Each week in worship, thousands of Lutheran pastors and their congregations participate in public confession and absolution. It is at the heart of our proclamation of Law and Gospel, prepares the worshipers to be at peace in the presence of God, establishes the framework for the role of the Word in worship, and anticipates the foundation of the sermon’s message, whatever specific textual aspects may be emphasized. The turning point of everything rests in the atonement of Christ for us.  So, what do we confess about the atonement? What exactly happened so that the pastor can so certainly assure us all of forgiveness? As an example, one of our liturgical “declarations of grace” clearly defines the atonement: “Jesus paid the penalty for our guilt by his death on the cross.”   

For centuries, this explanation of Jesus taking our place on the cross and receiving the punishment all people deserved for their sins was the accepted Lutheran explanation of the atonement—for good reasons, since it is extremely biblical (e.g. 1 Peter 2:24). However, this theory (or explanation) of atonement, commonly called “Penal Substitution,” has endured attempts at revision or outright rejection from within the Lutheran tradition for over a century.  Despite the popularity of some of these revisionist attempts, they have unsurprisingly been controversial among Confessional Lutherans. These revisionist explanations of the atonement distort or at least devalue Christ’s work on the cross for us and frequently find their way into popular “Lutheran” resources, unwittingly utilized by WELS pastors and laity alike. 

In The Doctrine of Atonement From: Luther to Forde, Dr. Jack Kilcrease, a lay theologian of the LCMS’s Commission on Theology and Church Relations, offers a candid summary of prominent Lutheran voices on the crucial doctrine of atonement, while providing a critical analysis of problematic interpretations. After establishing the context and his methodology, Kilcrease works through Lutheran interpretations and understandings of the atonement. He initially provides a helpful overview of atonement theologies up to the Reformation. Kilcrease next turns to Luther’s view of atonement by examining his early commentaries on the psalms, The Freedom of a Christian, his catechisms, and Galatians commentaries. Kilcrease next analyzes the Lutheran Confessions, Melanchthon, Chemnitz, and other orthodox theologians. In chapter four, he deals with the “moderate revisionists”: Werner Elert, Gustaf Aulen, and Gustaf Wingren. In chapter five, Kilcrease covers some “radical revisionists”: Wolhart Pannenberg, Robert Jenson, and Eberhard Jüngel. In chapter six, Kilcrease carefully analyzes Gerhard Forde’s view of the Law. Finally, in chapter seven, he gives an overview and assessment of Forde’s view of atonement and justification. 

Kilcrease notes that since the Enlightenment, modern theologians have frequently objected that “the doctrine of substitutionary atonement makes God into a merciless judge who refuses to forgive sinners apart from the killing of his own son.” Added to this are similar feminist charges of paternalistic child abuse (1). Kilcrease establishes how we can define what happened at the atonement and how we, as Lutherans, can talk about it. After exploring (and rejecting) some subjective postmodern interpretations of language theory, Kilcrease presents the “Confessional Lutheran Paradigm” for doctrinal criticism. He clarifies that doctrinal assertions are first critiqued according to scripture (norma normans) and then by the Book of Concord (norma normata) (24). Kilcrease also adds “the secondary authority of Luther’s writings” as both a general historical practice and a method particularly affirmed by the Lutheran Confessions (25). 

Thus, before Kilcrease can critique the Lutheran revisionists, he must establish the norma normata and “secondary” (Luther) understanding of the atonement. While many writings of Luther would add to our understanding of his atonement theory, Kilcrease judiciously selects works to demonstrate Luther’s prevailing description of atonement: Christ taking our place—both fulfilling the law and rendering satisfaction for our sins—thereby removing God’s wrath and defeating sin, death, and the devil. The fruits of Christ’s atonement victory are received by faith. Importantly, Kilcrease asserts that “Luther’s teachings regarding atonement exhibit a fair amount of consistency over his life span” (50).  

