A Critique of Gerhard Forde's Theology
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- Our website: www.justandsinn...
Patreon: / justandsinner
This video is a discussion of the problems with Gerhard Forde's theology. I discuss several passages in his text "Where God Meets Man."
![🎤 จับฉลากร้องเพลง x P’ #XXSIVK [EP.1] (2/2) เพื่อนจับได้คำไหน..ต้องร้องคำนั้น เริ่ม! 💓🎶 #MXFRUIT](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1bJvMJXmeS4/mqdefault.jpg)
Misread the title and thought this was gonna be about the U.S. President
I started seminary off at Concordia St Louis and then finished my M.Div at Institute of Lutheran Theology. I got a whole lot of Forde during those days. I just finished your book "Prolegomena" which is opening my eyes to many of the radical Lutheran ideas that I thought were just fundamental Lutheranism. I do appreciate some of the tools that I gained through Radical Lutheranism's emphasis on preaching and proclamation, but I'm seeing how insufficient its theology is for pastoral care. If you could recommend a homiletics book and a single dogmatics book, even if they are older books, what would you recommend?
I like that you addressed Jack Kilcrease accusing everyone who disagrees with him of not understanding anything without actually saying his name. 🤣
If you know, you know.
I had a good laugh and trip down memory lane when I saw you hold up the copy of Forde's book. Way back in the late 60s while at
De Paul U. in Chicago, I'd often walk down Wabash to 180 Wabash Ave., to a building which housed both The Thomas More Bookstore and The Augsburg Press Bookstore. I dropped a good buck at both. I distinctly remember picking up Forde's book. I read it and the only thing I remember is the cover! It seemed rather screwy to me, as a Roman Catholic. But the Lutheran Tradition attracted me.
Well, here I am, still a practicing RC, having taught in an RC high school, now having retired 10 years ago. Still find Lutheranism interesting (and adaptable in many ways to my own life as a Catholic). Here I am listening to Dr. Cooper critique Forde's book.
At age 76, I still remember that book......and still find it screwy. Three cheers for Dr. Cooper! And for Catholic clarity on this matter!
Forde was my advisor my first year at Luther. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts. I grew up in, and still worship at a Pietist Haugean ALC congregation that joined the ELCA and left it. We are now a part of the LCMC. I really appreciate the work you are doing here. As I read this book I found many of his conclusions puzzling.
The question of lying is a knock-down argument against voluntarism. If God can just choose whether lying is wrong, then he could choose to lie to us any time he wants. Scripture could be wrong, but even beyond that, God could choose to deliberately mislead our sense experiences and our intellects for absolutely no reason whatsoever. This leads to self-defeating skepticism.
God bless you, Rev Cooper, for taking such care to inform us and risking exasperation to explain false teachings, so that we can begin to recognize them. We need this.
Oddly enough, re-listened to your kenotic Christology episode. This theology of Forde/Paulson seems to fit like a glove with some of the things you mentioned the theologians in that video taught, such as classical doctrine of God being inconsistent with a proper “Lutheran” reading of Scripture. I can’t help but feel this is the sort of staircase Dr Stephen Nemes fell down
Thanks for this Dr. Cooper! You confirmed much of what I was thinking, and more.
I started reading Forde when I first came to Lutheranism…my Vicar told me to put it down and I did and never went back.
God bless you, Dr Cooper. Onwards!
I have mixed feelings about Jenson..
I'm reading the volume edited by Braaten and Jenson on Finnish Luther. I find them to be interesting since while they _lean_ toward process theology, they were quite supportive of the Finnish critique of Kantian Lutheranism and retrieval of Neoplatonism.
(Also, Jenson is brilliant on liturgical stuff)
When I started seminary the only theologians I knew anything about were authors in the Bible, and Martin Luther. People would spill beer every Friday over Forde, and I'm looking forward to watching this and figuring out what it's all about.
The reduction of theology from historical objectivity to "effect on subject" alone is probably a result of modernism. For E.g., if you can reduce _justification_ to the existential effect on the recipient, then you don't have to engage with debates on the historicity of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
It's wanting to have Albert Schweitzer and still call yourself a Lutheran on salvation.
Paul does not engage or care at all about the historical Jesus, but only about how the Kerygma radically transforms one's life, brings non being into being, life out of death.
@@hillcatrogers9086 Come on, stop that, Prof. Bultmann!
@Hillcat Rogers Is that so? I seem to recall something on the lines of, "If Christ has not been raised, then our faith is in vain.."
