as anyone I have read or heard. And Steve Paulson is following in his footsteps.
The others were so often afraid. And backed away from Luther. Starting with Melancthon who started to criticize Luther…at Luther’s own funeral.
LikeLike
If you want to concentrate deeply on some problem, and especially some piece of writing or paper-work, you should acquire a cat. Alone with the cat in the room where you work … the cat will invariably get up on your desk and settle placidly under the desk lamp … The cat will settle down and be serene, with a serenity that passes all understanding. And the tranquility of the cat will gradually come to affect you, sitting there at your desk, so that all the excitable qualities that impede your concentration compose themselves and give your mind back the self-command it has lost. You need not watch the cat all the time. Its presence alone is enough. The effect of a cat on your concentration is remarkable, very mysterious.”
― Muriel Spark, A Far Cry from Kensington
LikeLike
Androids dream of electric sheep, even goats need a scapegoat some of the time, but it’s the bunnies we should all be fearful of.
Somehow, it was the feline that humans selected and now is the famous creature of youtube videos worldwide. I hear it’s because they used to congregate near our most early forms of granaries, and we found out it’s good to have a cat around to control the rodent population.
Our ancestors would be proud of how far we’ve come, youtube videos and all. Now, I’ve gone on too long about nonsense (emoticon).
LikeLike
jason—Forde rejected penal substitution precisely because we do not die, we are mere spectators..
mark: and you hate that, don’t you. Jesus over there, back then, finishing the work, without us, apart from us. As you hate also that the law can only be satisfied by Christ’s death for the sins imputed to Christ. You want the law to end some other way. And inclusive representation (and a denial of penal substitution) keeps you on the playing field.
And we are to be told that we are not continuous existing subjects because we heard and hear preaching, because we eat and are eaten? No, there is no bypassing the demand of the law for Christ’s death as a propitiation. Jason, I do hope you don’t hate the idea of God satisfying His wrath by Christ’s death as much as Forde did.
We are not the ones who put Jesus to death. And we are not the ones who make the great exchange. The church is not the one who makes the exchange. God imputed the sins of the elect to Christ, and in time imputes the death of Christ to the elect.
LikeLike
mcmark, Muriel has not met Cordelia.
LikeLike
What is it about Lutheranism that every time it’s mentioned it inspires 8,000 word manifestos?
LikeLike
Because they’re convinced they’re the right group (even though they’re not, ha)
LikeLike
McMark, back when I practiced law I used to leave my office and hole up at home when I had a difficult brief to write. My cat would curl up in the sun on a nearby window sill. When I reached a point of frustration, Shadow would jump down and get up in my lap. After
LikeLike
Oops.
After petting him a few minutes, I would calm down and more often than not whatever knot was holding me back would be resolved rather easily. Remarkable creatures
LikeLike
I have a friend. Who told me her neutered male cat regularly has intimate relations with a certain furry blanket, but only when the blanket is on her.
“Remarkable” is an elastic term.
LikeLike
Erik:What is it about Lutheranism that every time it’s mentioned it inspires 8,000 word manifestos?
So many idealistic hearts broken? That German thing?
Lutheranism to me is listening to Issues Etc. and Fighting for the Faith podcasts, so there has to be a decent pocket out there…
LikeLike
A friend, Muddy?
I’m not believing your whole story here (another emoticon).
LikeLike
This is a COMPLETELY false statement. Mr. Martin and Mr. Loh have thoroughly discredited themselves and should not ever be presumed to speak for Lutherans or Lutheranism.
Forde and the school of “Radical Lutheranism” read all of Scripture and theology (esp. Luther’s private works, which they positively revere) through a post-Kantian existentialist lens for which twentieth-century “speech-act” theory is some grand predicate. (Though it’s not the worst thing about them, they deny any sort of essentialist metaphysic.) For them, Luther is the great Radix, the great root of true Christianity — hence the term “Radical Lutheranism.” They make Luther into a theological revolutionary, not a reformer, and give the papists the rope to hang Lutherans with, basically saying, “Uh-huh, we are totally the church of Martin Luther!” Except even there, they’re full of crap, as their reading of Luther’s theologoumena is horribly truncated and completely anachronistic. They are Barthian Luther-ites who have nothing to do with the faith confessed by the historic Church of the Augsburg Confession.