The repeated tactic of those who wish to frame their revisionist theologies (not just regarding the atonement) as somehow being grounded in Luther’s “real” or “original” evangelical Reformation is to assert that either Luther himself abandoned his earlier views, or that later generations (even Melanchthon) sharply altered and disfigured Luther’s theology. The implication is that strict Confessional Lutheranism and the doctrine of the orthodox scholars are somehow illegitimate, and that revisionist theology is more authentic. This, of course, depends on proving two assumptions.  First, the theology which the revisionists wish to promote is found in Luther and is not taken out of context. Second, that Luther himself did change or that his theological heirs either betrayed his theology or failed to correctly understand it as well as the revisionists. 

While noting some further developments, Kilcrease highlights the “remarkable consistency” in the description of the work of Christ from Luther through the Lutheran Age of Orthodoxy. Kilcrease further asserts that revisionist modern theologians “cannot call upon Luther in support of the criticisms” nor can they demonstrate a break in the continuity between Luther, the Confessions, and the later orthodox theologians (65). Kilcrease places Adolph Hoenecke, Francis Pieper, and John Schaller within this line of continuity (66).  

Kilcrease’s analysis of the “moderate revisionists” does not find an explicit departure from Luther or the Confessions, but rather different emphases and omissions of major features of Christ’s work (70). For example, Aulen depicted God’s wrath and love as abstractions in conflict, while avoiding clear law-and-gospel language (73). Similarly, while finding much of value in Wingren, he notes an emphasis on the conquest motif, but little that points to “Christ’s unique ability to fulfill the infinite demand of the law based on his divine-human reality” (78).   

Kilcrease is far more critical of the “radical revisionists” for not having the “question of salvation” as their chief concern, but rather pursuing theological explanations to “make Christianity more plausible to a modern secular audience.” The result, says Kilcrease, is that “the gospel tends to be eclipsed or mutilated” (79). Each of the radical revisionists “largely deviated from the Scriptures” (99). 

Finally, Kilcrease analyzes Forde’s issue with the Confessional Lutheran understanding of the Law and his subsequent distortion of the atonement. While Kilcrease acknowledges the value of Forde’s expressed concern with ignoring or downplaying the accusatory function of the law, Forde went far beyond this point (125). Forde understood the Law’s function as the effect of its threats on sinful people (a feeling of existential dread) without regard for the positive commands of God’s will for people (107). This, in turn, makes the Law a real problem in the Church. Directly proclaiming specific Law “would simply facilitate a continuation of the old age” (117).  This view of the Law only as a temporary function, rather than also being God’s eternal will, “effectively makes human experience of the law into the definitive theological criterion for describing the reality of the law” (110). Kilcrease points out that this obliviates “God’s express will in accordance with his eternal purpose for creation” (113). Yet rather than account for this “loose end,” Forde denies the eternal or positive function of the Law. Therefore, Forde’s explanation of the atonement “is not brought about by the fulfillment of the law or the propitiation of God’s wrath. God…simply makes a unilateral decision to forgive without any fulfillment of the law” (115). Kilcrease summarizes the fundamental issue: “If Christ does not fulfill the law on our behalf, then someone else must, and that someone is necessarily us” (156).  

While Kilcrease’s “Confessional Lutheran Paradigm” is not new, it may serve as both a helpful review and reminder of how Confessional Lutherans assess doctrine and truth claims. Some may note that while Kilcrease establishes the Scriptures as the norma normans, he does not heavily incorporate Scripture directly into his consideration. However, Kilcrease largely refers to Scripture in his analysis of others’ doctrinal positions. Kilcrease clearly establishes the scope and focus of his work in the title itself. The predominance of Kilcrease’s analysis of modern Lutheran thought is driven by historical theology rather than an exegetical critique.  

WELS pastors will find this book a helpful resource for summarizing the various positions of prominent Lutheran writers. In particular, a clear understanding of Forde’s teaching about the Law is crucial, given certain antinomian trends and the influence of the “radical gospel” movement across Lutheranism. While there is no real substitute for reading authors’ full books or articles to understand their arguments, Kilcrease pays special attention to fair and honest representation. The chapters are well organized with a short, direct introduction, a brief but thorough overview of a particular theologian’s views, and a final evaluation. Those who may not have the time or desire to read the works of a dozen Lutheran theologians will appreciate this resource as a faithful introduction and summary. Those who wish to pursue further study will likewise find Kilcrease’s work a beneficial starting point.