{"id":1218,"date":"2014-09-06T16:21:50","date_gmt":"2014-09-06T16:21:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/?p=1218"},"modified":"2014-09-06T16:21:50","modified_gmt":"2014-09-06T16:21:50","slug":"gerhard-fordes-view-of-the-law-an-excerpt-from-law-life-and-the-living-god-by-rev-dr-scott-murray","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/gerhard-fordes-view-of-the-law-an-excerpt-from-law-life-and-the-living-god-by-rev-dr-scott-murray\/","title":{"rendered":"Gerhard Forde's view of the Law — an excerpt from Law, Life, and the Living God, by Rev. Dr. Scott Murray"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>
Do you like what you read here? Does it pique your curiosity? Use the link above or click here to buy Dr. Murray\u2019s book.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h6>\n
The more I delve into his research and footnotes, the more I am convinced that this is a very important bit of scholarship that we Lutherans would do well to study, now more than ever.<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h6>\n
Educate your children classically. Minds like Murray\u2019s don\u2019t just happen. \u2014 TDD<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h6>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

+ \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0+ \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 +<\/p>\n

\"Murray-IN\"<\/a>
Rev. Dr. Scott R. Murray, pastor of Memorial Lutheran Church<\/a> in Houston, TX, and LCMS Fourth Vice President<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Gerhard Forde<\/a> made an enormous contribution to the discussion about the third use of the Law through The Law-Gospel Debate<\/em><\/a>, a work that reviewed the 19th-century debate between orthodoxy and Heilsgeschichte<\/em> over the doctrine of the atonement. Forde maintains that this debate in the Erlangen school set the parameters for the modern discussion on the relationship\u00a0between Law and Gospel. He suggests that understanding the weaknesses of both orthodoxy and Heilsgeschichte<\/em> would clarify the modern dogmatic problem of situating the Law in Christian doctrine.<\/p>\n

When the Prussian government attempted to unite Reformed and Lutheran churches at the beginning of the 19th century, interest in Lutheran theology revived in Germany. The revival of Lutheranism was characterized by intense interest in and support for orthodoxy. E. W. Hengstenberg<\/a> was a prime example of someone who supported the orthodox revival. Hengstenberg worked tirelessly as a teacher and a church politician to revive the orthodox doctrine of the atonement and to repair the damage done to theology by rationalism. According to Forde, Hengstenberg and his orthodox colleagues simply substituted one form of rationalism for another. Rationalism had championed the human mind\u2019s perception of truth in all things, including theology. Rationalism sought \u201cscientific\u201d objectivity in\u00a0the universally valid truths discernable by reason. Hengstenberg merely shifted the source of objective knowledge from the human mind\u2019s use of reason to the text of the Bible. The authority of the Bible was absolute for Hengstenberg.<\/p>\n

\"220px-Johann_Christian_Konrad_Hofmann\"
Johann Christian Konrad von Hofmann (December 21, 1810 \u2013 December 20, 1877)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This is the point at which J. C. K. von Hofmann<\/a> entered the fray by criticizing the orthodox for objectifying the\u00a0relationship between God and humans. Hofmann attacked the biblicism of orthodoxy and, therefore, the whole theological edifice built on the orthodox method. Hofmann was critical of the way in which the Law gave orthodoxy its shape, including regulating the content of the Gospel itself. He criticized orthodoxy for its doctrine of the vicarious satisfaction, excoriating it for attributing to God a system whereby God may be \u201cbought off\u201d through an expiatory sacrifice of Christ. Since the Law required perfection of sufficient quality and quantity, God had to provide it in Christ, who became a perfect substitute for the sins of the world, taking the\u00a0world\u2019s punishment on himself. The satisfaction requires God to render a verdict of \u201cnot guilty\u201d for the world. The transaction of the vicarious satisfaction was a prime target for Hofmann. The Law gave the whole doctrine of justification its shape and framework in the orthodox system. This was not acceptable to Hofmann.<\/p>\n

Hofmann proposed that Christ became the<\/em> true human instead of a substitute. \u201cHe did not suffer alongside of man, as one man instead of another, but in<\/em> mankind. In<\/em> him, not merely through<\/em> him, man becomes the object of divine love.\u201d Hofmann focused his atonement doctrine on the new humanity made complete in Christ. In the Heilsgeschichtliche<\/em> method of Hofmann, Christ became the greatest manifestation of the unfolding of the plan of divine love. The Heilsgeschichtliche<\/em> method replaced Law with the idea of the new humanity. \u201cThere is no trace of the traditional idea of the lex aeterna<\/em>, no trace of the traditional scheme of the usus\u00a0legis<\/em> and no hint of a \u2018third use of the Law.\u2019 Law is displaced entirely by the reality of the new humanity.\u201d215 The method was driven by the idealistic philosophy of history brought to its apogee by G. W. F. Hegel. The Law, and especially the third use of the Law, cannot survive Hofmann\u2019s criticism.<\/p>\n

