Catholic with Evolution Questions!

[Tallguy88]

Hey guys!

I have a few questions about the conservative branch of Lutheranism, specifically the LCMS.

1. Is it possible to be a LCMS Lutheran in good standing and believe in theistic evolution? My only experience at a Lutheran church involved the pastor preaching against evolution and for a literal interpretation of Genesis. I was just wondering if this was a widely held view?

2. How does the LCMS deal with members who dissent on doctrinal issues?

Thanks for your time! Also note, I'm not trying to argue for or against evolution, just trying to see how it is handled within the LCMS.

 

[DaRev]

Hey guys!

I have a few questions about the conservative branch of Lutheranism, specifically the LCMS.

1. Is it possible to be a LCMS Lutheran in good standing and believe in theistic evolution? My only experience at a Lutheran church involved the pastor preaching against evolution and for a literal interpretation of Genesis. I was just wondering if this was a widely held view?

Confessional Lutherans reject the multiple theories of evolution because they contradict the word of God. We maintain that, as the Scriptures teach, the universe was created in six consecutive 24 hour days as stated in Scripture. How long ago did this occur? We don't know nor do we ascribe to any of the various theories concerning the age of the earth. Going by both Biblical teachings and known history, we can't with any certainty go beyond 15,000 to 20,000 years, but we simply do not know.

2. How does the LCMS deal with members who dissent on doctrinal issues?

That would depend on the doctrinal issue. Anything from additional instruction to excommunication is possible, all depending on the matter at hand. If one were to reject the Biblical teaching of Creation, they most likely wouldn't be excommunicated over something like that, but it does bring up an extremely important question: what other Biblical truths do they also reject? Further instruction would be necessary in such a situation. If it were the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, that would likely entail a ban from the Sacrament until a understanding of the nature of the Sacrament is understood.

I like your sig line, BTW. One of my favorite quotes attributed to St. Francis of Assisi.

 

[Tallguy88]

Confessional Lutherans reject the multiple theories of evolution because they contradict the word of God. We maintain that, as the Scriptures teach, the universe was created in six consecutive 24 hour days as stated in Scripture. How long ago did this occur? We don't know nor do we ascribe to any of the various theories concerning the age of the earth. Going by both Biblical teachings and known history, we can't with any certainty go beyond 15,000 to 20,000 years, but we simply do not know.

I certainly respect this view. It's not that I'm against a literal view of Genesis (I grew up with one!), it's just that all the evidence seems to point to a very old earth and some form of evolution occurring. I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve/Garden of Eden/Fall of Man. These things are necessary for Christ's saving work to itself be necessary. It's just the lead up to these events that I side with evolution on.

That would depend on the doctrinal issue. Anything from additional instruction to excommunication is possible, all depending on the matter at hand. If one were to reject the Biblical teaching of Creation, they most likely wouldn't be excommunicated over something like that, but it does bring up an extremely important question: what other Biblical truths do they also reject? Further instruction would be necessary in such a situation. If it were the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, that would likely entail a ban from the Sacrament until a understanding of the nature of the Sacrament is understood.

I agree whole-heartedly with this approach! Certain issues are important, but not deal-breakers. While other issues, like the Real Presence, are of the utmost importance!

I must say that, all-in-all, I have been very impressed with the specific Lutheran church that I've attended. The preacher was very passionate and doctrine-oriented, and the liturgy was traditional, very much like a Catholic Mass. Perhaps the most striking thing was that about 75% of the congregation was there for Sunday School! The people at my Catholic Church, on the other hand, seem ready to bolt out the door the second the mass is over...

I like your sig line, BTW. One of my favorite quotes attributed to St. Francis of Assisi.

Thank you! I like yours as well. Do Lutherans do March for Life? It's something I've wanted to do for years!

 

[DaRev]

I certainly respect this view. It's not that I'm against a literal view of Genesis (I grew up with one!), it's just that all the evidence seems to point to a very old earth and some form of evolution occurring. I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve/Garden of Eden/Fall of Man. These things are necessary for Christ's saving work to itself be necessary. It's just the lead up to these events that I side with evolution on.

When one views the evidence through the lenses of evolution, that's what they see. It's like deciding what the picture on a jigsaw puzzle is supposed to be before it's put together. The pieces have to be reshaped and recolored in order to fit the preconceived notion. And the picture changes from time to time to fit the pieces. If one simply looks at the evidence without trying to fit them into a preconceived idea, they actually support the Biblical account moreso. I guess one would have to define "old" to determine whether or not the earth is "old' or "young". I believe that the earth is "as old as the age" which is precisely what the Bible says. How old is "the age"? We don't know that, so we don't speculate.

As far as evolution, we hold to micro-evolution (the changes within kinds of life) because not only is it evident, we can reproduce it. Macro-evolution, the idea that life can change from one kind to another, is not supported either by "modern science" nor by Scripture.