Unfortunately, the “Radical Lutheran” leaven has infiltrated corners of even ostensibly confessional Lutheran church bodies (i.e., the LCMS) and is at the root of a very real “antinomian crisis.” Don’t buy this “they’re all about the pure gospel of comfort” nonsense. They are Law/Gospel reductionists, and they are snookering Lutheran converts in scores, bagging them while they’re still in the cage-stage: the latter run from evangelical pietism and then get escorted by these Forde-ite charlatans into the ditch of antinomianism on the other side of the Narrow Path. The “Radical Lutherans” invariably protest, “No! No antinomianism here! Only those naughty ELCA folks are antinomians.” This is, of course, absurd. The devil never comes in the front door; he masquerades as an angel of light selling Girl Scout cookies.
The radical Lutherans are Flacians and antinomians — granted, some are the misled, and some are the misleading; in any case, what they espouse is not Lutheranism. Not at all. Read the linked pieces at the bottom of this post and the comments, and you will see exactly what I’m describing.
My good friend Pr. Jordan Cooper (who has commented here before), believes that the struggle of Confessional Lutheranism against Radical Forde-ite (Paulson-ite) pseudo-Lutheranism is the Kirchenkampf of our age (for conservative Lutherans), and I agree completely.
More simply put (and for those who like lists) Forde denied the Fall, the substitutionary nature of the Atonement, any traditional understanding of the inerrancy of Scripture, and called those Lutherans who subscribe to the Formula of Concord “heretics.” He also supported women’s “ordination.” As for Stephen Paulson, he is another reductionist Luther-ite, in some ways worse than Forde. This comment on my blog is apposite:
Unfortunately, Mr. Martin and Mr. Loh are completely wrong about Forde being in any way orthodox or duly representative of historic Lutheran theology.
LikeLike
whoops, take 2:
Check it yo:
LikeLike
@Andrew,
…I’m lost. What’s the pertinence/relevance of the selection from Tillich?
LikeLike
@Trent,
There may not be any. There’s a comment by E.Charter wondering why we get long comment box statements when we have a thread on Lutheranism. I, for one, was surprised to see DG use the same title of a previously post he did sometime last year (his search feature, if you put this title in, will show it, just if you want to, for fun)
I’d be better to keep my head down when Lutherans are around discussing their theology amongst themselves. I’m eager to learn more about Lutheranism, but I don’t kid myself into thinking I learn much by reading on the internet. A good book recommendation is what I am after when I spend time with DG and his Gang. I am listening to The Metaphysical Club on my commute, courtesy of reading out here. If you have any good books to recommend, consider me a listening
eareye.Floor belongs to you, bro. I’ll not chime in again. Take care.
LikeLike
Oh, good grief. It does not belong to me. And you’re a perfectly bright fellow.
If you want to learn about Lutheranism, you can do no better than to peruse the titles over at Pr. Cooper’s publishing house, Just & Sinner Publications. I admit some bias in this regard; proof of the pudding, though…
Sorry for advertising in your combox, Dr. Hart. I hope you’re well.
Blessed Holy Week to all.
LikeLike
Trent, it’s the advertising that I was asking for. I’m much obliged for you sharing of your opinions on what to read, here. Take care.
LikeLike
AB,
http://www.eerdmans.com/Products/CategoryCenter.aspx?CategoryId=SE!LQB
LikeLike
I recommend A Summary of the Christian Faith by Henry Eyster Jacobs. Pr. Cooper is devoting one podcast a month (he does them weekly) to a sort of “walk-through” and discussion of the the book. A lot of people are reading along. Here’s the first episode of that series. He’s only done one so far, so if you want to grab a copy — and they are very inexpensive — you wouldn’t be far behind.
LikeLike
Trent, I said I would pipe down, but I do plan to check out the stuff you like. Just FYI, and that’s why I post this. Now it’s other’s people’s turns (not mine)..
For me, I’m a big JV Fesko fan, since I heard him speak at a presbytery conference in February 2009. Since then, I’ve only liked more and more what comes from what he publishes. And a hand full of other reformed types. I like getting the inside scoop on what people who take these things seriously, are reading. And then I make my own conclusions on what I like. Talk to you later.
