Who are the Lutheran “Pro-nomians” Demanding Purely External Compliance? Questions for Jack Kilcrease
By Nathan Rinne
In a short article titled “Is the Law Eternal?” from the 2019 Eastertide LOGIA, Jack Kilcrease tries to steer a middle ground between two camps: “The Radical Lutherans” and the “Pro-nomians”. Kilcrease’s article raises a number of questions that this response article will explore.[1]
To begin, Kilcrease provides us some background (note that he equates the “relationship with God’s will” with a relationship with God Himself):
“…although the content of God’s will is unchanging, its relationship to human beings most certainly does change. Whereas the eternal divine will was only potentially threatening and condemning before the Fall, it becomes fully actualized as judgment as a result of the first sin. The Erlangen Luther scholar Theodosius Harnack famously explicated Luther’s thought on this postlapsarian change by distinguishing between the law’s ‘essence’ (Wesen) and ‘office’ (Amt). According to its essence, the law is God’s eternal will. However, regarding its postlapsarian [or post-Fall] office, the law serves the purpose of condemning sinners” (63-64).[2]
The Radical Lutherans, represented by men like the late Gerhard Forde and his disciple Steven Paulson, certainly emphasize this core purpose of the law (see Romans 3:19). They argue, Killcrease tells us, “that the law is not eternal and that there is no third use of the law”. In fact, “conscience, nature, and… the unpleasant vicissitudes of fallen human existence (death, natural disasters, etc.)” “exhaustively define the law”. Furthermore, “[t]he law is defined not as a set of commandments that God wills, but more properly of God’s judgment of his creatures.” Perhaps one might think of the late Edward Schroeder, heavy promoter of the late Erlangen theologian Werner Elert, telling J.A.O. Preus that God’s “immutable will” really had to do with “God’s activity of judging and sentencing sinners that goes on and on,” and not the idea that “God’s rules and activities never change…”
Kilcrease argues that, from his perspective, Radical Lutherans believe the accusation of the law ceases not because “God stops willing the commandments,” or because “[He does not want to] hold humans in line through the commandments” but because “God’s judging and accusing activity ceases.” Since it ceases to accuse and attack the believer, the law “isn’t really law anymore” so the law is only not eternal in this sense, at least for the redeemed (for the unbeliever, the wrath of God eternally remains). It also appears that he essentially says that Radical Lutherans truly believe and affirm that those Christians who refuse to live according to the pattern of life laid out by the doctrine formerly understood as the law – meaning they “embrace moral license” – will cease to be Christians. He also points out some of the weaknesses of this position, the main one being that it “collapses the reality of the law into something purely existential”.
Kilcrease next describes the other side of the debate as the “Pro-nomians”, meaning men who deny that God “justifies and sanctifies the human subject [when the gospel arrives]!” (do they not believe in baptismal regeneration?). He further states that these men “tend not to have much of a sense of the connection between justification and sanctification,” thinking that justification by itself “will not really produce spiritual fruit.” With them, the minister of the word needs to “activate sanctification by prodding believers with the third use of the law”. He further explains that the Pro-nomians believe that since the law of God is eternal it remains a “task for believers even into all eternity,” which eliminates the concept of the “empty law” that the Radical Lutherans offer. After all, they believe “the eternity of the law and the character of the law as an external command are correlative concepts.”
And who are these men? Interestingly, while the representatives of the Radical Lutherans are widely known, Kilcrease provides no examples of any Pro-nomians. In any case, one of the more interesting things about Kilcrease’s article is the following statement about why the Pro-nomians so badly misinterpret the Radical Lutherans: “If the law is defined purely as a set of commandments that demand external compliance, then eternal law means an eternal demand for external compliance” (64). This, to say the least, appears to be an extremely important and even surprising claim.
How to respond? First of all, like the Pro-nomians he speaks of, Kilcrease voices support for the law’s third use, defining it as: “the means by which the believer disciplines his unregenerate flesh”[3] (“sanctified Christians are still capable of recognizing the law of God and disciplining their evil impulses”). “[Only] to the extent that the believer is sanctified, [does] the law cease[] to function in its temporal office as external demand.” With the Radical Lutherans, Kilcrease appears keen to emphasize that insofar as we are sinners in this life, the law will always continue to threaten and accuse us, not becoming “empty” in its threat until the life to come. He illustrates this by saying “although ‘Thou shalt not murder’ will never cease to be the will of God for all eternity, it will not function as a demand or task to fulfill for the blessed” (64).
