LCMS kerfuffle

[Dave Benke]

I honestly don't understand how that could be said.  Other than if what you are saying is YEC is an anachronistic "theory" pushed back in time to the Brief Statement era.  The statement affirms "in six days".  It then denies evolution and immense periods of time.  And then it ties those statements to both the scriptural account and the confessions/small catechism holding that this is what they teach.  What the brief statement exactly does is say there is certainty on this based on the scriptural witness, and we are just making clear what others have tried to obfuscate. [emphasis added]

No, it does not. See my earlier post as well as the Yak's.

Yeah, I'm sorry, but your previous comment, beyond simply being hostile, made no sense.

As to Yak's comment, I take it that he says the refutation falls on evolution defined as developing more or less by itself.  The long periods of time being extraneous to this main refutation.  Based on this one could honestly say it took long periods of time, as long as it was guided at every moment by God.  The theistic evolution or intelligent design case pushing back an anachronism.

And that might make sense if the statement didn't include in its primary assertion the phrases ""in the space of time recorded in Holy Scripture" and "six days".  The length of time is important to the writers in the overall statement. They are dogmatically stating the naive reading of six days.

I know that this causes angst, especially amongst the high-IQ set.  I know that set can spend lots of mental cycles justifying why it doesn't say what it clearly says.  I don't think consciences should be bound on this topic.  I know that our fellow pastors will not be convinced by such nuanced tap dancing.  That is why the honest way would be to advance something that reforms the brief statement.  Such a reform would create an honest moment.  Put forward what you think should be our case (i.e. the time and method of God's creation is not something that binds consciences of members of the LCMS).  The results would be a revelation is my guess.

What I hear you saying is that those without angst among "our fellow pastors" are not in the high-IQ set.  Preach it, brother - positively Darwinian!

Dave Benke

[James_Gale]

When I was being led by the Holy Spirit out of the theological nightmare that was and is the ELCA, my wife and I had some intense discussions on why I did not swim the Mississippi instead of the Tiber. One key reason was my training in the natural sciences. I could not in good conscience buy into a young earth 6/24 creation. My parents lived near a fossilized stromatolite bed. It was .5 billion years old. I used to love standing barefoot upon it, contemplating the fact that it was ancient when dinosaurs first appeared. GOD IS AWESOME! When I drive the road into town to our house in Mauch Chunk, I drive through the cut in the mountains and see the stratigraphy. And I feel the Ancient of Days.

When Einstein was disturbed by the implications of Quantum Physics, he stated publicly that, "God does not play nice with the universe." Niels Bohr told Einstein, "And who are you to tell God what he can and cannot do?"

My Missouri brothers & sister- listen Niels. This is my theologomenon, but this demand for a rigid adherence to the  young earth 6/24 creation has always struck me as nothing more than works righteousness.

Written on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary by Matthew M. Hummel B.A. Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia 1982

I appreciate your experience and I'm glad you understand the age of the Earth.  The problem in Lutheranism is that it connects pretty directly to the confessions via the historicity of Adam and the theology behind sin.

It's a problem that seems to tie only a minority of Lutherans into knots.

[Chuck]

When Einstein was disturbed by the implications of Quantum Physics, he stated publicly that, "God does not play nice with the universe." Niels Bohr told Einstein, "And who are you to tell God what he can and cannot do?"

I heard it differently: "God does not play dice with the universe.
Of course, your version may be the right one. 

Peace,
Michael

You are correct, Father.

[Matt Hummel]

When Einstein was disturbed by the implications of Quantum Physics, he stated publicly that, "God does not play nice with the universe." Niels Bohr told Einstein, "And who are you to tell God what he can and cannot do?"

I heard it differently: "God does not play dice with the universe.
Of course, your version may be the right one. 

Peace,
Michael

Curse you autocorrect! 

