Lutheran Interpretations

[Willtor]

I'm somewhat ashamed to say I'm not well read in the areas of the Reformation and Post-Reformation. I have heard (and rmwilliamsll has also stated) that Luther rejected the figurative interpretation of Creation in favor of a literal reading. I have read Barth and Bonhoeffer (strictly 20th century), and both appear to take it in the figurative sense (though, I don't know whether they thought Adam was an historical person).

What (if anything) is common among the clergy and theologically-inclined in the Lutheran Church, today? If it is a figurative reading of Creation, who, and for what reasons, were the primary motivators that led to this? What are some good resources?

On a related matter, what about others in the Reformation and Post-Reformation eras?

 

[jereth]

I'll share my understanding, though I am by no means a Reformation expert either.

One of the key movements of the Reformation was a shift from an allegorical interpretation of Scripture (typical of the mediaeval church) to a literal interpretation. The principle of allegorical interpretation holds that the meaning of Scripture is not to be found in the authors intention, whereas the principle of literal interpretation is that the meaning of Scripture is found in the author's intention.

For example, Song of Songs:
Allegorical reading: love between husband and wife = love between God and Church
Literal reading: love between husband and wife = love between husband and wife

Isaiah 13-14:
Allegorical reading: Fall of Babylon = Fall of Lucifer
Literal reading: Fall of Babylon = Fall of Babylon


This was a correct paradigm shift, because mediaeval Catholicism was dead wrong to read the Scriptures allegorically. The problem is that the Reformers went too far and interpreted certain passages literalistically even where these passages were originally intended to be figurative.

For example: the book of Revelation was interpreted literalistically by most of the Reformers, with the result that they believed the symbols of the beast stood for a literal world ruler (i.e. the papacy). But actually, John intentionally wrote Revelation as a book of figures and symbols.

Similarly, many of the Reformers (including Luther and Calvin) adopted literalistic interpretations of Genesis 1 because they failed to realise that Genesis 1 was intentionally written by its author as a figurative/symbolic passage. This is the same mistake made by YECists today, but for the Reformers it was an over-reaction to mediaeval exegesis.

 

[BalaamsAss51]

Hello Willtor.

First, if you want learn about Lutheranism, go into the Congregation section of CF and enter Theologia Crusis - Lutheran section and ask you questions there.

Another poster said "many of the Reformers ,,,adopted literalistic interpretations of Genesis 1 because they failed to realise that Genesis 1 was intentionally written by its author as a figurative/symbolic passage."

This is ridiculous. God did not have His Word written down according to modern historical-critical foolishness.

Pax

 

[PaladinValer]

God (the Father) didn't write anything; He has no hands.

In addition, the Word isn't the Bible; it is Jesus. Are you saying that you worship a dumb and difficult book?

Lastly, the Bible literally says that the earth is a flat circle with sheol literally underneath the ground and heaven literally above us beyond the sky. Do you agree with this false cosmology simply because the Bible says it is so?

 

[Willtor]

Hello Willtor.

First, if you want learn about Lutheranism, go into the Congregation section of CF and enter Theologia Crusis - Lutheran section and ask you questions there.

Another poster said "many of the Reformers ,,,adopted literalistic interpretations of Genesis 1 because they failed to realise that Genesis 1 was intentionally written by its author as a figurative/symbolic passage."

This is ridiculous. God did not have His Word written down according to modern historical-critical foolishness.

Pax

Look, you're entitled to your position. But I'm really more interested in a history of the theology than I am with the arguments for or against. There are a million threads for that. Again, Luther treated Genesis literally. Fast forward to the 20th century and you have, as I've said, Barth and Bonhoeffer (Lutheran theologians) who treat it figuratively. I'd like to know if they are indicative of 20th century Lutheran theologians, and (if so) where the switch back to the older type of interpretation came in.

I'm not going to cross-post to the Lutheran forums because cross-posting always feels like spamming, to me.

 

[PaladinValer]

Well, to answer the OP's question:

More Apostolic Lutherans (like the Swedish Lutherans as well as the ELCA) tend to not adhere to Sola Scriptura as much as the more Protestant-ish Lutherans (WELS and LCMS) do. As such, they are open to more metaphorical/symbolic interpretations in areas that really deal more with secular knowledge and not theology.