LikeLike
Fesko, from Credo magazine, p 63—Our justification is not based or grounded in us, who we are or what we do. we are justified by or through faith, not in or upon faith. Prepositions are important,
and by or through conveys that our just status does not rest upon us or God’s work in us, but solely upon Christ—his perfect imputed satisfaction of the law.
Fesko: This is where we must preserve the extranos (the, literally, “outside of us”) nature of
justification. Even though we are in union with Christ, his imputed righteousness is the sole basis of our justification. Martin Luther offers a helpful distinction here when he distinguishes between owning and possessing Christ’s righteousness. When I borrow a book from the library, I do not
own it, but I possess it. Similarly, when God imputes Christ’s righteousness to us, we do
not own it but possess it.
Fesko: We do not own it because it is Christ’s, but He freely gives it to us to possess. In fact, in the marriage union ( Ephesians. 5:25) Paul says that all that is Christ’s becomes ours and all that is ours becomes Christ’s. God imputed our sin to Christ and now imputes his righteousness to us, and this occurs within the context of our union with Christ.
Fesko: It is important to maintain these distinctions to preserve an important scriptural point. Paul states that God justifies “the ungodly” (Rom. 4:5). Even though we are in union with Christ the moment that Christ indwells us through our effectual calling, our justification cannot legally rest upon anything in us, or even God’s work in us through our union with Christ, otherwise it would no longer be a justification of the ungodly.”
LikeLike
Bayer and Wengert have the same issues as Forde. If you read any of the Eerdman books that Dan H recommended, just know that. There’s a generous helping of BS in their brownie-mix.
LikeLike
Mark, I didn’t know JVF wrote for that. I found the page 63 you mentioned. Many thanks.
Now back to the lutherans. Oh, and I want to know which one of you won the OLTS NCAA march madness. Stand and be recognized, yo.
LikeLike
Oh, and while I’m at it – thanks, Dan H. For the link.
I like learning. I like Lutherans. Learning about Lutherans – I listened to this, on my commute, years ago. I got to hear what Mighty Fortress is supposed to sound like, the prof sang it. The right way.
I’m done posting comments for the month of April.
LikeLike
It is interesting reading the varied Lutheran views on this post. I attended and was a member of a small confessional LCMS church in the Chicago suburbs for 3 or so years and was never able to dialog with much theological vigor with the members in the church I was attending. There was not much interest in that sort of thing so what I learned about Lutheran theology I had to get through outside sources. I listened to a lot of Issues, etc programs, read Luther’s BONDAGE OF THE WILL, COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS and his writings in the Lutheran Confessions. I was also attending some services at the bigger Naperville, Illinois Lutheran Church but was never there enough to get much involved in the active life of the church. I listened to and watch some of the stuff Pastor Jonathan Fisk was presenting on his web site, Worldview Everlasting.
The links to the various Lutheran web sites have been worthwhile to browse through and I got interested in many of the books being published by the Lutheran publishing houses linked on this post. I guess the point of my post is to encourage the Lutherans to keep posting here. It seems like lots of folk here are interested in hearing their theological views in order to understand them better. I have learned a lot of stuff I did not know about Lutheranism by reading the varied viewpoints of those Lutherans who disagree with each other here. And there is a lot of passion mixed in with the ongoing debates between Calvinists and Lutherans. I find those heated discussions interesting to eaves drop on. There certainly is lots to discuss in regards to those continuing rifts that have never been resolved.
LikeLike
And here I was thinking that the doctrines of sovereign grace made us lazy.
LikeLike
Just for the record, I’m not a Lutheran (But I am marrying into a family of Lutherans). In my experience Lutherans, like the ice cream at Baskin-Robbins and any religious tradition older than 90 days, come in 31 flavors. All of these flavors also come with cage phases.
LikeLike
“All of these flavors also come with cage phases.”
Some, not all, of these flavors come with cage phases.
