On Being A Theologian Of The Cross Analysis

1459 Words 6 Pages
In the preface, Forde has 3 reasons for writing On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, 1518: (1) to fill a need—to ease and provide an understanding of Luther’s theses in the Heidelberg Disputation because there are very few texts written about Luther’s Theology of the Cross. (2) To correct sentimental view of Jesus’ suffering (e.g. horrific pain endured for others), rather to look at all things through suffering and the cross. God in Christ is the “operator” on the cross, not the one being punished for the sake of others, but the one saving others because nobody identified with him. He died alone. To reiterate, Forde is writing to correct that Jesus is dying for all of us because he loves us, thus …show more content…
Theologian of the cross looks at all things through sufferings of the cross. They believe in the teaching of the cross. More importantly, theology of the cross brings ultimate hope. Conversely, theology of glory is the exact opposite because it calls the bad good and good bad. According to Luther, theology of glory is the ultimate source of despair. It spreads pessimism because it claims that it is necessary to believe in for a fallen race (Forde xiii). In the introductory matters, Forde continues to contrast the two parties: theology of the cross and theology of glory. “Theology of the cross arises out of the realization that it is simply disastrous to dissolve the cross in the story of glory” (Forde 7). The cross should be part of the story because our sufferings and sins are on the cross. The cross brings hope. A theology of glory leaves the will in control and bounds to the idea of “free will”. On the contrary, “A theology of the cross assumes that the will is bound and must be set free. The cross story does that. Either it claims us or it doesn’t. If it does, it is the end of the glory story (Forde 9). So, how do you determine if you are a theologian of the cross or theologian of glory? According to Forde, you are theologian of the cross if you don’t believe in good works and human will. This is why, according to Forde, it is difficult to write about theology of the …show more content…
He asserts that good works is a problem, but he implies that good works is not the problem. Good works is a problem only if you believe good works will save you and the misunderstanding that it will do for you. Good works is problematic because it doesn’t align with alien righteousness. Only alien righteousness will save you, not good works. Luther’s first twelve theses are against good works. In thesis 1, Luther talks about the law of God. The law of God was broken because Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and life, so having faith in God will save you from eternal sufferings. I agree with Luther that, human, law condemns you. Just because you follow the law doesn’t mean that it is an act of good works. You follow the law because you want to avoid getting pull over by the cop and receive a ticket for speeding, or to circumvent a car accident. The law stops you! Thesis 2, similar to thesis 1, is about natural precepts (conscience) that make matters worse. I also agree with Luther’s second thesis because if you depend on conscience to do the right thing, it can only make matters worse although your good deeds, e.g. human works, appear beneficial in society. For instance, I only save the child from crossing the street because I want my name to be on the news headline, “Mr. Kong Vang Saves a Child from Crossing the Street – Now a Hero of all Children,” and expect to receive a scholarship for my good deeds. My action appears

Related Documents