Primary Thesis of the Book
The primary thesis of the book is the defense of the doctrine of salvation through faith alone, solo fide. A secondary thesis is the attack on the false doctrine of salvation through faith and works. The book is presented as something of a commentary on Martin Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, though the author asserts in his preface that he desires to go beyond commentary to clarifying for the church the theology of the cross in a work written in modern English (p. vii), to contribute to current scholarship on the theology of the cross (p. viii), which he feels is lacking, and finally to sharpen the language, meaning of terms and issues surrounding the theology of the cross (p. ix).
Response
I found some with which to disagree in Forde’s book, but much with which to agree. Throughout this paper, I will make mention of some of the more minor issues I take with Forde’s arguments. Later in this paper, however, I will take a contrary position with regard to some of the remarks Forde makes in support of Theses 13-18 in chapter 2, The Problem of Will. I consider this portion of my response to be the most critical.
I agree generally with the book’s premise that Luther’s arguments on the doctrine of salvation are correct. The book makes clear the necessity of seeing the cross for what it really is – the only means of salvation. The cross eliminates the possibility of works contributing to salvation. It is for this very reason that the cross is offensive (p. 2). It does not appeal to the flesh, but opposes it. In a sense, it is God’s means of attacking sin, sinners and their theology (p. 4). Forde’s assertion that the Old Testament is both Christological and an argument for the theology of the cross is correct (p. 8), and I feel often under-emphasized in our Seminary.
I found interesting the idea that the so-called “theology of glory” was Luther’s way of rounding up all the other false religions and theologies into a label that shows them for what they are, namely a means for man to be glorified over God (p. 2) through seeing himself justified, at least in part, by his own contribution. Moreover, the idea that such “theologians” call good bad and bad good in the advancement of their theologies was profound, though it took me a few chapters to fully grasp the concept and accept it (p. 12). Forde is right that theologians of the cross have an eternal perspective regarding trials and suffering because they see all things as subject to God’s sovereignty and activity in the creation (p. 13). Luther’s claim is insightful that the only way to deal with the desire for glory is to eliminate it (p. 15).
The “attack” on theologians of glory is a bit haughty and rhetorical at times, which somewhat lessens the force of Forde’s arguments, though not the veracity of them. I will mention a few examples such as the use of phrases that are intended to demean and castigate, such as the suggestion that theologians of glory search “endlessly for escape hatches” or that they are like those who seek to cure “addiction by optimistic exhortation” (p. 15). Another example of the author’s haughtiness is in the claim that his arguments are “no doubt devastating” to his opposition (p. 59). However true these may be, they tend to work against Forde’s circumspection. Humility is the very thing for which this book argues. How blinding is arrogance.
The Problem of Good Works: Theses 1 – 12
Indeed, for a theologian of the cross, good works are a “problem” in so far as they are seen as a means to salvation. God’s law was not intended to provide the way of salvation through works, but rather to identify the problem of sin and the need for salvation (p. 23-27). Much less are human works apart from God able to save (p. 28-29). God’s law brings spiritual death. God’s Spirit gives eternal life.
Recognizing that Forde is addressing the matter of human effort in salvation, still he seems to argue that all works performed by humans are dead and of no value. Later in the book, he does allow that the works God does through humans are of some value. This seems to be somewhat in disagreement. He argues as proof that all works are dead a passage of scripture in which Jesus attacks the Pharisees as white-washed tombs (p. 32). Later in the book, in his defense of Thesis 26, he states that Luther holds that some works are “truly good” when they are done out of Christian virtue and without premeditation (p. 109). He is either pressing a bit too far the point of works being dead, or too far the point of there being works that are “truly good.” I agree that any merit we may have with God comes through humility (p. 34).
In his defense of Theses 5 and 6, Forde argues for the idea of deadly sin as that which separates us from God (p. 37). We are separated from God because we are born in sin. We are not in need of a savior merely because we volitionally sin in rebellion against God, but also because we have a sin nature with which God can have no fellowship apart from regeneration. Committed sins cannot separate the unregenerate from God since the unregenerate is already separated from God through his sin nature. Thus, the idea of a “deadly” sin seems unbiblical.