@@hillcatrogers9086 Stop trolling.
This book put Lutheranism on the map for me! Back in 2007 When I read this, and then his section in the five different views of sanctification. I became a secret neo-Lutheran. I was driving my reformed buddies nuts! Jordan, I think you went to bible college at Geneva with a couple of my really good friends. Stephen Shanley, and Justin kunkle . I was telling all my pastors that Calvin was wrong for his third use of the law in progressive sanctification. How he was using the law as a ladder to climb to God by his good works. All, my Calvinist brothers we’re telling me to come out of the closet. And just go full on sacramentalist 😅
Haven’t listened yet but excited to hear this one!
Didn’t disappoint and I especially liked hearing you say Dr. Paulson seems to frequently obfuscate things. Yes. Totally agree. I’ll read something half a dozen times, and when I figure it out, I’m thinking, is that it?
Of course Gerhard got it right. Who are you to tell otherwise? The great Gerhard has total respect for the counsumer, always prepared to make them happy whenever it is necessary, with delicious meals.
The reductionist absolution is Lutheran enthusiasm, forgiveness abstracted away from all the other Church things, the liturgy, Bible readings, a congregation, etc. Inverting Luther in Smalcald. A very funny thought, considering how the liberal sophists interpret Scripture.
I'm not an official "Lutheran" but I relate to many things and am learning a lot about Lutheranism. Listening to 1517 podcasts I was really attracted to some of the concepts. However when listening to Paulson, something didn't settle right with me on the radical separation of the Law and this landed me to investigating Forde. I really appreciate your critique it sheds light on my suspicions. I respect 1517 for what they are doing but it is sad that they have Paulson as a main contributor... neo orthodoxy and subjectivism are real threats and alive/breading within many theological camps. Thanks for drawing attention to them.
Could you provide the title of the book on the third use of the law in Luther?
Friends of the Law by Edward Engelbrecht
Seems that Forde has significant influence on The 1517 Project people also.
He said it he outed himself!!!! He said “by what standard” he’s a Theonomist. It’s official. 😂
Keep fighting the good fight. It’s important for someone to be brave enough to call out this false teaching.
Thank you for your thoughtful critique. You are providing a critical service to the church by exposing Forde's theology for what it is--a bunch of word games that seek to avoid the foolishness and reality of the cross. How ironic, given the title of his book on the Heidelberg Disputation!
Any plans on doing a critique of Jurgen Moltmann? Particularly "The Crucified God"? That'd be nice....
I have a chapter on that in an upcoming book.
@@DrJordanBCooper thank you for the reply. Do you mean that book you mentioned that's being edited now and coming out this year? I'll be on the lookout for that one!
In all fairness how can the law be the will of God for our life when Paul says it is a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ ? I agree with Paulson that the purpose of the law is to show our sin. The will of God is not that we obey the law but that we obey the gospel and believe in Jesus Christ.
Very important critique. But forgiveness is NOT payment.
Great video, Dr. Cooper! What do you think about Forde's encouragement to declare, while preaching, "Your sins are forgiven"? Is this a practice Lutheran preachers should emulate? I understand how important it is to declare absolution upon hearing confession, but what about during a sermon?
Out of curiosity is that a, Hart Schaffner Marx sports coat? If so I think I wore the same one today.
It's not. This is a vintage sack from Towncraft.
You said "hot mess" cracked me up
Huh... not what I expected. I expected something more complicated, nuanced, and difficult to understand.
In truth I've heard all of these same arguments against the cross from, most of all, teenage atheists that I interact with who wish to characterize God as unjust and the Bible as nonsensical. I had no idea that Forde was so well-read in that demographic.
Would love to hear some from Paulson, would also love to hear contemporary counterpoints or get an overview of books that were written at the time to contradict Forde's theology.
Another take on Forde's influence comes from Dr. Jack Kilcrease in his book, "The Doctrine of Atonement," which discusses Forde's view of atonement in contrast with the Confessions and historical Orthodox Lutheranism.
@@pete3397 I've seen Kilcrease defend Forde online.
Us: can we please have a Filioque episode before all of Lutheranism falls to Orthodoxy?
Dr. Cooper: here's another guy you haven't heard of!
(still a very interesting episode as always though, keep it up)
Dr. Cooper is not likely to give any ammunition to dyer by doing a bit on filioque.
I will. I just need to make sure I'm prepared well.
@@DrJordanBCooper In all honesty, I would like to see you trounce Dyer.