Several proponents of orthodox theology, including Friedrich Adolph Philippi, Gottfried Thomasius, and Theodosius Andreas Harnack, seriously challenged Hofmann. Philippi criticized Hofmann for supporting a doctrine of the atonement that was far too subjective and, therefore, uncertain. Philippi charged that Hofmann\u2019s doctrine had more in common with Roman Catholicism than Lutheranism because in Hofmann\u2019s doctrine the change in the atonement took place in humans. Hofmann took the criticism seriously and set about defending his doctrine from the charge of subjectivism. He recognized that the change that was affected in the atonement was not solely in humans.<\/p>\n

It is God\u2019s relationship<\/em> to man which has changed in the atonement, and it is changed objectively<\/em>, if one must use such terms, and in and through what is accomplished by<\/em> God in Christ. In acting this way through Christ, God has not exercised his will to love mankind without at the same time exercising his hatred of sin. What has occurred is a change in dispensation, a real and \u201cobjective\u201d change in the \u201ctimes\u201d which changes man\u2019s relationship to God. Of course, the change has not occurred \u201cobjectively\u201d in the sense that the old dispensation has been obliterated.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Hofmann argued that Law was not lex aeterna<\/em>, but only a part of the historical dispensation that led persons to take seriously the love that God holds for them. The debate between Hofmann and the orthodox reached a stalemate when the problem of the place of the Law in theology could not be resolved. This is\u00a0the point at which Forde takes up his critical analysis of the place of the Law in what he calls \u201cthe theological system.\u201d<\/p>\n

Both Hofmann and his opponents had difficulty accounting for the place of the Law in their theological systems. According to Forde, the 19th-century debate showed that the orthodox could no longer understand the Law \u201cin a static-ontological sense, as a lex aeterna<\/em> according to which God can be \u2018bought off.\u2019\u201d In his opinion the Heilsgeschichte<\/em> doctrine fared no better.<\/p>\n

\"\u201cThe<\/a>
\u201cThe Law says \u2018Do this\u2019, and it is never done\u2026\u201d (Martin Luther, The Heidelberg Disputation; Thesis xxvi)+ + +\n

<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>

Clearly, the \u201cLaw could not be treated as though it were part of a historical dispensation superseded by a dispensation of love.\u201d In either case, the radicalness of the work of God to save the world was being blunted by placing that work in a system where the outcome was assured. The orthodox system assured the results to be realized by the death of Christ through the Law\u2019s demands upon God\u2019s righteousness. Ultimately, both God and the cross were captured in the theological system.\u00a0The Heilsgeschichtliche<\/em> method simply substituted for the orthodox doctrine of the Law a concept of divine love progressively revealing itself through the stages of history\u2014a view of history borrowed from Hegel, to whom Hofmann was intellectually indebted. Both ways failed because the assured results \u201cdetracted from the seriousness of the cross event itself.\u201d\u00a0Thus, for Forde both Hofmann and the orthodox had developed theories about the cross but had failed to present the existential reality of\u00a0the cross itself.<\/p>\n

The systems generated in the 19th century made the cross anticlimactic. Whether it was the Jesus portrayed by the orthodox or the Heilsgeschichtliche<\/em> method, Jesus knew the systematic details and, therefore, could face death with prosaic equanimity, knowing as he did what the assured outcome would be. For Hofmann, Jesus would have known that he was unfolding another aspect of divine love for the world. There would be nothing new and,\u00a0therefore, nothing central about the cross. The cross becomes merely one way of revealing God\u2019s love in holy history. For the orthodox, Jesus easily faced the cross because the Law assured that the results would be accepted. Because the results would be accepted, there was a note of inevitability in the resurrection of Jesus. Real suffering and death are cut off in this scheme. Both Heilsgeschichte and orthodoxy are ultimately tainted by a docetic Christ who knows that everything will turn out nicely in the end if the theory is followed correctly. This theorizing about the cross destroys its power and meaning in the life of the church, according to Forde.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, Hofmann did not repair the problem of the static-ontological view of the Law. Forde stated that Hofmann simply replaced the orthodox view with the idealistic view of historical progress, that is, another equally certain systematic framework in which to capture the work of God in Christ and ultimately to destroy its existential freshness.\u00a0\u201cIn the shift from the legalistic scheme of orthodoxy to a scheme based on historical process, the continuity or idea of progress accomplishes the same function as Law in the system of orthodoxy\u2014it provides the structure for understanding the Christ event.\u201d For Forde, Hofmann missed the radical break with the old era that the cross represented. The key to the problem of understanding the cross was the eschatological newness of the Christ event, something obscured by both orthodoxy and Heilsgeschichte<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\"Forde2\"<\/a>
Gerhard O. Forde (September 10, 1927 \u2013 August 9, 2005)\n

