G
I could never understand the 6 24-hour Days creation.
Oh my ... Kepler is here.While I happen to agree with Dr. Becker on this issue, he has gotten himself into hot water from all sorts of other issues, including actively participating in the installation of a woman pastor at Valpo. (By active, I mean he was vested and participated in the laying on of hands).
Whether or not one agrees with women's ordination, a rostered LCMS pastor has no business participating in the installation of an ELCA pastor. If he wants to sit in the pews and be supportive of a fellow faculty member, I have no truck with that.
K
While I happen to agree with Dr. Becker on this issue, he has gotten himself into hot water from all sorts of other issues, including actively participating in the installation of a woman pastor at Valpo. (By active, I mean he was vested and participated in the laying on of hands).
Whether or not one agrees with women's ordination, a rostered LCMS pastor has no business participating in the installation of an ELCA pastor. If he wants to sit in the pews and be supportive of a fellow faculty member, I have no truck with that.
K
This is as dangerous as Seminex, in my opinion.
The issue that Becker brings up should not be viewed in a pro-Science, anti-Science light, as he makes it out to be, but rather as one regarding Scriptural authority.
Walk with me momentarily.
Any ELCA members who left the denomination's predecessors during the Women's Ordination Crisis in the 1970s were simply sexists. Any ELCA members who left the denomination during the 2009 vote to ordain homosexuals were simply homophobes. The issue of the ELCA, at its root, is not the fact that it ordains women or gays. The issue is far deeper.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
The final blow occurred much earlier than either of these issues with the decision to implement the Historical-Critical method of Biblical interpretation. As soon as the ELCA decided its goal was to quote-unquote "understand" Scripture was when the metaphorical gavel began to fall.
Our goal as Christians is not to "understand" Scripture, that is to be blown about by what Science remarks as true and the ways of the world claim to be undeniable, but rather, to stand under it.
Frankly, as someone feeling called to the ministry, it scares me incredibly that members of the Synod endorse teachings of evolution and women's ordination, such as Becker, as it was the Synod's steadfast commitment to scripture that drew me to the denomination in the first place. After seeing how screwed up the ELCA was, I rushed to the LCMS believing that it would be truer to both the Bible and the Confessions, and that it would not blow willy nilly with theories of evolution, &c.
By all means, if you want to preach evolution, feel free to. But don't try to drag the Synod down with you.
Don't.
If the LCMS strays even a hairs-breadth from the Scripture in this regard, I, along with President Harrison (as he has made abundantly clear), will leave the Synod, and will probably look towards WELS and the ELS.
I could never understand the 6 24-hour Days creation.
It simply is not in the Bible.
What amazes me the most are the Bible "scholars" who defend this view without even 1 clear verse supporting their theory.
What "yom" means is a period of time. We translated it as "day".
Genesis said there was a certain period of time between an evening and a morning.
No one said 24 hours. Just a period of time - "yom".
Even the Sun was not created till the 3rd "day" and the pull of the Sun is essential in influencing the rotation of Earth around own axis.
How can Christianity go so off radar as far as Bible study is concerned?
I have had a difficulty with the theories of the age of the earth. Look at the Grand Canyon. It is very wide, more then a mile in some places, and very deep. All carved through solid rock. By what? The river is very small and actually vanishes into the soil. Zillions of tons of rock were carved out and where did it all go? There is virtually no deposit of eroded rock.
Ed, I am on the way to a hospital visit 70 miles away, so dont have time for full reply.I could never understand the 6 24-hour Days creation.
It simply is not in the Bible.
What amazes me the most are the Bible "scholars" who defend this view without even 1 clear verse supporting their theory.
What "yom" means is a period of time. We translated it as "day".
Genesis said there was a certain period of time between an evening and a morning.
No one said 24 hours. Just a period of time - "yom".
Even the Sun was not created till the 3rd "day" and the pull of the Sun is essential in influencing the rotation of Earth around own axis.
How can Christianity go so off radar as far as Bible study is concerned?
Ed, I am on the way to a hospital visit 70 miles away, so dont have time for full reply.
But, dont be fooled into thinking your response is sufficient. YOM (יומ, when joined ordinal numbers (1st, 2nd, etc.), is always 24 hour period in the entire OT. So, if you want it to be something other than 24 hour period, then this text in Genesis would have to be an exception, and there is nothing in the text to make it an exception. This coincides with Exodus 20 and the giving of the commandments.
If not, then Yom can refer to an indefinite (but fixed) time.
"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned - for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law."
If a literal Adam and Eve did not exist, than there was no literal Eden. If there was no literal Eden then there was no literal temptation. If there was no literal temptation then there was no literal fall. With no literal fall, sin has not been brought into this world. Thus, we are reconciled to God, and Christ died for nothing.
This is terrible theology.
Evolution does not posit that Adam and Eve did not exist at all. It simply posits that Adam and Eve are not the sole natural ancestors of all living humans, because species are descended from population groups. But who cares if they weren't? If I can be credited with Christ's righteousness without being his natural, biological descendant, why can't I be credited with Adam's sinfulness without being his natural, biological descendant? After that, the result of your P -> Q chain falls apart.
That still doesn't account for the Scriptural position that there was no death before Adam, which again would nullify the theory of evolution.
Does Scripture actually say that? Or does it say that death gets it's power to separate us from God through sin? Death without sin exists, it is simply incapable of separating us from God. Rom 5:12 and 1 Cor 15:56
And in all of this, I'd like to point out that I still affirm the existence of a historical Adam and a historical fall and do genuinely believe that I am being faithful to the testimony of Scripture. And that somehow means I should just go over to the ELCA and be condemned with the woman-ordainers and the gay-lovers?