Why the Historical-Critical Method of Interpreting Scripture is Incompatible with Confessional Lutheranism

Abstract

John F. Brug’s essay critiques the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, arguing that it is incompatible with confessional Lutheranism and undermines the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. He contrasts this method with the grammatical-historical approach, which treats Scripture as divinely inspired and authoritative. Brug outlines key differences, showing how the historical-critical method subjects Scripture to human judgment, denies its unity, and rejects its historical claims and moral teachings. He illustrates the method’s impact on American Lutheranism, particularly in the ELCA, where it has led to doctrinal relativism, acceptance of evolution, and reinterpretation of biblical teachings on justification, gender roles, and morality. Brug warns that this method erodes confidence in Scripture and shifts doctrinal authority from God’s Word to human reason. He concludes with a call to remain faithful to the inerrant Word of God and to reject methods that compromise its truth. Abstract prepared by Microsoft Copilot (GPT-4).