+ + +<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>

Forde attempted to resolve the problem he identified through his analysis of the atonement debate of the 19th century by suggesting that eschatology holds the key. Forde claimed that Lutheranism\u2019s placement of the cross at the center of the faith dwarfs the Law. The cross stands astride all of time and calls a halt to the Law\u2019s work. The cross is the eschatological sign of temporal discontinuity. The Law belongs to the old time. The Gospel belongs to the eschaton. The temporal order is\u00a0central: Law comes and then Gospel.<\/p>\n

For Forde there is nothing rationalistically self-evident about the function of Law and Gospel. The distinction between Law and Gospel is apparent only to faith. \u201cThere is no possibility of speaking about Law and Gospel prior to faith. At the same time, however, it is apparent that it is precisely faith which grasps the Gospel as God\u2019s final Word and that from this standpoint Law must be ordered before Gospel.\u201d The cross\u2019s division of time into two radically different ages shapes the whole Law-Gospel dialectic by giving temporal order to it.<\/p>\n

Quite obviously it is only by faith in God\u2019s eschatological act that the believer sees that his existence must be understood in terms of the two ages, where being in Adam under the Law is always before being in Christ under the Gospel. Faith grasps the Gospel as God\u2019s \u201clast Word\u201d; thus it places Law before Gospel.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

For Forde the eschatological character of God\u2019s self-revelation provides a limit to the action of the Law in the world. The limit is theological. Therefore, it is an insight that can be reached only in faith. The limit is also temporal. Therefore, it is indicative of the eschatological discontinuity introduced by the cross. Since this eschatological approach is only known \u201cby faith,\u201d it should not have any of the systematic flaws that Forde identified in orthodoxy and Heilsgeschichte.<\/em><\/p>\n

At this point, Forde presented the theoretical possibility of a third use of the Law to evaluate its impact on Christian doctrine. A reintroduction of the Law at the point of the cross results in a blurring of the sharp division between the times and of the distinction between Law and Gospel. \u201cIt might be objected, however, that if one does grasp the eschatological dialectic of the ages and all that that means, then it is a relatively harmless thing to speak of another use of Law after<\/em> the\u00a0Gospel, perhaps a \u2018third use\u2019 of the Law.\u201d The problem here is that after the cross, Law would require such radical redefinition that it would no longer be recognizable as Law. Law might be understood as the \u201cadmonitions of the Gospel<\/em>,\u201d but Forde denies that there is anything gained by such language. The history of the third use of the Law, rooted as it is in the doctrine of the lex aeterna<\/em>, gives no hope for this kind of theological language to advance a Gospel-centered ethic. Such an approach would only \u201cimpose a new kind of legalism.\u201d<\/p>\n

The radical discontinuity between the old age and the new age makes even Paul Althaus\u2019s proposal of a third possibility beyond Law and Gospel untenable. Gebot<\/em> is a Trojan horse for the third use of the Law. Interestingly, Forde criticizes Althaus for the division of time into a threefold scheme\u2014before the fall, after the fall, and after conversion. \u201cAlthaus\u2019 scheme presupposes the believer\u2019s ability to place himself beyond the real threat of the Law\u00a0simply by disposing of it in a neat Urstand<\/em>, fall, and Endzeit<\/em> scheme.\u201d Forde thought that Althaus\u2019s scheme failed because it rendered the Law a harmless word from God. In other words, it entailed an implicit denial of the semper accusat<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In contrast to all attempts to rescue a \u201cthird use of the Law,\u201d there was no way to rescue the larger concept of the Law in the new age. \u201cIt seems quite evident, however, that once the eschatological character of revelation has been asserted, the Law which is now to be used in a \u2018third way\u2019 must be redefined so radically that it bears little or no relationship to the former uses whatsoever.\u201d Forde is quite correct in warning against a Law that has been redefined in this way because the redefinition is usually in terms of attributing Law concepts to the Gospel, resulting in Gospel as admonition or ethical instruction. According to Forde, the greater problem is that either any third use is so unlike the \u201cold uses\u201d that it ceases to be Law altogether, or it becomes a tertium quid<\/em>, as in\u00a0Althaus\u2019s approach, \u201cwhich is after all only the old way in disguise.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"bv24o\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The eschatological approach to the relationship between Law and Gospel precipitated a crisis for the doctrine of the Law. \u201cThe assertion of the eschatological character of revelation has created a crisis for the doctrine of the Law, a crisis so severe that one can perhaps speak even of a bankruptcy in the attitude of Protestantism toward the Law.\u201d Law, of whatever kind, has no place in the time created by the eschatological discontinuity of the cross.<\/p>\n