This raises an important question though: What of Luther's explanation of the first commandment as requiring us to fear, love, and trust in God? How could that possibly fit with the idea that the law is “purely… a set of commandments that demand external compliance”? Fellow supporter of the law’s third use, Mark Surburg, also writing at LOGIA, gives us much to ponder here regarding the fulfillment of the law in this way:
“Formula of Concord VI[, on the third use of the law,] does not explain in any detail what this ‘delight’ [in the law of God] entails. Psalm 119 cited in SD VI, 4 and Luther’s comment in the Large Catechism provides some direction. It seems safe to say that it includes two aspects at the same time. On the one hand, it describes the orientation of the inner man (new man) towards God’s will that existed before the Fall. The inner man delights in the goodness of God’s ordering of his creation. It is God’s definition of what love looks like and it is fulfilled by love (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14). This delight of the inner man is the opposite of the old Adam’s orientation toward sin that rejects God’s will.”[4]
I also appreciate Pastor Surburg’s point, not covered in Kilcrease’s article, about “the goodness of God’s ordering of his creation” and how this is the “definition of what love looks like and is fulfilled by love.” Paul’s language might rub us the wrong way, but it is for good reason he speaks of the “natural use” or “function” of men and women, for example. Even such “engineering” is rooted in love! Surely, even if this “eternity of the law” is not the focus of FC VI (64), there is much joy to be gained from reflecting on the Creator’s and creation’s goodness. The law need not vex the regenerate with its coercion indeed! It really is God’s eternal will we were created to walk in for our good and His glory! Let the redeemed in the Lord say so!
Surburg, then, certainly does not seem to be Kilcrease’s Pro-nomian. But who does? After all, if any purported Pro-nomian wants to remain a Christian he better make sure he believes that the Law requires perfect love, fear, and trust in God, right? So where does this idea that an eternal law means an eternal demand for external compliance come from? Interestingly, such a description appears to describe the views of the late Werner Elert, mentioned earlier, to a T! Significantly, Elert stated the limitations of the law in this way:
“Against… forces of evil, according to Romans 13, God has established the order of the state which holds them in check, even by use of force, and as God’s agent administers a law of retribution. What this achieves, however, is that the nomological order of the world is preserved only externally; and that is its third limitation. Against internal lawbreaking, which can be camouflaged by externally good behavior, the entire nomological order is unable to provide any defense.” (Law and Gospel, 1967, 14-15).
Speaking elsewhere, Elert goes so far to say that “[a]ccording to the Law the hope for reward and the fear of punishment are legitimate motives for the keeping of it”! Is this related to Kilcrease’s own definition of the law, relayed elsewhere?: “The essence of the law is the logic of reward and punishment based on obedience to God.” Whatever might be the case, one wonders why the Formula’s and Theodosius Harnack’s assertions that the law’s essence is God’s eternal will (love and truth) have seemingly been abandoned. Is the law the law because of what it is or because of what it does?[5] On the contrary, contra any such understandings, Lutherans assert that the law really is an unchanging or eternal standard. None of this is to say that it “has the last word”, but it is always the context in which the “last word” or Gospel occurs!
Passing over Kilcrease’s own apparently “existential” definition, what of Elert’s own statement? Is it in any sense true, “legitimate”? Yes, the terror of the Lord is primarily the beginning of wisdom for the unbeliever, the natural man. At the same time, having fear – even terror of God – is also important for each one of us insofar as we remain sinners. That said, God ultimately desires that we be driven not by a “servile fear” but rather be compelled by fear in the sense of respect, reverence, etc. – as this is, of course, a part of love. In sum then, the concrete Christian (who is made up of both sinner and saint this side of heaven) should indeed be distraught, saddened, and even mortified that he continues to need God’s threats – meant to terrify him – instead of basically just needing His Gospel (along with His patient and gentle discipline and guidance!).
And yet, at the same time, note here that it might seem like Elert – perhaps in his own interest to have the law of God prominent in the context of the overall civil sphere – leaves the impression in this statement that he simply does not understand one of the core purposes of God's law! (one wonders the same thing when reading from him that those who crucified Jesus were following the law[6]). After all, doesn’t using the law to convict of sin necessarily entail not only talking about sins that “hit home with” and are relevant to the one being preached to, but also speak to a very real lack of filial fear, love, and trust in God? Doesn't the Formula of Concord rightly imply that good works done purely out of a hope for reward or the fear of punishment are not truly good works at all?!
Again, is a view like this where Kilcrease gets the idea that the “Pro-nomians” see the law purely in terms of external compliance? Are they in fact those like Werner Elert, who, while denying the law’s third use, nevertheless overemphasize the first use (which is indeed all about external coercion and compliance)? After all, even as Kilcrease states that the Pro-nomians utilize the third use of the law, he also, seemingly unknowingly (he says “the preaching of the law is only aimed at our old nature” and “even in this life the third use of the law is not for our renewed nature”, 64), implies they actually deny it since FC VI says the third use of the law speaks to the renewed man (“the Holy Spirit employs the law to teach the regenerate from it”), not the unregenerate man who, in line with external compliance, operates “from fear of punishment or desire for reward” (FC VI:16). Perhaps it would be helpful if Kilcrease could give some concrete examples of where one might find these “Pro-nomians” he describes!
What is going on here? Perhaps this: one might notice that those who tend to speak in favor of the third use of the law the most vigorously also tend to be those more concerned about the first use of the law in an ecclesiological context, that is, as it pertains to the matter of church discipline. Perhaps that is why Kilcrease is seeing things the way that he does here, channeling the apparently law-appreciating side of Werner Elert. After all, in like fashion, church discipline will inevitably address matters of public words and deeds, and will respond in turn with real action (in a sense with soft force or power, in the service of saving the soul of the church member).