Forde argues further that none of our deeds is sinless. Claims to the contrary include Job’s initial response to God’s allowing Satan’s assault against Job. Scripture clearly states that in his response to Satan’s attack Job did several works such as tearing his robe, shaving his head and worshipping God. Scripture states that in his response, Job did not sin (Job 1:22). Apparently, there can be works which are sinless.
While I have already addressed the issue of “deadly” or “mortal” sins, Forde nonetheless makes several points here which require response. First, he makes the important point that works that are pleasing to God are those which reflect a true fear of Him (p. 39). Second, I would have preferred that Forde not have denied “filial” fear as reflecting at least something of what it means to fear the Lord (p. 40), for the Lord is our Heavenly Father and as such we should see sin against Him as that which does injury to Him, our loving Father. Third, Forde rightly states that our fear of the Lord should include awe and terror (p. 41). Luther’s position that a lack of humility is evidence of pride which will be judged by God reflects good biblical doctrine (p. 43). It is difficult to imagine that any true Christian, however misled in his doctrine, could reject such a claim.
Forde’s summary of Theses 11 and 12 is appropriate: that every accomplishment or good we do is accompanied by pride (p. 47) and the desire for glory. Such desire for glory in our accomplishments ignores God’s contribution and elevates man’s.
The Problem of Will: Theses 13 – 18
I agree that the will of fallen man cannot do anything to merit salvation (p. 49). The concepts of “passive” and “active” capacity in understanding free will, which were explained by Luther’s brilliant water analogy, are new to me (p. 55). As I understand these concepts, I am intrigued, but not fully convinced of their complete validity. Forde presses the point in the analogy of a corpse which can be dead passively, but cannot actively do anything to bring itself to life. I wonder if so close an analogy may be drawn between physical and spiritual death. Is every aspect of physical death reflected in some way in spiritual death? Though I accept the basic concept of passive and active capacity of the will, I am not fully convinced that this analogy is without fault. That a corpse’s capacities are only passive does not necessarily mean that the capacity of the will of a fallen human is only passive, unless it can be demonstrated that every aspect of physical death has it’s counterpart in spiritual death. Does not the unregenerate even come to repentance over daily issues in life? I do not suggest that an unregenerate person can repent unto salvation, but I simply argue that he is not passive in every possible regard.
In Thesis 15, Forde makes the case that the will of pre-fall Adam did not include the active capacity for persevering in a sinless state (p. 57-58). Yet, I argue that God did in fact include in Adam’s free will this very thing. Bound up in Forde’s argument is the suggestion that man’s sin was inevitably the result of God’s not having upheld Adam in his sinless state (p. 57), since man was never intended to operate in a sinless state apart from the help of God (p. 58). Neither Luther nor Forde sufficiently argue to prove this point convincingly. If Adam did not have the capacity to persevere in innocence, how may he be held to account for his sin? Of course, Luther and Forde fail in their attempt to dismiss this tack. Was Adam an automaton? No, he was not. I argue that Adam did, in fact, have such a capacity. Again, Forde’s response in anticipation of this complaint against Luther’s assertion is not convincing.
Adam’s sin was not as a result of his inability to persevere in innocence. Luther would argue that Adam’s sin was passive in that it resulted from God’s not having maintained Adam in his state of innocence. I counter that Adam’s sin was a volitional choice, and not passive, but active. Adam was not deceived into committing sin. This is plainly stated in Scripture (Gen 3:1-6, 1 Timothy 2:14). Adam’s sin was not due to God’s having withdrawn from Adam or having failed to uphold Adam in a state of innocence, but rather it was due to Adam’s decision to choose the lesser of two evils. Adam’s wife was deceived into sin. Adam could have remained sinless, to his bride’s great loss, but chose rather to join her in her condition, to his great loss and her great gain. Adam acted in a fashion similar to Christ who chose to join us, His bride, in our condition. Adam condescended to his bride’s condition, as Christ did when He condescended to ours by taking our sins upon Himself on the cross. Christ had the capacity to persevere in His state of innocence, and yet was destined to become sin for us in self-sacrificial agape on the cross. Adam exhibited self-sacrificial agape toward his bride in his condescension to her condition. Through Adam’s volitional sin, Eve was able to be saved along with him. Had Adam not joined her in her sin, a Messiah would not have been produced and neither of them could have been saved. Adam had the capacity for remaining in a state of innocence, but like Christ, abandoned it for a far better work – the salvation of his bride, even though that work was a stench in the nostrils of Holy God. That Adam chose a far better work does not relieve him of his sin and the consequences thereof anymore than Christ’s condescension to our condition relieved Him of the consequences of the agony of the cross.
