Lutheran Interpretations

Luther Luther. Not MLK. MLK was Baptist.

stumpjumper said:

http://www.elca.org/questions/Results.asp?recid=16

The above link should help understand ELCA's approach to the Bible. ELCA Lutherans, essentially, find the Word of God in the Bible but do not equate the Bible with the Word of God as fundamentalists do...

Acording to Luther: "the Bible is the manger in which the Word of God was laid"... So, in so far as, the Bible speaks about the Gospel then it is inerrant...

Click to expand...

This is really helpful. Thanks.

rmwilliamsll said:

First, factual errors, Barth is Reformed not Lutheran. Bonhoeffer is German Evangelical which was mostly Lutheran, but he certainly was much more Reformed than most German Lutherans would be comfortable with, and was criticized for it.

Second, Barth is certainly the best theologian in the neo-orthodox camp. Bonhoeffer was neo-orthodox as well but since he died so young, and without writing a lot of doctrinal theology (his writing was practical) it doesn't seem to matter much. But with Barth certainly the neo-orthodoxy, what he was revolting against and where he went with it controls his theology.

But in any case, Barth is the wrong place to be looking for insights into Lutheran theology.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know that Barth is atypical, in many ways, and that he is his own branch of neo-orthodox that Bonhoeffer followed. I didn't realize that he was Reformed, though. I was mistaken because of his involvement in the formation of the confessing Church and writing of the Barmen declaration. Also, his association with Bonhoeffer, and his many references to Luther in "Dogmatics in Outline." I did, however, know that Torrance was one of his students, and Torrance is from the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian).

But, in thinking that he was Lutheran, I didn't know if his views of Genesis (and I suppose the Bible in general) were typical.

At any rate, the link really helped, at least as far as ELCA.