LCMS kerfuffle

[Brian Stoffregen]

They are told to explain where humans came from, where disobedience to God came from, where pain in childbearing came from, why snakes crawl, why people die, etc. I also maintain that there two separate creation story myths - that likely were adapted from other creation myths of the surrounding people. Just as a preacher might talk about Hobbits and Elves in a sermon as if they are real people, so NT writers can talk about Adam as if he were a real person. They are all narrative characters.Real in the narratives. Not-so-real in reality.

Thank you for speaking clearly and directly.  I actually agree with you.  I actually think that such a position is not in conflict with a saving faith in Jesus. 
I still think this is in conflict with the Lutheran Confessions in regards to original sin
http://bookofconcord.org/sd-originalsin.php 
This is being mindful of understanding what the authors intended, and how they understood it.  They assumed real persons in reality.

I don't consider our Lutheran Confessions to be infallible nor inerrant. "Adam" (or "Humanity") remains a character in a narrative.

This doesn't address what I've said.  What do you think I'm saying?

If it is in conflict with the Lutheran Confessions, I don't care. Scriptures trumps the confessions. The Confessions can be wrong. I'm suggesting that the comment about the Lutheran Confessions is irrelevant.

[Donald_Kirchner]

If [the Biblical creation account as myth] is in conflict with the Lutheran Confessions, I don't care.

Yes, we know, Brian.

[Charles Austin]

And we know you know Pastor Kirchner.

[Mark Schulz]

If we must believe that death did not become a part of God's creation until after Adam and Eve sinned, then what about plant death? If Adam and Eve chose to pull, say, a live carrot from the ground for their evening meal one day, didn't that carrot indeed die as it was removed from its sources of nourishment and subsequently eaten and digested?

I find no problem whatsoever with "death as a result of sin" referring to the physical death of humans - the only creatures created in the image of God and as a result designed to live forever.

[gan ainm]

If we must believe that death did not become a part of God's creation until after Adam and Eve sinned, then what about plant death? If Adam and Eve chose to pull, say, a live carrot from the ground for their evening meal one day, didn't that carrot indeed die as it was removed from its sources of nourishment and subsequently eaten and digested?

I find no problem whatsoever with "death as a result of sin" referring to the physical death of humans - the only creatures created in the image of God and as a result designed to live forever.

Where does it say in the Scriptures that man needed to eat or drink anything before the fall?  That is, does a being living in the perfect world, or in the new creation to come, require mortal food and drink for sustenance? 

[Brian Stoffregen]

If we must believe that death did not become a part of God's creation until after Adam and Eve sinned, then what about plant death? If Adam and Eve chose to pull, say, a live carrot from the ground for their evening meal one day, didn't that carrot indeed die as it was removed from its sources of nourishment and subsequently eaten and digested?

I find no problem whatsoever with "death as a result of sin" referring to the physical death of humans - the only creatures created in the image of God and as a result designed to live forever.

Where does it say in the Scriptures that man needed to eat or drink anything before the fall?  That is, does a being living in the perfect world, or in the new creation to come, require mortal food and drink for sustenance?

True, it doesn't say that the humans were required to eat food, but there are these verses in Genesis 1 (boldface added).


29 Then God said, “I now give to you all the plants on the earth that yield seeds and all the trees whose fruit produces its seeds within it. These will be your food. 30 To all wildlife, to all the birds of the sky, and to everything crawling on the ground—to everything that breathes—I give all the green grasses for food.” And that’s what happened.

And in Genesis 2:

16 The Lord God commanded the human, “Eat your fill from all of the garden’s trees; 17 but don’t eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because on the day you eat from it, you will die!”

[readselerttoo]

If we must believe that death did not become a part of God's creation until after Adam and Eve sinned, then what about plant death? If Adam and Eve chose to pull, say, a live carrot from the ground for their evening meal one day, didn't that carrot indeed die as it was removed from its sources of nourishment and subsequently eaten and digested?

I find no problem whatsoever with "death as a result of sin" referring to the physical death of humans - the only creatures created in the image of God and as a result designed to live forever.

Where does it say in the Scriptures that man needed to eat or drink anything before the fall?  That is, does a being living in the perfect world, or in the new creation to come, require mortal food and drink for sustenance?

True, it doesn't say that the humans were required to eat food, but there are these verses in Genesis 1 (boldface added).


29 Then God said, “I now give to you all the plants on the earth that yield seeds and all the trees whose fruit produces its seeds within it. These will be your food. 30 To all wildlife, to all the birds of the sky, and to everything crawling on the ground—to everything that breathes—I give all the green grasses for food.” And that’s what happened.

And in Genesis 2:

16 The Lord God commanded the human, “Eat your fill from all of the garden’s trees; 17 but don’t eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because on the day you eat from it, you will die!”

Eating food from the other trees did not result in death.  There is eating for the pleasure of it without any view toward death, at least that is how I read before the Genesis 3 issue.  Food does not have to equate with staying alive, necessarily.  I think you are reading into the text rather than from the text, imo.

[foolishpride]

what about plant death?

in Genesis 1:30: to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.

Not sure what breath of life means, but seems like the green plants, they ain't got it?

