I want to apologize for the misunderstanding regarding my comment on the previous Interview with Josh (part4). I in no way intended to criticize Mike Horton. I consider him a friend and was a volunteer for CURE (the organization that gave rise to the White Horse Inn) back in the early days of the old CURE house. My intent was to comment on the fact that dialog with Lutherans has tempered his Reformed Theology.(Sometimes to the displeasure of some Reformed folks, and to the secret delight of some Lutherans.) I think that is a good thing, being a Lutheran myself. I was trying to relay this in a quick shorthand way. I’m sorry that it sounded harsh. It was not meant in that spirit.

Thats one of the things I dislike about this medium(email, internet, etc.) You have naked words on a page, often written ‘stream of consciousness’ and sometimes with little context. Misunderstandings result.

I am grieved however, that my extensive commentary on this blog has been so poor that I have been perceived as Reformed, and not the Lutheran that I am.( I had hoped to be clearer in communicating my dislike for much of what passes for Reformed Theology.) Furthermore, I make no claim to be a teacher in the church, a pastor, or in any way speak officially for a particular denomination. By God’s grace I am a Lutheran layman who has been privileged to know personally,and to sit at the feet of giants like Mike Horton, Rod Rosenbladt and Bill Cwirla. These guys have had a huge effect on my faith and life.

Larry, I have read and enjoyed your comments both here and on Mr. Ritchie’s blog, and am sorry if I have given offense. None was intended.

Veith’s The Spirituality of the Cross: The Way of the First Evangelicals may be what you are looking for. Here is a link:

http://www.amazon.com/Spirituality-Cross-Way-First-Evangelicals/dp/0570053218/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3456839-2454523?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190595122&sr=1-1

I think you’d like Ethics… and like I said, I think it parallels some of what you’re talking about here with regard to ToG and ToC, especially as it applies to the issue of looking at oneself vs. looking at Jesus. I did an independent study on Bonhoeffer (for credit) at school, and I noticed (what seemed to me) to be a definite change in his thinking between The Cost of Discipleship(CoD) and Ethics. In my experience, [CoD] led me to look very hard introspectively at my own actions/life to make sure I was on the Narrow road, whereas Ethics pointed me to the incarnate Jesus–”Behold the Man” as Bonhoeffer says–so I can live life as a real man without fretting over my own sins and such.

I could possibly say that the difference between the books was merely my own personal impression (and perhaps some of it is–as filtered through whatever theological stuff in my head at the time), but Bonhoeffer himself seems to hint at it in one of his Letters from Prison — “I thought I could acquire faith by trying to live a holy life, or something like it. I suppose I wrote The Cost of Discipleship as the end of that path. Today I can see the dangers of that book, though I still stand by what I wrote.”

Hmmm. I’ve never read Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s work Ethics. I may have to check that out. I was at one church were they turned “suffering” into a new kind of ToG. It was a new form of “give your all” in order to be saved. It wasn’t overt and if asked about justification they’d give a solid reformed answer. But the preaching and over all climate was, “you cannot be sure unless you do _______”. They never really grasped that the way to make a Christian strong so that they can do such things if called to it, is to assure that Christ is ALREADY FOR THEM, not IF they do something. BIG difference for the soul.

Your “Law moment” was very helpful, I run into those a lot. When I’ve explained ‘what happened’ the way you outline above, the silence is deafening. A fellow believer and co-worker of mine observed once that atheist we know (we have a lot of atheist in our profession) are very righteous about things/morals. That may be surprising for some to hear but some of the most “moral” folks I know are practicing atheist and agnostics, hands down. At least the type of atheist we know. One time he was with a guy who was haranguing on this issue and my buddy told him that morality damns a man as much as immorality, the guy’s face just froze up and he didn’t know what to say.

You are right, it is a Law moment, people are always trying to justify someone else’s death. I was talking to my wife about that a few weeks back but could not formulate it completely in my thinking then. The lights went on when you spelled that out here. I was telling her, it was related to death in general, “Do you ever notice that when someone dies everybody tries to look for the reason. If they die of heart disease or something they will wonder ‘did they smoke’, ‘over eat’, what did they ‘do wrong physically’ that they should have done better”. As if we can stop death some how. “If they had a car wreck how did they ‘drive wrong’, were they sleepy, etc…” Always justifiying it somehow with the implication that “I could’ve/should’ve” done/do better. It’s a ‘hidden’ for of law justifying over death or injury in general. You run into it ALL the time at ALL such events, big or small. I’ve even caught myself doing it! But that’s a Law moment as you said.

