The ELCA and the Bible

[KagomeShuko]

How do you other ELCA members feel about how the ELCA treats the Bible.

I call the Bible God's [inspired] Word. I go to the Bible first for any issue to see what is says - then I may go to the Book of Concord to see what is says about such things.

I've found that when I've met ELCA members or been at ELCA gathering, the Bible is held as the highest authority and with total respect.

I have no problems with the Historical-Critical method. I think there's more than simply "we're reading somebody else's mail," but it matters lots about what other things are in the Bible as well when compared to letters that say, "to the church in. . ."

Anyway, I wanted to find out how the rest of you felt about this issue.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Lutherrunner]

nevermind.....I don't feel like putting up with the wrath......

[soccerguy2594]

Bridget,

Could you explain more about how you are referring to the Historical-Critical method? What are you trying to get at?

[KagomeShuko]

How I am refering to it? Simply as it is that we look at the writings when they were writtenand for who they were written. . .how is there any other refering to it other that what it is?

[AngelusSax]

I personally treat it as a Jesus book. It is God's inspired message of Christ, written by many different human authors over time to get a more complete picture of Christ. It is a Jesus book and I am a Jesus person.

Is the Bible laying on my desk the Inspired Word of God? No. When I open, read, and learn, is it the Inspired Word of God? Yes. The Word is active, not inactive.

[filosofer]

How I am refering to it? Simply as it is that we look at the writings when they were writtenand for who they were written. . .how is there any other refering to it other that what it is?


Only what you have described is not the Historical Critical Method(s). What you describe is associated wih the Historical Grammatical Method.

In Christ's love,
filo

[Willy]

One can tell if the Bible is important to a community of faith if it is read and preached upon and studied. Unfortunately, people get into arguments about the "nature" of the Bible, (Is it inspired, inerrant, etc..), rather than whether it is used. For us ELCA Lutherans, the Bible is living word. It is not some dead word that confines itself simply to its words. The word became flesh and lived among us. The word didn't become a book. But you and I encounter the living word through the written word. Therefore, we read it, preach it, and study it. I find most ELCA churches doing this. We have a very high view of the Bible!

[KagomeShuko]

I do agree with that, Willy!

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[soccerguy2594]

I personally treat it as a Jesus book. It is God's inspired message of Christ, written by many different human authors over time to get a more complete picture of Christ.

I honestly don't think the people who wrote the ancient Hebrew texts were trying to get a more complete picture of Jesus.

I know what you are trying to say. I agree that the Bible is the "Cradle for Christ" (rough quote of Luther). That is the emphasis of the Lutheran church (and I'm sure other denominations). We read the Bible through a Christo-centric lens. Everything we read in the Bible has to pass through the test of what our larger picture of who Jesus was (through all his teachings in scripture and the texts that talk about him).

The is similar to how the ELCA reads the Book of Concord. We accept the Book of Concord in as much as it agrees with the Bible. The LCMS accepts the Book of Concord because it agrees with the Bible. (interesting nuance on ELCA's part and elevation of the Book of Concord to the level of Scripture by the LCMS).

[AngelusSax]

I honestly don't think the people who wrote the ancient Hebrew texts were trying to get a more complete picture of Jesus.

I agree. I just think that sometimes they were writing about that even if they didn't know it. Sometimes, anyway.

[KagomeShuko]

Soccer, I do agree with that. I always feel that the ELCA statement about the BOC is the correct one - in as much as.

The LCMS, as their statement goes, seems to hold the BOC to a much higher standard - even though the members will say it is not true, it seems equal to the Bible, if not even more authoritative than the Bible at times.

I've had times when met with scripture, the refute doesn't come back from scripture, but from the book of concord. I find that kind of disheartening.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[AngelusSax]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to KagomeShuko again.

:thumbsup:

[saami]

Soccer, I do agree with that. I always feel that the ELCA statement about the BOC is the correct one - in as much as.

The LCMS, as their statement goes, seems to hold the BOC to a much higher standard - even though the members will say it is not true, it seems equal to the Bible, if not even more authoritative than the Bible at times.

I've had times when met with scripture, the refute doesn't come back from scripture, but from the book of concord. I find that kind of disheartening.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

We do have a HIGH view of the Bible - and consider it INSPIRED. And because we hold it in such high regard, and in keeping with the authority of Scripture for faith and doctrines (2 Timothy 3:16) we do not add to it the unscriptural adjectives of INFALLIBLE or INERRANT. It neither needs this defense, nor makes that claim for itself. In fact in 1 Con 7:10 Paul seems to say that what he has been saying is not Word of God, but the command following is, then returns to his own words in verse 12. This seems to indicate that the Bible contains the Word of God, but is not totally the Word of God, which would be Jesus Christ. So the low and high view mixed as Luther's "cradle" image.

[soccerguy2594]

I agree. I just think that sometimes they were writing about that even if they didn't know it. Sometimes, anyway.

I think all Christians would believe that the ancient writers were writing about Christ without knowing it. However, that's because we are Christian. if we didn't we would be like Marcion.