Forde proposes that the nature and function of the Law can be understood only in terms of the eschatological dialectic shaped by the intrusion of the cross. Forde gives the Law a purely functional definition.<\/p>\n

Law is a general term for the manner in which the will of God impinges upon man in the old age, both in nature and in the words of Scripture. It is the demand and the\u00a0judgment which confront him as a sinner. Even the words about the cross will initially be heard as demand, as a threat to his being. It is important to note here the Law is defined almost exclusively in terms of its function. Nature and function are taken together. The nature of the Law is that it terrifies.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In this view, the Law has no place in the age defined by the cross. The Law is relegated to the old age. Ultimately, Law is what terrifies and what terrifies is Law. \u201cNothing material<\/em> is said about the content<\/em> of Law as such; that, apparently, may depend upon concrete circumstances.\u201d The Gospel\u2019s task is to quiet the existential terror of the human heart. Here the Law can have no place. The eschatological dialectic governs the relationship between Law and Gospel.<\/p>\n

Because the Law is set in the old age with its unfaith, nothing certain can be said about its content. The Law is merely and entirely a\u00a0threat to being. Thus, the person does not know what a correct course of action would be in any given situation.The person only feels the unease caused by the threat of the Law. Even the Decalogue is only a proximate guide in any given situation.<\/p>\n

The Decalogue is the best statement of natural law. If man does not know the Law, he must be taught. But on this level, within the old age, it remains, it would seem, only a question of the relative appropriateness of a course of action in a given situation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Decalogue, then, is a general guide to action useful only in a situational context. This approach to the Decalogue is characteristic of existential ethics.<\/p>\n

Forde provided a clear summary of the battle between orthodoxy and Heilsgeschichte<\/em>. He is correct in seeing that the battle was ultimately being waged over the place of the Law in theology and its relationship to the\u00a0Gospel. Existentialism gave him the framework to criticize these historical approaches and to make suggestions about the place of the Law in Christian theology. Forde provides much to consider. Once again existentialism is as much an intellectual or systematic framework for thought as any framework provided by the orthodox or Hofmann. Forde distinguished his view of the death and resurrection of Christ from the point of view of Hofmann and the orthodox in such a way that he implied that his eschatological point of view was not fraught with the difficulties inherent in being a systematic theme. \u201cThere is no \u2018system\u2019 as such which can distinguish between the ages or can provide a continuous transition from this age to the next. Only the death and resurrection of Christ, the act of judgment and grace, is \u2018the way.\u2019 \u201d However, existentialism is as much a point of view as orthodoxy or Heilsgeschichte<\/em>. An existential approach to Christian theology is not value neutral.\u00a0Existentialism values being-in-existence over being-in-substance. Hence the static view of Law as lex aeterna<\/em> is immediately ruled out.<\/p>\n

While this is to be expected given Forde\u2019s existential presuppositions, there is something too neat about his bifurcation of time into \u201cbefore the cross\u201d and \u201cafter the cross.\u201d Certainly the cross is the source of eschatological discontinuity. The intrusion of the Gospel into the world has a radical effect upon the Law and its significance. In this sense the temporal order should be Law, then Gospel. Yet Forde has allowed his eschatological viewpoint to define how Law and Gospel relate to each other and how they function within Christian theology. Forde seems to have carried out a misordering of traditional Lutheran priorities, where Law and Gospel is the overarching theme that gives shape to the Lutheran theological enterprise. In Forde\u2019s approach, eschatology has become that overarching theme. Therefore, he has presented a\u00a0strictly temporal ordering of Law and Gospel.<\/p>\n