LikeLike
@Trent. I’m Reformed but have much appreciation for those that can distinguish law and gospel. Henry Eyster Jacobs did a wonderful job in his section on that subject in the book you mention.
http://covenantnurture.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/the-law-and-the-gospel-by-henry-eyster-jacobs/
LikeLike
The closest Lutherans have ever come to being all on the same page was the adoption of the Book of Concord (the Lutheran Confessions) in 1580. That is the essence of Lutheranism, right there. That’s what made me a Lutheran. But most Lutherans today no longer hold themselves to the Confessions, so that allows for a lot of variety. And of course, some variety was going to arise even within Confessional circles due to varying interpretations and emphases, an inevitable human phenomenon. But you don’t get anywhere near 31 flavors if you stick to the Confessions.
Forde and his school come from the ELCA, where they are relatively conservative, but also where there is no requirement to adhere to the Lutheran Confessions. And they don’t. They pit their favorite cherrypicked Luther passages, filtered through their anachronistic Existentialist presuppositions, against the Confessions, adding more flavors to the mix. And when people who otherwise _are_ Confessional buy into that system to one degree or another (generally fascinated by the bad-boy swagger of Radical Lutheranism, and the surprising idea that any good can come out of the ELCA), things become even more confusing.
LikeLike
And in answer to the original question, if I understand it, the reason such things cannot be written about Lutheranism in America is that Lutheranism is a later import, not the official doctrinal system of half the original colonies. If you want to see similar analyses of post-Christian Lutheran cultural artifacts, you need to read about Germany and Scandinavia.
LikeLike
Trent Demarest,
I am intrigued by your critique of the “radical Lutherans.” I am trying to unpack what you said in your long post but am having trouble making sense of it. And am also trying to determine if there are similar arguments going on within Calvinist camps also.
First of all, could you explain, in a way that the philosophically challenged could understand, what this sentence means, “Forde and the school of “Radical Lutheranism” read all of Scripture and theology (esp. Luther’s private works, which they positively revere) through a post-Kantian existentialist lens for which twentieth-century “speech-act” theory is some grand predicate. (Though it’s not the worst thing about them, they deny any sort of essentialist metaphysic.)”
I know what speech-act theory is but I don’t see the connection (or the “grand predicate”) with “a post-Kantian existentialist lens.” And why is the radical Lutheran denial of an “essential metaphysic” significant? Did you really think anyone would know what you were talking about in those couple of sentences?
Secondly, in what ways are the “radical Lutherans,” such as, Mr. Martin, Mr. Loh and Mr. Paulson, like “Barth Luther-ites?” That is a pretty sweeping generalization to make.
Thirdly, I don’t know who the Flacians are and why you connect them with the antinomians.
Fourthly, could you explain further why you think the “radical Lutherans” are the Kirchenkampf for the conservative Lutherans (of the confessional type-my addition). I am assuming Kirchenkampf means something similar to a “thorn in the flesh,” like how the Apostle Paul used that phrase- of course, I could be wrong.
I have found that you have to learn how to be very discriminating when reading any contemporary theologians who have been influenced by the likes of Barth, Pannenberg, Moltmann, etc. To make sweeping generalizations, without being more specific as to where your disagreements lie, just seems to cause more confusion than clarity. Bottom line, I am trying to understand how the gospel of the “radical Lutherans” differs from the gospel of those who call themselves confessional Lutherans. I bet there are many similarities with the arguments going on in Calvinist circles too. When anyone starts accusing the other side of being antinomian I have found it helpful to have both sides define more clearly what they think the gospel is. Sometimes the ones being accused of being the antinomians are the ones who have the most scripturally accurate gospel.
LikeLike
Lutherans think that sin caan cause you to lose the justification you received by means of water.
John Fesko—As critical as Barclay is of Sanders’s covenantal nomism (in by grace, stay by covenant faithfulness), how does this new gift paradigm truly differ?
Barclay argues that incongruity shouldn’t eliminate reciprocity. “Paul makes it clear that faith also involves action ([Galatians 5:6), arising from and made possible by the Christ-gift (2:20), and that in such action eternal life remains at stake (5:21; 6:8)” (406 n. 40). Barclay argues that a person can also lose the Christ-gift: “Since the warnings [Gal. 5:21; 6:8] are directed to the believing community, it is clearly possible to lose all the benefits of the Christ-gift.” The incongruous gift of Christ is supposed to elicit congruity in the lives of its recipients (440).
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/old-and-new-perspectives-on-paul-a-third-way
LikeLike