You made something even more clear about ToG I’d not seen before, calling evil good that is death. We especially do that with the elderly don’t we, “well, they lived a good long life at least”, we say if they die somewhere around 65+ years. AS if death is good, calling evil good. But it’s not is it, it never is. Death is death no matter how old one is and the loss of the beloved is REAL pain, even torment.

Blessings,

Larry KY

Theology of Glory and Theology of the Cross (as you have stated them) sound a lot like (respectively) the “knowledge of good and evil” vs. the “knowledge of God” in Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s incomplete work, Ethics. Considering that Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran, it wouldn’t surprise me if there’s a direct correlation.

To me the HD is why Luther ultimately says, and rightly so I think, “the Cross is our theology”.

Even the statements “theology of glory” and “theology of Cross” are packed and we kind of just brush over them. Forde points out that “theology” derives from theos and logos, which is word of God or God’s word. So that both statements are ‘ways’ man understand God, rightly or wrongly. “theology of Glory” is literally a wrong way of understand the/a word from God…to rephrase “God’s word of glory”. It’s a way that men think (in this case) they have received word from God. And so it sets forth how they see all things including and especially God’s favor upon them. “Theology of Cross” or rephrased “God’s word of Cross” to us (in Word and incarnate Word) though is a different Word from God to us, which happens to be the REAL word received. Its kind of grasped this way: We often say to a person, “What’s the word”. Meaning what has so and so said regarding XYZ. The ToG thinks the “What’s the word (from God)” is assessed fundamentally from obedience to the Law in some form or another. Thus he reads the “tea leaves” of time and space to “read God”, if good happens it must mean favor for something well done, if bad happens it must mean punishment for something not done right. The ToC sees through all that and finds the favorable Word FROM God in the Cross and resurrection for them at the Cross and resurrection, REGARDLESS of what’s going on down here in our lives.

ToG in ANY form, even its false Christian claiming forms is PURE fallen religion, ToC is THE faith. Back during Katrina I found it quite interesting that people like Pat Robertson thought Katrina was a judgment on New Orleans. And so did Islam except they expanded the “judgment” to America. Both, fallen religious leaders, one labeled as “Christian” the other openly “Islam” where in reality puking out the same fallen idolatrous religion of ToG.

You have to really digest the principle between ToG Vs. ToC because a ToG can turn ANYTHING into a ToG even suffering. The ToG can find, like the ole monks of old, suffering to be a ToG pleasing to God. In this case suffering itself becomes a “good work” pleasing to God, a self sacrifice. But its just false religion redressed. The ToC looks to Christ alone always. A ToG even looks to him/herself to assess their “Christian growth”, if its not happening the way it should he/she assesses that some how God is not moved by something they should be “giving over to God/Jesus” and that’s why they still struggle. Again, it’s the testing the water of time and space with the big toe to detect if “what I’m doing or not doing is moving God yea or nea concerning me”, in this case “growth”. The ToC really doesn’t concern him/herself with works. That’s shocking to the ToG, in fact incredible. But the ToC is happy if he/she does NO good works but suffers all the more so that he dies and Christ is all the more. The ToC doesn’t in essence “sweat it”. That’s incredible faith to so rest in Christ, but the ToG sees that as a lacking of faith because, again, he measures by works and the reaction of God through the fabric of time and space. What ever his thing of favor he thinks God is looking for a positive thing (like Word of faith movements) or even a negative thing (suffering as in giving much of ones self) he develops a reciprocal time/space metric to measure its success by. If that metric is in the opposing direction of what means he/she has done right, positive or negative thing, then God is displeased and if it is IN the direction he expects it, well then God is pleased. The ToC calls it like it is, God is pleased with Christ alone, works at any time are nothing.

The ToG at length constricts and his list of works, that are enumerated become more and more restricted. Pretty soon only church yard piety and a handful of duties will do. The ToC at length relaxes and has no list of works, and does not enumerate them (enumeration is a signature of ToG and works righteousness). At length all that he does is fine for he rests at the well spring of faith alone in Christ alone. The ToG says, “you need to get busy doing X.” The ToC says, “I’ll have a smoke.” The ToG grows more and more impatient in the ‘faith’, the ToC more patient (which ironically is a fruit of faith a faith that doesn’t “try to be patient” which is counter productive). The ToG’s inpatients develops into increase judgmentalism and loveless ness, even when he says, “Love!”. The ToC increases in love, because he knows for sure he has the treasure of Christ.

I would recommend studying Luther on this a great length, you’ll be shocked how much it shows up in all of Scripture.

Blessings,

Larry KY