@@Catholic-Perennialist i am not orthodox but Dyer destroyed dr Cooper's inadequate knowledge on orthodoxy
@@sigmanocopyrightmusic8737 Dyer can destroy anything by making finer distinctions than his opponent.
The only problem with this method is that anyone can come behind Dyer and destroy him by making even finer distinctions.
It's a type of intellectual arms race that occupies the midwits.
I just got all 4 of those Trent volumes by Martin Chemnitz in the Mail! (In other news--im broke!)
Do you own the GREAT BOOKS of the western world❔❕❔
Yes sir. Not all of them, unfortunately.
@@DrJordanBCooper What do you say to the Brother street evangelist, Who reprove you for inquiring Philosophy❔
Seeming to find that you, don’t find that Jesus is enough for him to have your all❔
I’m speaking from experience😅 dr. Jordan
Luther abandons the roles attributed by the Scholastic tradition to the causality of the human person to focus on the sole efficacy of God in Jesus Christ.
I thought it was a good book. Not stuffy like its 1537.
Doesn’t Aquinas teach that God doesn’t “need to” satisfy justice by a sufficient amount of punishment, but that God is satisfied by the work of love done by the Son? The question may come in reply, “Why is the incarnation loving if not because it bears our punishment in our stead?” But I’m not sure that question dissolves the argument. There actually is no cosmic scale; that’s not a biblical image-and yet that image stands at the center of our understanding of God as “wrathful and loving” (a biblical image, to be sure).
I actually find the account of divine satisfaction, well, more satisfying as a new father. I can’t imagine punishment for the sake of doling a sufficient amount of pain to equal the pain caused; it makes more sense to yes guard against futtther pain but also to do that by inspiring my daughter to love more.
As a fellow new father, I sympathize.
There's actually still debate in Protestantism (generally) and Lutheranism (in particular) about exactly what the atonement is. Vicarious Satisfaction or Penal Substitution.
It's not a closed debate. We confess that Christ satisfied the demands of God's Law in our place, but whether that means he "made payment for sin" or was "punished for our sin" is not altogether clear in our Confessions.
Why can’t it mean both? Both ideas are expressed in Scripture.
@@Outrider74 I suppose it could. Without suggesting anything negative about Dr. Cooper or others’ ideas about love or God: it’s just that the idea of loving infinitely and being infinitely merciful-except when it comes to vengeance or making sure damage done receives its punishment-simply makes less and less sense on the whole to me the more I learn and grow as a man and father. It’s more and more abstract or detached from real life, real love, and so on.
Obviously if it’s explicitly taught to be precisely this way in Scripture then I submit to that. But I don’t see it.
1 John 2:27. This is the ''radical'' in radical lutheranism nothing more. Please, try to understand.
Luther was a nominalist. He did reject Ockham's theology that humans could cooperate to achieve salvation, but Luther's imputed righteousness - just and sinner - is completely nominalist. God declares humans just in spit of our sinful nature or essence, such is an example of an untethered God, the outlaw God. Also, Forde borrows a lot from Bultmann, the twentieth centuries preeminent New Testament scholar, who gives a lot of textual exegesis.
That is a fire response
Nah
problem is... sin is an accidental property, not essential as u falsely state.
Forde's only crime is taking _sola fide_ to its logical conclusion.
If one is permitted to make exceptions to the solas, there is literally no hindrance to swimming the Tiber.
You criticize others for inconsistency while rejecting every dogma of the church you call your home, including the Trinity, the incarnation/deity/two natures of Christ, and infallibility of Scripture. If you could die of irony!
@@alexlancaster5455 Did Jesus ever use the word "Trinity?"
Do you think Jesus was a classical theist?
Jesus would be excommunicated for heresy were he alive today. I'm in good company.
@@Catholic-Perennialist”Did Jesus ever use the word “Trinity?”” I am assuming you are asking if He used this word in the canonical Gospels. Since you do not believe they are true, your appeal to them is disingenuous. The real question is - as a perennialist, why bother appropriating Christian language to craft your new religion, when you could much more easily use new terminology?
@@alexlancaster5455 Because perennialists understand all religion to possess varying degrees of perennial truth.
I think Catholicism possesses more truth than other religions and is more culturally relevant to the West. I'm not unique in this.
@Catholic Perennialist Do your priest/bishop know that you reject fundamental dogmas of the Catholic faith (which even us filthy Prots affirm)?
Maybe don't throw around accusations of schism or sectarianism when you're a blatant heretic. Glass houses, my friend.