[Mark Schulz]

So plants aren’t alive?!

[Mark Schulz]

To be clear - I do not believe the Biblical account necessarily teaches a six, 24 hour day creation, or that plants and animals did not die until after Adam and Eve sinned. I do believe Adam and Eve are real, historical first humans, and that their sin brought death to all human beings. I do not believe the earth (and the universe in which that earth exists) is anything remotely close to 6000 years old. I do believe Genesis teaches that nothing in this creation is random or an accident, but that God created with meaning and purpose, and that Genesis clearly teaches that.

I also do not believe I am guilty of eisegesis or of magisterial treatment of Scripture. I believe my reading of God’s inerrant, inspired Word is just as reasonable as those who insist on young earth and six 24 hour creation days.

BTW - I also did not swear my theological allegiance to the Brief Statement when I was ordained, but rather to Scripture and the Confessions, which I also believe are perfectly in line with what I have said above.

[SomeoneWrites]

If it is in conflict with the Lutheran Confessions, I don't care.

Noted.  Though I'm curious why you put it in the conditional, because you're talking like it is without saying it.  If it's to protect yourself, then I understand. 

Scriptures trumps the confessions.

Also noted.  Nothing wrong with that.

The Confessions can be wrong.

Even with Christian hat on, I agree.  I think it IS wrong on more than a couple things.  Nothing wrong with that either. 

I'm suggesting that the comment about the Lutheran Confessions is irrelevant.

It is only irrelevant if one doesn't teach that the Confessions are a true exposition of Scripture.  If they are said to be a true exposition of Scripture, then the caveat, I'm suggesting, should be clear and explicit.

what about plant death?

in Genesis 1:30: to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.

Not sure what breath of life means, but seems like the green plants, they ain't got it?

Yeah, I think this is accurate.  Plants are living, but not in the same way. I think it's also assumed that Humans are different from the beasts in a spiritual way. 

To be clear - I do not believe the Biblical account necessarily teaches a six, 24 hour day creation, or that plants and animals did not die until after Adam and Eve sinned. I do believe Adam and Eve are real, historical first humans, and that their sin brought death to all human beings.

The latter part seems to be the more important part for Lutherans (or at least the LCMS).

I do not believe the earth (and the universe in which that earth exists) is anything remotely close to 6000 years old.

This is where the other part of the LCMS usually goes Omphalist.  But I'm glad you recognize the apparent age of the planet/universe

 
I do believe Genesis teaches that nothing in this creation is random or an accident, but that God created with meaning and purpose, and that Genesis clearly teaches that.

I also do not believe I am guilty of eisegesis or of magisterial treatment of Scripture. I believe my reading of God’s inerrant, inspired Word is just as reasonable as those who insist on young earth and six 24 hour creation days.

I'd say it's more reasonable.  The historicity of Adam and Eve is still something, but you're still in line with the Confessions. 

[Brian Stoffregen]

what about plant death?

in Genesis 1:30: to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.

Not sure what breath of life means, but seems like the green plants, they ain't got it?

Breath of life probably refers to breathing. Plants don't have lungs to breath air like the animals. That phrase was not used of the fish nor the birds on the previous day.

[Brian Stoffregen]

If it is in conflict with the Lutheran Confessions, I don't care.

Noted.  Though I'm curious why you put it in the conditional, because you're talking like it is without saying it.  If it's to protect yourself, then I understand.

With the addition of a midweek Advent worship to prepare and practice for, and a council meeting, I didn't have time to read through the Confessions to see if they might disagree or not.

I'm suggesting that the comment about the Lutheran Confessions is irrelevant.

It is only irrelevant if one doesn't teach that the Confessions are a true exposition of Scripture.  If they are said to be a true exposition of Scripture, then the caveat, I'm suggesting, should be clear and explicit.

If the Confessions are a true exposition of Scriptures, why bother with Scriptures? My approach is, if what the Confessions proclaim is the truth from scriptures, we will find that same truth by studying scriptures even if we never look at the Confessions.

[Timothy Schenks]

If it is in conflict with the Lutheran Confessions, I don't care.

Noted.  Though I'm curious why you put it in the conditional, because you're talking like it is without saying it.  If it's to protect yourself, then I understand.

With the addition of a midweek Advent worship to prepare and practice for, and a council meeting, I didn't have time to read through the Confessions to see if they might disagree or not.

I'm suggesting that the comment about the Lutheran Confessions is irrelevant.

It is only irrelevant if one doesn't teach that the Confessions are a true exposition of Scripture.  If they are said to be a true exposition of Scripture, then the caveat, I'm suggesting, should be clear and explicit.

If the Confessions are a true exposition of Scriptures, why bother with Scriptures? My approach is, if what the Confessions proclaim is the truth from scriptures, we will find that same truth by studying scriptures even if we never look at the Confessions.

Good luck in your new life of non-denominational fundamentalism then. There is a reason the Lutheran Confessions are named Concordia, and you most certainly know that.

[Harry Edmon]

Dr. Arand has another post on the concordiatheology blog on creation, the first of a series on the different views of creation in Evangelicalism and the need to articulate our Lutheran voice.

https://concordiatheology.org/2017/12/evangelical-creation-debates-travel-guide/