Couple of nice features of Paulson contra Forde. Paulson is know for being a Forde disciple par excellence and therefore I think it's important to recognize that he is his own man theologically. Mostly the structure of Forde's interpretation of the dialectic of hidden and revealed in Luther remains, though Forde was right about all that. There are some interesting deviations from Forde later.
First, Paulson definitely does accept substitutionary atonement. Much like Elert, he is able to coordinate Christ's death for sinners with their own death with Christ very well. Forde reduced everything to existential change in the sinner through the existential gesture of the cross which leads to death-and-resurrection in faith. One could argue, I think, that someone like Melanchthon and other Reformed folks basically reduce things to Christ dying for us, and then make our death in Baptism with Christ a metaphor for moral improvement.
Secondly, Paulson accept lex aeterna or eternal law. Forde rejected this because he said that Luther stated (as he does) that the law ceases to accuse and demand once we are in heaven and the law is fulfilled. This is true, but it doesn't mean that the law isn't the eternal content of God's will. Again, Forde existentializes law to mean something that really corresponds to an experience which will at some point cease. Hence law cannot be eternal because the experience which law corresponds to is not eternal.
Paulson follows Luther and puts it well: "Of course the law is eternal. It is either eternally before the sinner [i.e., in hell] or it is eternally behind the redeemed in Christ, for whom the law has been fulfilled."
In other words, Paulson is able to accept the law is a real thing within God's eternal will, while at the same time recognizing that the law ceases as a threat and demand when it has been fulfilled. Hence, the Fordian over-existentializing tendency is overcome beautifully, while accepting the better aspects of the insight.