The temporally ordered eschatological approach is helpful. Yet if it excludes other legitimate emphases, it is pushed beyond its usefulness. Missing in Forde\u2019s eschatological perspective is the significance of the sinner\u2019s real, and even existential, situation as simul justus et peccator<\/em>. Forde\u2019s contention that the eschatological approach is thinking theologically about Law and Gospel is susceptible to the criticism that it is just thinking temporally, and not theologically at all. The temporal order of Law and then Gospel fails to take seriously the proleptic eschatological reality of the \u201cnow and not yet\u201d character of the Christian life. This is a clear theme in Scripture and gives us another dialectical tension with which to balance Forde\u2019s temporal \u201cbefore and after.\u201d Forde fails to account for the character of the Christian as simul<\/em>\u2014at the same time righteous and sinner. In this way he has ignored the\u00a0significance of the subject of Christian theology, the person. This is not to say that there are not times when in Christian theology the order is rightly Law then Gospel. Often in proclamation that is the order that must prevail. However, Christian \u201cbeing\u201d remains being in the simul<\/em>. Law and Gospel are both involved, but the question remains, How is the Law involved in this mode of being? The third use of the Law still emerges as the response to the dilemma, without denying the ever-present semper<\/em>, as a judgment against human unfaith.<\/p>\n

Forde uniquely avoids the confusion of Law and Gospel that seems characteristic of those who deny the third use of the Law. The sharp temporal distinction of his eschatological approach keeps him from heading down this road. In fact, he is critical of all attempts to reintroduce the Law after the cross or the Gospel. Forde struggles to resolve the problem of the relationship of Christian theology and ethics. He suggests that the\u00a0problem of the Christian life is one of ontological understanding. \u201cIn the church the believer comes to understand his existence in terms of two ontological determinations of his being, being \u2018in Adam\u2019 and being \u2018in Christ.\u2019\u201d How the \u201contological determinations\u201d relate to the existential character of being in faith, Forde does not say. In any case, given the existentialistic tenor of Forde\u2019s work, the introduction of an ontological category at this point is methodologically weak at best. The introduction of ontology here is even stranger since he has criticized the orthodox approach to the Law because of its static-ontological character. Because of this, it is quite uncertain what Forde means by \u201contological\u201d at this point. Ethics remains a groping enterprise, enlightened only by the existential situation. The third use of the Law, in whatever form, does not escape the criticism of the existential approach to Lutheran theology. Forde categorically denies the third use of the Law\u00a0any place in the Lutheran theology.<\/p>\n

SUMMARY ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION<\/h3>\n

The influence of existentialistic Luther scholarship and European theology shows in the work of the ELCA theologians during the period of 1961 to 1976. ELCA theologians still generally accepted the existential theological framework already in evidence in the previous period. As they applied it to their theology, they even suggested that existentialism was a neutral method, not carrying its own presuppositional freight. As was shown in the previous period, this approach has devastating effects on the third use of the Law because it calls into question the use and validity of the Law in the entire Christian theological endeavor.<\/p>\n

Murray, Scott R. (2001-10-01). Law, Life, and the Living God (Kindle Locations 2833-3017). Concordia Publishing House. Kindle Edition.\u00a0All emphases Murray.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

