The Doctrine of Atonement: From Luther to Forde by Jack D. Kilcrease (review)

This volume assesses the contributions of several modern Lutheran theologians to atonement theology. It also represents, in the last two chapters, one of the longer secondary treatments of Gerhard Forde’s theology. While appreciative of certain elements of these theologians, Kilcrease’s view is predominantly critical.

Chapter one establishes a methodological basis for the “Confessional Lutheran Paradigm,” consisting in a particular configuration of scripture, Luther, and confessional writings, the yardstick by which Kilcrease will measure his modern interlocutors. That paradigm’s content is explicated in chapter two, which treats Luther’s view of atonement, and chapter three, which takes up Melanchthon and the Concordists.

Kilcrease follows Theodosius Harnack in his interpretation of Luther, focusing on themes related to penal substitution. Concepts such as exchange, bridal mysticism, ransom, and satisfaction are tracked through the early Psalms lectures, Freedom of a Christian, the catechisms, and the 1535 Galatians commentary. Melanchthon’s contribution, considered mainly through the 1555 Loci communes, is assessed as in essential agreement with Luther’s, as are those of Chemnitz and the Formula of Concord. Finally, Johann Gerhard’s adoption of the threefold office of Christ, and Matthias Flacius’ doctrine of Christ’s active and passive righteousness are taken up as signal developments for Lutheran scholasticism.

Chapter four examines three theologians termed “moderate revisionists” on the doctrine of atonement: Werner Elert, Gustaf Aulén, and Gustaf Wingren. Of these, Elert and Wingren are judged basically faithful to the confessional paradigm. Wingren in particular is taken as a useful supplement for his development of the recapitulation theme, while Aulén receives significant opprobrium for his rejection of penal substitution.

“Radical revisionists” Wolfhart Pannenberg, Robert Jenson, and Eberhard Jüngel, so labelled for having subordinated soteriology to other philosophical concerns, are the subject of chapter five. While Kilcrease is at times appreciative of these theologians, all three are deemed suspect on atonement and so on justification.

Chapters five and six engage the theology of Gerhard Forde, first on his view of the law, and then on the matters of atonement and justification. Again, while in places appreciative (even defending Forde from misplaced polemics), the book’s overall reception of Forde is negative, arguing that Forde’s atonement theology compromises the doctrine of justification.

The volume is valuable for drawing attention to atonement motifs in modern Lutheran theology, and assessing their place within larger frameworks. Kilcrease is at his best when challenging the questions asked and not asked by theologians. He is to be credited for making this reviewer a more attentive reader of Forde. The book is recommended for those looking to engage deeply on these matters.

That said, the book failed to convince on two fronts. In places (for example, the assertion that for Forde the believer becomes righteous in himself by faith, losing external grounding, 158), this reviewer recalls Forde having written the opposite view. Kilcrease may have misunderstood the relationship between believer and preached word in Forde’s theology.

Second, Kilcrease’s case for the confessional paradigm is at points thin. Readers may note that the author’s Luther citations appear to say little on a central thrust of his argument, namely, that the crucifixion constitutes a payment to the Father which removes wrath by satisfying the law. Resisting the suggestion that Melanchthon and Luther might not have been of one mind, he notes, “It would be strange if two theologians working in such great cooperation would not have noticed that they did not understand the death of Christ in the same way” (55). Indeed, aspects of the relationship between Luther and Melanchthon can appear strange, in light of evident disagreement on some weighty matters.

Kilcrease has certainly presented a “Confessional Lutheran Paradigm” worthy of consideration. Whether his view is sufficiently proven as to constitute the Confessional Lutheran paradigm is best left to the reader.