LCMS kerfuffle

[scott9]

2. 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."  The clear intent of the Brief Statement was that creation took 6 literal days.  Maybe that doesn't mean 6000 year old earth.  Maybe Bishop Ussher is off. But not by billions of years.  Looking for wiggle room in the brief statement is dishonest.

I take the emphasis in the Brief Statement's assertion to be on the main clause, not the prepositional phrase.  That is, the Brief Statement is concerned in its main clause to refute the idea that the earth "developed more or less of itself."  The "in immense periods of time" modifies this thought, not the other way around.

[Dave Benke]

2. 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."  The clear intent of the Brief Statement was that creation took 6 literal days.  Maybe that doesn't mean 6000 year old earth.  Maybe Bishop Ussher is off. But not by billions of years.  Looking for wiggle room in the brief statement is dishonest.

I take the emphasis in the Brief Statement's assertion to be on the main clause, not the prepositional phrase.  That is, the Brief Statement is concerned in its main clause to refute the idea that the earth "developed more or less of itself."  The "in immense periods of time" modifies this thought, not the other way around.

Same here.

Dave Benke

[Mark Brown]

It isn't about forcing wiggle room it's about asserting dogmatic certainty where it does not exist. The Brief Statement does not advocate for a "Young Earth Creationism" theory. This obfuscates the gospel and needs to be rebuked.

M. Staneck

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.

Again, I agree with you that this is not something that should dogmatically bind consciences.  But right now, Synod teaching is rather clear.  The honest way is not to obscure what is actually said.  The honest way is the reform what is said.

[LCMS87]

<snip>

My personal opinion is God created the earth in six 24 hour days.  That is what Scripture says.

<snip>

Just a comment on the above. 

If it's what the Scripture says, personal opinion really doesn't come into it.  It undermines one's testimony to make the most perfect orthodox statement but preface or conclude it with something to the effect of "at least that's what I believe" or "just my opinion."  If it's what the Scripture says, don't insert yourself into it.  After all, God's Word is so much more reliable than your opinion or belief. 

Of course, it is incumbent upon us to accurately convey what the Scripture teaches, saying neither less nor more than God has given us to say.

[Matt Staneck]

It isn't about forcing wiggle room it's about asserting dogmatic certainty where it does not exist. The Brief Statement does not advocate for a "Young Earth Creationism" theory. This obfuscates the gospel and needs to be rebuked.

M. Staneck

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.

Again, I agree with you that this is not something that should dogmatically bind consciences.  But right now, Synod teaching is rather clear.  The honest way is not to obscure what is actually said.  The honest way is the reform what is said.

The honest way forward is to let The Brief Statement say what it actually says. Call it anachronistic, call it whatever you want, but the resolutions add to our synodical doctrine.

M. Staneck

[Donald_Kirchner]

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.

[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.

[SomeoneWrites]

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. 

[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?

[Mark Brown]

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.
 

[SomeoneWrites]

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

[Matt Hummel]

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 dice 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

[aletheist]

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.

[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. 

[Michael Slusser]

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