+SDG+<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Do you like what you read here? Does it pique your curiosity? Use the link above or click here to buy Dr. Murray\u2019s book. The more I delve into his research and footnotes, the more I am convinced that this is a very important bit of scholarship that we Lutherans would do well to study, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2182,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22,30],"tags":[105,119,195,207,236,16],"class_list":["post-1218","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog-posts","category-theology-proper","tag-existentialism","tag-gerhard-o-forde","tag-radical-lutheranism","tag-rev-dr-scott-murray","tag-the-law","tag-third-use-of-the-law"],"yoast_head":"\nGerhard Forde's view of the Law -- an excerpt from Law, Life, and the Living God, by Rev. Dr. Scott Murray<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Do you like what you read here? Does it pique your curiosity? Use the link above or click here to buy Dr. Murray's book. The more I delve into his\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/gerhard-fordes-view-of-the-law-an-excerpt-from-law-life-and-the-living-god-by-rev-dr-scott-murray\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gerhard Forde's view of the Law -- an excerpt from Law, Life, and the Living God, by Rev. Dr. Scott Murray\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Do you like what you read here? Does it pique your curiosity? Use the link above or click here to buy Dr. Murray's book. The more I delve into his\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/gerhard-fordes-view-of-the-law-an-excerpt-from-law-life-and-the-living-god-by-rev-dr-scott-murray\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Just and Sinner\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2014-09-06T16:21:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/wp.production.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/files\/2014\/07\/Murray-IN.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"trentdemarest\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"trentdemarest\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/gerhard-fordes-view-of-the-law-an-excerpt-from-law-life-and-the-living-god-by-rev-dr-scott-murray\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/gerhard-fordes-view-of-the-law-an-excerpt-from-law-life-and-the-living-god-by-rev-dr-scott-murray\/\",\"name\":\"Gerhard Forde's view of the Law -- an excerpt from Law, Life, and the Living God, by Rev. Dr. Scott Murray\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2014-09-06T16:21:50+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-06T16:21:50+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/#\/schema\/person\/8eed9563e96234ec03b8af5c442a5418\"},\"description\":\"Do you like what you read here? Does it pique your curiosity? Use the link above or click here to buy Dr. Murray's book. The more I delve into his\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/gerhard-fordes-view-of-the-law-an-excerpt-from-law-life-and-the-living-god-by-rev-dr-scott-murray\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/gerhard-fordes-view-of-the-law-an-excerpt-from-law-life-and-the-living-god-by-rev-dr-scott-murray\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/gerhard-fordes-view-of-the-law-an-excerpt-from-law-life-and-the-living-god-by-rev-dr-scott-murray\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gerhard Forde's view of the Law — an excerpt from Law, Life, and the Living God, by Rev. Dr. Scott Murray\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/\",\"name\":\"Just and Sinner\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/#\/schema\/person\/8eed9563e96234ec03b8af5c442a5418\",\"name\":\"trentdemarest\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/0aeb27dae98dae89da084f0433eeef28?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/0aeb27dae98dae89da084f0433eeef28?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"caption\":\"trentdemarest\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/author\/trentdemarest\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gerhard Forde's view of the Law -- an excerpt from Law, Life, and the Living God, by Rev. Dr. Scott Murray","description":"Do you like what you read here? Does it pique your curiosity? Use the link above or click here to buy Dr. Murray's book. The more I delve into his","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/gerhard-fordes-view-of-the-law-an-excerpt-from-law-life-and-the-living-god-by-rev-dr-scott-murray\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gerhard Forde's view of the Law -- an excerpt from Law, Life, and the Living God, by Rev. Dr. Scott Murray","og_description":"Do you like what you read here? Does it pique your curiosity? Use the link above or click here to buy Dr. Murray's book. The more I delve into his","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/gerhard-fordes-view-of-the-law-an-excerpt-from-law-life-and-the-living-god-by-rev-dr-scott-murray\/","og_site_name":"Just and Sinner","article_published_time":"2014-09-06T16:21:50+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/wp.production.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/files\/2014\/07\/Murray-IN.jpg"}],"author":"trentdemarest","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"trentdemarest","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/gerhard-fordes-view-of-the-law-an-excerpt-from-law-life-and-the-living-god-by-rev-dr-scott-murray\/","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/gerhard-fordes-view-of-the-law-an-excerpt-from-law-life-and-the-living-god-by-rev-dr-scott-murray\/","name":"Gerhard Forde's view of the Law -- an excerpt from Law, Life, and the Living God, by Rev. Dr. Scott Murray","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/#website"},"datePublished":"2014-09-06T16:21:50+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-06T16:21:50+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/#\/schema\/person\/8eed9563e96234ec03b8af5c442a5418"},"description":"Do you like what you read here? Does it pique your curiosity? Use the link above or click here to buy Dr. Murray's book. The more I delve into his","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/gerhard-fordes-view-of-the-law-an-excerpt-from-law-life-and-the-living-god-by-rev-dr-scott-murray\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/gerhard-fordes-view-of-the-law-an-excerpt-from-law-life-and-the-living-god-by-rev-dr-scott-murray\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/gerhard-fordes-view-of-the-law-an-excerpt-from-law-life-and-the-living-god-by-rev-dr-scott-murray\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gerhard Forde's view of the Law — an excerpt from Law, Life, and the Living God, by Rev. Dr. Scott Murray"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/","name":"Just and Sinner","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/#\/schema\/person\/8eed9563e96234ec03b8af5c442a5418","name":"trentdemarest","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/0aeb27dae98dae89da084f0433eeef28?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/0aeb27dae98dae89da084f0433eeef28?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","caption":"trentdemarest"},"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/author\/trentdemarest\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1218","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2182"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1218"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1218\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1218"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1218"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1218"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}