Only. . .

Catching up on a few things, I ran across this statement by an ELCA pastor:

Do you really, actually believe that the Holy Spirit speaks only through the words of scripture? Our Bible, which we didn't have for a couple of centuries. And those words interpreted your way?  What a small, limited God you have! 

It is a statement that perfectly contrasts the difference between the Missouri Synod and the ELCA.  It is not about sex or gender or women's ordination or ecumenical relationships or communion fellowship or climate change as a category of the Gospel or any one issue.  It is about the Word of God.  Oddly enough, it is a statement that accords quite well with the Roman Catholic understanding of the Church that forms the Scriptures and therefore is above them -- free, it would seem, to change its mind about what that Word says.  Furthermore, it vitiates against the idea of a catholic and apostolic tradition.  Nothing, it would seem, is forever.  Not even the Word of God (despite what it says!).

Of course, the LCMS would say that the Holy Spirit speaks through other means but none of these has the authority of Scripture.  What the commenter fails to appreciate is that the Spirit speaking through the Word of God norms all of those other means.  It norms, for example, the creeds and not the other way around.  What the Holy Spirit says does not contradict what the Holy Spirit has said.  Scripture interprets Scripture is another way of saying the Holy Spirit defines what He says.  It norms what the Church has said and taught in church council or doctrinal statements.  These do not have authority over the Word but apply the Word to the issue at hand.  Of course, this develops over time as iron sharpens iron and the Church is forced by conflict or controversy to sharpen its understanding and confession of what it is that Scripture says.  In no way, however, does the position of the Church inform the Scriptures.  Without this, there would be no catholic tradition at all but merely a snapshot in time of what the Church thought then -- as if that has no meaning or bearing on what the Church thinks today.

Second is the continuation of the old fallacy that there was no New Testament until the time of Constantine.  It is a fascination of the liberal and progressive movement which delights in promoting the myth that the Bible did not exist until the Church (under Constantine's prodding) decided it existed.  The Old Testament was present for centuries upon centuries and had a long and credible history which the New Testament and the voice of Jesus Himself affirms.  The New Testament was begun within a generation or so after the death and resurrection of Jesus.  It speaks dogmatically.  It does not ask for someone's agreement but insists that this is the truth once delivered to the saints by the voice of Christ Himself.  Before the end of the first century, the Scriptures existed in total even though the actual collections of those books may have varied from place to place.  There was no conflict over the Gospels but there was over one or two book not universally known.  The early church fathers speak of Scripture in referring to the New Testament long before the time of Constantine and the so-called third century appearing of the Bible.  Of course things changed when Christianity was legal and when the Emperor also was baptized but the Word of God did not change.

Third is the presumption that even if the words are the same their meaning changes.  So what meant one thing to one generation or moment in history meant something completely different to another.  By the way, this comment was made in reference to the ordination of women.  So the Church is free to change what had been the order and practice and theology of the Church from the beginning once culture changes.  This effectively makes the Scriptures subject to the times and the interpretation of the times and the will of the people at one point in time.  There is no yesterday, today, and forever the same nor can there be -- except in very limited way to the particulars of the act of Christ for our salvation (and even here there is disagreement as to what applies to this salvation history).  Again, there can be no catholic and apostolic tradition whatsoever when this filter is applied to the Word of God.  Who knows what will be taught and what will be believed in the future if the words of the Word of God can mean different things to different people or different ages.

Finally, far from making God limited or smaller, this is God acting to bind unto Himself to His Word that endures forever because of the changes and chances of this mortal life, of culture and society, of taste, whim, and preference.  We do not bind Him but He has bound Himself to His Word for us and for our benefit and so that we would know and count upon His mercy and grace without doubt or uncertainty in every age and time.  We are not putting God in a box but He has graciously bound Himself to His Word for our sake and for the sake of those who went before us and those who come after us.

This is what the difference between the Missouri Synod and the ELCA is all about.  From this difference flow the differences over sex or gender or women's ordination or ecumenical relationships or communion fellowship or climate change as a category of the Gospel or any one issue.  It was and has always been about the Word of God.  Thankfully, here is a comment that admits just that!