While I cannot argue from the Scriptures conclusively that Adam had in mind a complete awareness of the spiritual impact and import of his acts as I described above, it would just as equally be an argument from silence to suggest that he did not understand these concepts at all. I at least raise a reasonable counter to the point that Adam could not have remained sinless and that his sin was the result of God’s having failed to uphold him in innocence. My dispute is not with the argument that man can contribute to his salvation by any work. My dispute is with the arguments related to Adam’s sin and his pre-sin state of innocence.
In Luther’s defense of Thesis 15 his argument includes the supposition that an active capacity to “progress in righteousness” (p. 58) is a concept that need be considered pre-fall. I would argue that pre-fall Adam did not need to progress in righteousness. He was in a state of righteousness via his sinless acts. He was also holy in that he was set apart for the purposes of God. Being without sin and yet committing acts meant that his acts were righteous. Sinlessness is the fullest state of righteousness. Adam could have been no more righteous than he already was in innocence. A progression toward righteousness for pre-fall sinless Adam is neither desirable nor possible.
The Great Divide: Theses 19 – 24
The side-by-side comparison of the theologian of glory and the theologian of the cross (p. 71) between Theses 19, 20 and 21 is quite effective. It clarifies the point of view of each and sides with the theologian of the cross by focusing on his pragmatism. Forde’s rhetorical question about the business of theology makes well his point that it is to understand God and his actions (p. 73). Forde notes timelessness as a divine attribute. I have grappled with a way to describe God’s transcendence as an attribute, and Forde succinctly states it (p. 73).
Forde’s declaration in Thesis 21 that a theology of glory calls evil good was something I reluctantly accepted, as mentioned above. Luther’s point is that good works, apart from the Spirit of Christ, are not actually good. Thus, evil is called good. Because a theologian of glory sees works as a necessary part of salvation, the good of the cross is thus called bad. This is enlightening. Forde argues further that suffering is seen by the theologian of glory as evil (p. 84). But, this denies that God is at work in suffering and that suffering is often actually a good. Evil causes suffering. But, not all suffering is evil. God brings about suffering for His purposes. Luther forces us to see with spiritual magnifying glasses the grim realities of works-based theology.
Thesis 23 is startling. In it, Luther proves his case that the law brings curse, damnation and death (p. 95), by quoting Paul from Romans and Galatians. In thesis 24 Forde explains why law and wisdom receive such low marks. They are the close companions of the theologian of glory, but the enemies of the theologian of the cross. This is heavy theological lifting and produces strong theological muscle. The theologian of glory sees virtue in exercising wisdom and law-keeping. While there is virtue in law-keeping and exercising wisdom, they are not ends unto themselves, nor do they produce any merit with God, as the theologian of glory holds. I did not fully grasp Forde’s discussion of the import of experiencing “the very feeling of death” (p. 101-103).
God’s Work in Us: Theses 25 – 28
Luther clarifies in the end that works can be good. They just do not to produce any righteousness in the doer. The law, were it a means to salvation, would be an exhausting and ultimately impossible path (p. 106). In any truly good work, Christ is the one who performs it – He is the operator (p. 112). We are the patient. The work, if it is good, is something he does in and through us.
One can readily accept Luther’s relentless pressing of grace alone through faith alone in salvation. For the Protestant living five centuries later, a Protestant who is not immersed daily in the battle for solo fide as was Luther, it is still a fruitful endeavor to prepare the mind to defend this true doctrine of the faith. The battle is ultimately against the pride of man and it will not be won until Christ returns. This book helped me to see more sharply the failure of works in salvation, though I did not come to this assignment denying solo fide. Though tedious and tiresome at times, the book forced me to consider questions of the nature of works and their merit (or lack of merit) in God’s sight. Salvation is a work of the Spirit of God. Man’s works can never contribute to it or else he would have something of which to boast (Ephesians 2:8-9). Yet, works have a place in God’s plan and He desires that we should walk in them (Ephesians 2:10). When we do, it pleases Him.