[SomeoneWrites]

When I was being led by the Holy Spirit out of the theological nightmare that was and is the ELCA, my wife and I had some intense discussions on why I did not swim the Mississippi instead of the Tiber. One key reason was my training in the natural sciences. I could not in good conscience buy into a young earth 6/24 creation. My parents lived near a fossilized stromatolite bed. It was .5 billion years old. I used to love standing barefoot upon it, contemplating the fact that it was ancient when dinosaurs first appeared. GOD IS AWESOME! When I drive the road into town to our house in Mauch Chunk, I drive through the cut in the mountains and see the stratigraphy. And I feel the Ancient of Days.

When Einstein was disturbed by the implications of Quantum Physics, he stated publicly that, "God does not play nice with the universe." Niels Bohr told Einstein, "And who are you to tell God what he can and cannot do?"

My Missouri brothers & sister- listen Niels. This is my theologomenon, but this demand for a rigid adherence to the  young earth 6/24 creation has always struck me as nothing more than works righteousness.

Written on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary by Matthew M. Hummel B.A. Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia 1982

I appreciate your experience and I'm glad you understand the age of the Earth.  The problem in Lutheranism is that it connects pretty directly to the confessions via the historicity of Adam and the theology behind sin.

It's a problem that seems to tie only a minority of Lutherans into knots.

Enough to bring charges by a district.  Enough to warrant a response from Sem.  Enough for the topic to be on the FAQ.  Enough for to appear in the Journal.  Enough for us to discuss here.  And it still comes up in all those places of Lutheran education and for students. 

[James_Gale]

When I was being led by the Holy Spirit out of the theological nightmare that was and is the ELCA, my wife and I had some intense discussions on why I did not swim the Mississippi instead of the Tiber. One key reason was my training in the natural sciences. I could not in good conscience buy into a young earth 6/24 creation. My parents lived near a fossilized stromatolite bed. It was .5 billion years old. I used to love standing barefoot upon it, contemplating the fact that it was ancient when dinosaurs first appeared. GOD IS AWESOME! When I drive the road into town to our house in Mauch Chunk, I drive through the cut in the mountains and see the stratigraphy. And I feel the Ancient of Days.

When Einstein was disturbed by the implications of Quantum Physics, he stated publicly that, "God does not play nice with the universe." Niels Bohr told Einstein, "And who are you to tell God what he can and cannot do?"

My Missouri brothers & sister- listen Niels. This is my theologomenon, but this demand for a rigid adherence to the  young earth 6/24 creation has always struck me as nothing more than works righteousness.

Written on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary by Matthew M. Hummel B.A. Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia 1982

I appreciate your experience and I'm glad you understand the age of the Earth.  The problem in Lutheranism is that it connects pretty directly to the confessions via the historicity of Adam and the theology behind sin.

It's a problem that seems to tie only a minority of Lutherans into knots.

Enough to bring charges by a district.  Enough to warrant a response from Sem.  Enough for the topic to be on the FAQ.  Enough for to appear in the Journal.  Enough for us to discuss here.  And it still comes up in all those places of Lutheran education and for students.

In other words, this remains a hot issue in some important LCMS corners.  Most Lutherans seem to take a more catholic view.

[Mark Brown]

Matt & Aletheist, you guys are better than that, c'mon.  The brief statement continues, "We reject every doctrine which denies or limits the work of creation as taught in Scripture. In our days it is denied or limited by those who assert, ostensibly in deference to science, that the world came into existence through a process of evolution; that is, that it has, in immense periods of time, developed more or less of itself."

Excuse me, I quoted that very same language from the Brief Statement.

The Brief Statement does not even insist on "24-hour" days; it simply says, "We teach that God has created heaven and earth, and that in the manner and in the space of time recorded in the Holy Scriptures, especially Gen. 1 and 2, namely, by His almighty creative word, and in six days."  It goes on to reject the proposition "that the world came into existence through a process of evolution; that is, that it has, in immense periods of time, developed more or less of itself."  However, it says nothing whatsoever about how much time has passed since the six days of creation.