So is Werner Elert, who denied the third use of the law even as he rather vigorously upheld the first use, (both tables, in the civil government!) in a sense Jack Kilcrease’s prototypical Pro-nomian? If so, that means Kilcrease would, contrary to what one might expect, really be trying to steer a middle ground between two camps that actually seem quite related and which both have a tendency to “existentialize”. In other words, his dialectic actually excludes completely a certain group of people – namely, those who quite vigorously uphold and the third use of the law. Even if his article gives the impression that he is representing and exploring two contemporary camps, this is finally not really the case!
But that must not be permitted to stand! For the third use of the law is, finally, something that Christians must do in the power of the Holy Spirit, exhorting and encouraging one another to do God’ law (see Ep. VI in FC)! And understanding it rightly will also require some account of the inner man’s increasingly coming to understand the Word of God as a whole. Why? Because FC VI is clearly about learning, but not about the old man “learning how to die”, or something like this. And also, critically, because of the Scriptural testimony that the Lord Jesus Himself grew in wisdom.
This question of increasing maturity is important because we note that the Formula says not that “[i]nsofar as we are renewed, believers perfectly follow the will of God” (64, italics mine) but that if we were completely renewed we would cease to need the law’s instruction. After all, even our Lord Jesus was “perfected” or “completed” through His earthly experiences – and He never needed to be renewed in the first place! Exploring and discussing these points in more detail might go some way in alleviating Kilcrease’s stated main concern about any “Pro-nomian” position: that it, in his view, fails to adequately take account of the “simul of Christian existence,” i e. the concern of FC VI that in this life we remain both saints and sinners (note also, that in dealing with Elert’s statements above, this issue of the simul was addressed).
Finally, Kilcrease suggests that the debate about the eternality of the law is “one of the more obscure to laypeople,” but are Radical Lutheran’s objections to the law's eternality (and the third use), for example, really easier to understand? Matthew Garnett, who formerly hosted the podcast program “In Layman’s Terms,” shows us the great relevance of the debate with this simple question: “I'm hard pressed to find a passage of Scripture or anything in our Confessions where the knowledge/ information concerning the Law is downloaded to us in our baptism. Don't we still need to learn God's law?” “True indeed!” says this Pro-nomian sympathizer (re-defined a bit, taking into account the considerations above), attempting indeed to “take seriously the need for ministers of the word to offer instruction in the law” (64). Kilcrease acknowledges as well that the law can “instruct… the regenerate in the will of God (third use)” (65). May Christ guide His church!
[1] This issue of LOGIA can be downloaded in full here: https://ep.teologi.dk/Tidsskrifter/Logia/Vol-28-2.pdf
[2] For more details on this, see the author’s 2018 CTQ article, “Paradise Regained: Placing Nicholas Hopman's Lex Aeterna Back in Luther's Frame”.
[3] Is what he says here sound and in line with FC VI (see in particular the beginning of the Epitome VI)? Is the adjective “unregenerate” used because Kilctease is using flesh here to signify “body”? Is he just being redundant in an attempt to emphasize that flesh indicates sinful nature? Usually the word "unregenerate" refers to someone, a person, who has not been regenerated or converted. This is the way that FC VI uses the term as well (and when it uses the term “unregenerate”, only once, it only speaks of “regenerate and unregenerate men”) Kilcrease’s formulations are sometimes quite unusual and confusing. For example, he also tries to uphold male headship in part by teaching that God the Father's eternal begetting of the Son counts as some kind of “surrender”!
[4] Mark Surburg, “Speaking like Paul and Luther: Pauline Exhortation and the Third Use of the Law” Logia: A Journal of Lutheran Theology 27 (2018): 15-25, 23.
[5] Lutheran pastor and well-known defender of the third use of the law Scott Murray is undoubtedly concerned about the law being “a fixed rule”. At the same time, the issue for him is definitely not in any sense the way the law is to be used by human beings, but also, like Kilcrease, what the law does. So Murray contends that “‘use’ means reception. Its function revolves around how it is received, not how it is preached or ‘used.’”
But if we focus on what the Law does [in us] and start thinking this is primarily how it should be understood and even defined, how will we not – increasingly focused and curved in on ourselves in this way – not see it as that which only brings wrath and coerces us?
[6] From part 2 here: “Attempting… to illustrate that law and promise are ‘irreconcilably opposed to one another,’ [Elert] claims in his Law and Gospel volume that Jesus’ accusers and judges were those ‘faithful to the law’ and commit ‘a lawful action’. This illustrates most fully the curse of ‘nomological’, that is ‘lawful existence’ that only the cross can reveal… the law itself strikes Jesus down. It, also, we are told, ‘obscures the promise, conflicts with it, and prevents man from believing it’ and ‘seduces man to take cover behind it’. Finally, it is ‘in irreconcilable opposition to the forgiveness of Christ,’ and demands retribution. The law of God is oppression and wrath, and seemingly little else…”
Nathan Rinne is a former Concordia St. Paul librarian and adjunct professor of theology. He is currently working in the truck driving industry.