 

[Willtor]

Well, to answer the OP's question:

More Apostolic Lutherans (like the Swedish Lutherans as well as the ELCA) tend to not adhere to Sola Scriptura as much as the more Protestant-ish Lutherans (WELS and LCMS) do. As such, they are open to more metaphorical/symbolic interpretations in areas that really deal more with secular knowledge and not theology.

Oh, man. I'm way behind. I didn't even know there were Lutherans who didn't adhere to Sola Scriptura. Thanks.

 

[PaladinValer]

I didn't say they didn't adhere to Sola Scriptura. I said that they don't hold to it to the point of literalism.

 

[Willtor]

I didn't say they didn't adhere to Sola Scriptura. I said that they don't hold to it to the point of literalism.

I see. I assume this gets into the distinction between infallible in matters of faith and inerrant in everything?

 

[PaladinValer]

Exactly ELCA officially adheres to Sola Scriptura, but not literal inerrancy. LCMS and WELS, on the other hand, object.

 

[Battie]

Exactly ELCA officially adheres to Sola Scriptura, but not literal inerrancy. LCMS and WELS, on the other hand, object.

Yeah, I was rather surprised to learn some time ago that the official stance of the LCMS, of which I'm a member by comfirmation (though I feel a bit more comfortable in the ELCA church for a multitude of reasons </tangent>), is YEC. I knew that individual members might be vocal one way or another, but for some reason I didn't think that the church would take such a firm stance on a controversial topic like that. On further consideration, though, I ought to have known better.

 

[stumpjumper]

Oh, man. I'm way behind. I didn't even know there were Lutherans who didn't adhere to Sola Scriptura. Thanks.

ELCA Lutherans tend to adhere in a quatonias method... In so far as it is in agreement with the Gospel which is found in scripture but which is not the sum of scripture...

We understand that when Luther said "My mind is held captive by the Word of God" that he was not referencing all scripture as the Word of God.... But we're called liberal even tho we're not neccesarily...

 

[Willtor]

I googled, "quatonias method," and it gave me zero results. Could you tell me about this? Or is this what the rest of your text described?

 

[DailyBlessings]

On an individual level, the divisions in the Lutheran denomination are more like trends than rules; I've been a part of ELCA and LCMS churches, and found a diverse spread of beliefs about literalism and creation in both. ELCA is generally more liberal, but comes down to the congregation.

 

[stumpjumper]

I googled, "quatonias method," and it gave me zero results. Could you tell me about this? Or is this what the rest of your text described?

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...

 

[rmwilliamsll]

snip

Fast forward to the 20th century and you have, as I've said, Barth and Bonhoeffer (Lutheran theologians) who treat it figuratively. I'd like to know if they are indicative of 20th century Lutheran theologians, and (if so) where the switch back to the older type of interpretation came in.

snip

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.

 

[stumpjumper]

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

I don't know if I would go that far though... I've read a couple of Barth's books, God Here and Now ( a collection of essays), and The Doctrine of Reconciliation (a part of his Dogmatics series) and they were pretty much in line with a lot of Lutheran soteriology and theology.

He was not Lutheran technically but his Confessing Church was also not strictly Reformed either... He seems to be kind of in the middle between theologians like Sproul and Lutherans...

His view of God's Word is almost identical to Luther's...

 

[rmwilliamsll]

His view of God's Word is almost identical to Luthers...


sh, quiet, you will wake up the Lutherans making a statement like this. *grin*

You will get a clear distinction between liberal and conservative answering this thought.

 

[stumpjumper]

sh, quiet, you will wake up the Lutherans making a statement like this. *grin*

You will get a clear distinction between liberal and conservative answering this thought.

Hee hee...

I love reading Barth as he's neither liberal nor conservative and my view fits right in with his... I always found categories to be limiting as did the neo-Orthodox...

 

[JohnR7]

Luther rejected the figurative interpretation of Creation in favor of a literal reading.

Do you mean the Luther that use to like to talk about his dreams, or the one that nailed his term paper on the professors door?