As others have already pointed out, you chose to emphasize a subordinate clause, rather than taking into account the entire sentence.  It does not say what you are reading into it--it rejects the proposition that the time period required for creation itself was anything other than six days, but it says nothing whatsoever about how long ago those six days occurred.  Personally, I believe that it was a few thousand years ago; but I do not dogmatically insist upon it, and neither does the LCMS--unless you can point to some other doctrinal resolution to that effect, since the Brief Statement does not fit the bill.

C'mon, stop being silly.  As I pointed out upstream, maybe Bishop Ussher was off in his 6000 years, but he wasn't off by billions of years.  Saying that the Brief Statement held to six days, but it doesn't say when those six days happened, is grasping at straw.  Also, as pointed out upstream, the subordinate clause routine is almost as silly.  It only makes sense if you completely ignore that balancing positive statement emphasis on "in the space of time recorded by Holy Scripture" and "six days".  The length of time mattered to the writers.  Given them the benefit of an actual reading, not just reading into them what you want.

And besides, a significant majority(?)/minority(?) do read it in exactly that way and there is a long history of reading it that way.  The surest way to make everyone mad is to create a new reading out of whole cloth.  It is akin to waking up one day and discovering the founders of the United States thought that abortion and gay marriage were inalienable rights.  Yes, you can force those things through the judicial system.  Yes, you can try and make the Brief Statement say something other than what it does.  But, the honest way would be to amend the constitution/statement.

[SomeoneWrites]

Most Lutherans seem to take a more catholic view.

I apologize.  I don't know what you mean. 

[James_Gale]

Most Lutherans seem to take a more catholic view.

I apologize.  I don't know what you mean.

Most Christians (including Rome) do not believe that our faith precludes whatever we might learn through science about evolution (or anything else).  Scientific conclusions are always contingent, of course. And they are limited to what we can sense or measure from our human perspective.

[SomeoneWrites]

Most Lutherans seem to take a more catholic view.

I apologize.  I don't know what you mean.

Most Christians (including Rome) do not believe that our faith precludes whatever we might learn through science about evolution (or anything else).  Scientific conclusions are always contingent, of course. And they are limited to what we can sense or measure from our human perspective.

Oh, I agree with you here on this.  But I don't think it's that way for clergy and the academic institutions.  This is what I was getting at earlier with the sort of dancing around.  In that arena, it's YEC, Omphalism, or charges. 

[James_Gale]

Most Lutherans seem to take a more catholic view.

I apologize.  I don't know what you mean.

Most Christians (including Rome) do not believe that our faith precludes whatever we might learn through science about evolution (or anything else).  Scientific conclusions are always contingent, of course. And they are limited to what we can sense or measure from our human perspective.

Oh, I agree with you here on this.  But I don't think it's that way for clergy and the academic institutions.  This is what I was getting at earlier with the sort of dancing around.  In that arena, it's YEC, Omphalism, or charges.

If you limit your statement to the LCMS (and maybe WELS/ELS) you're likely right. But that's a small slice of Lutheranism.

[SomeoneWrites]

Most Lutherans seem to take a more catholic view.

I apologize.  I don't know what you mean.

Most Christians (including Rome) do not believe that our faith precludes whatever we might learn through science about evolution (or anything else).  Scientific conclusions are always contingent, of course. And they are limited to what we can sense or measure from our human perspective.

Oh, I agree with you here on this.  But I don't think it's that way for clergy and the academic institutions.  This is what I was getting at earlier with the sort of dancing around.  In that arena, it's YEC, Omphalism, or charges.

If you limit your statement to the LCMS (and maybe WELS/ELS) you're likely right. But that's a small slice of Lutheranism.

Yes.  I've been speaking about the LCMS in particularly, regards to the topic (LCMS Kerfuffle).  I understand and appreciate the ELCA's take on the matter (though it doesn't seem to be consistent with the confessions in this particular regard)

[aletheist]

C'mon, stop being silly.

Wow.  I was hoping for an apology, since you implied that I ignored the subsequent sentence in the Brief Statement, when in fact I had quoted it.  Instead, you doubled down.

Saying that the Brief Statement held to six days, but it doesn't say when those six days happened, is grasping at straw.

No, it is simply reading what the text actually states.  Please show me where it says when or how long ago the six days happened.

It only makes sense if you completely ignore that balancing positive statement emphasis on "in the space of time recorded by Holy Scripture" and "six days".  The length of time mattered to the writers.

Again, the length of time during which creation took place indeed mattered to the writers; but they did not address the length of time that has transpired since then.

Given them the benefit of an actual reading, not just reading into them what you want.

With all due respect, you really should take your own advice here.

[peter_speckhard]

The more I think about this the more I think a response from President Harrison is appropriate. His response should be a rebuke of the Wyoming and South Wisconsin districts for their resolutions.

In addition to being uncharitable, they ask for the binding of consciences on matters which the scriptures, confessions, and The Brief Statement do not speak. This is dangerous and needs to be rebuked in the clearest possible terms.

M. Staneck

That's what resolutions are for. Let it come to convention and get voted down, with people at the microphone rebuking it before the vote. Why circumvent the process?

[gan ainm]

My second opinion is that since God cursed everything in Genesis 3, all methods used to determine that which cannot be proven are suspect.  For example, carbon 14 testing. 

Please put the best construction on these. 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APEpwkXatbY&t=134s (some language and snark)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXSYBp-Kjx0

Best construction:  There are lots of presuppositions in play in both videos, and from my perspective, a lot of sloppy science.  (I'm an engineer.  One of the things I remember from my training is to be very, very careful and suspicious of conclusions obtained by extrapolating outside the bounds of a data set.  Thus my penchant for not using science to answer questions that can't be proven using the scientific method.)   

My presupposition is Scripture is God's Word, true and sufficient for the purposes God intends.  A second presupposition is I'm personally subject to the curse, thus I can't prove everything that I'd like to prove, and I have faith in the promises of Jesus and trust him above all else, even in the things I cannot at present understand.  I'm anticipating the Last Day and the new creation with eagerness.  Knowing the age of the earth, or the universe, whether a few thousand years or a few billion years is not a big deal to me; I'm more focused on the present and the future.  YMMV.   

Question:  Why pick those particular videos to examine?  I may have missed the point.

I'm fine with presuppositions.  I think some presuppositions are better supported than others.  Radiometric dating is a well understood/documented/supported area of science. 

I chose those videos because they speak to radiometric dating and some of the misunderstandings  about them that make rounds in YEC discussions.

Please think about your presuppositions re. radiometric dating.  Would you consider listing them?

I'm not sure the list i put forth would be exhaustive, is there one you're looking for particularly

I'm not looking for any particular item or list at all.  I was not trying to set you up for a gotcha - other serpents are more crafty at that than I.    The main reason was to just get you to identify your presuppositions ... we all have them on most subjects.  For example, perhaps yours might be "God does not create things to appear older than they are", "cognitive knowledge trumps revealed knowledge", "I do not believe God cursed the creation", or any number of similiar/unsimilar ideas.  The exercise of identifying consciously my presuppositions has helped me a lot.  I just thought it might be useful to you too.   Best wishes in your journey to find the truth.  Recently, I was intrigued by this article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/12/07/alan-dershowitzs-new-reality-tweeted-by-trump-shunned-by-liberal-friends/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na
and particularly this quote which made me realize how strong emotions on a subject can blind us:

"Dershowitz said he "got an email today from a very prominent friend — I'm not going to disclose his name because it was a private email — admitting that I'm right and saying 'My hatred toward Trump blinds me to your truths.' That was his email. 'My hatred for Trump blinds me to your truths. Please stop.'

"And then he said to me, 'Don't ever send me another tweet that includes an article that you wrote that helps that son of a b‑‑‑‑.'

And "this is a close friend," Dershowitz said. "The email starts, 'I love you. It starts 'I love you but ... ."