 

[Resha Caner]

How old is "the age"? We don't know that, so we don't speculate.

A smart practice. There is enough uncertainty both in those who try to date the earth using the Bible and in those who try to date it using geology, that the best answer is, "I don't know."

As far as evolution, we hold to micro-evolution (the changes within kinds of life) because not only is it evident, we can reproduce it. Macro-evolution, the idea that life can change from one kind to another, is not supported either by "modern science" nor by Scripture.

A minor tidbit that I might clarify. Most (if not all) modern scientific institutions accept abiogenesis (life from inanimate matter) and the descent of species (macro-evolution). However, as you point out, such a position does not come from an unbiased view.

You'll never hear about some of the difficulties with abiogenesis & descent from strong proponents of it, but the evidence is not nearly as definitive as they try to make it sound. Sad, IMO. They lead astray those who have not made science their profession, a behavior that Scripture warns against.

 

[Tangible]

I certainly respect this view. It's not that I'm against a literal view of Genesis (I grew up with one!), it's just that all the evidence seems to point to a very old earth and some form of evolution occurring. I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve/Garden of Eden/Fall of Man. These things are necessary for Christ's saving work to itself be necessary. It's just the lead up to these events that I side with evolution on.

Acceptance of evolution and a belief in a literal Adam and Eve are problematic, if not mutually exclusive are they not? The most recent proposal from Evolutionary scientists published in the media suggest a small group of individuals, in the range of 20-30 if I remember correctly, who possessed the characteristics that evolutionists consider to be truly human. (Deciding who is human and who is not is also problematic from an evolutionary pov, don't you think?)

Thank you! I like yours as well. Do Lutherans do March for Life? It's something I've wanted to do for years!

I'm sure that many Pro-Life Lutherans participate in March for Life. The LCMS, WELS, ELS and probably other theologically and Confessionally conservative Lutherans are officially Pro-Life.

 

[swinkler]

Totally agree on no-macro evolution but the age of the earth? Please... take a college Geology or Astronomy or Physics class. The Literal reading of the Bible gives 4000-6000 years. This contradicts good scientific evidence form all fields and has nothing to do with evolution. 99% of scientist agree on the age of the earth and are working to add decimal places. Go ask you Concordia College science professors if the earth is 6000 years old. I think you have two choices 1) God is tricking us 2) the earth is old.

 

[Tangible]

Was God tricking us when he created Adam and Eve fully grown instead of as infants?

 

[DaRev]

Totally agree on no-macro evolution but the age of the earth? Please... take a college Geology or Astronomy or Physics class. The Literal reading of the Bible gives 4000-6000 years.

No, it doesn't. The only way one could get that result is to go be the genealogies, and those are incomplete and inconsistent. The genealogies are not meant to be used for determining length of time, but rather to determine relationships. Using both Scripture and known history, one cannot go beyond 15,000 to 20,000 years.

This contradicts good scientific evidence form all fields and has nothing to do with evolution. 99% of scientist agree on the age of the earth and are working to add decimal places.

Whether or not "scientific" evidence is good depends on the context in which it is placed. If one determines to make such evidence fit a billion years old universe, they will. If the evidence is taken at face value, one cannot make such a claim. In reality, no such determination can be made.

Go ask you Concordia College science professors if the earth is 6000 years old. I think you have two choices 1) God is tricking us 2) the earth is old.

First, Concordia Seminary doesn't have science professors. Second, they all know very well that the earth is older than 6000 years old. Third, they all also know that God is not tricking us. Flawed human reason created the idea of a millions of years old earth. The earth is as old as it is. That's all one can say. I will rely on the word of God before I will rely on the word of flawed human reason any day.

 

[Resha Caner]

No, it doesn't. The only way one could get that result is to go be the genealogies, and those are incomplete and inconsistent. The genealogies are not meant to be used for determining length of time, but rather to determine relationships. Using both Scripture and known history, one cannot go beyond 15,000 to 20,000 years.

I could show you several historical works on ancient genealogies that show how unreliable they are for trying to set dates.

Thing is, same applies to geology. Geology is more art than science. The assumptions one brings to the table make a huge difference.

I am often disappointed with the lack of attention the role of assumptions in science gets. My dad was a math teacher, and he made a big point of emphasizing that. For many years I did my engineering as a "realist", thinking assumptions were a big deal for math, but not for science. After years of being a practicing engineer ... and then studying the philosophy of science in detail, I have since changed my mind.

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

We look at a car and conclude that a car designer with a prescribed amount of education designed the car. We look at a beautiful building and conclude that an architect designed the building. The earth and our bodies and molecules and compounds and magnetism and outer space etc. are all so much more complex than cars and buildings and yet so many people say it was "chance" that did it. The laws of chance can rarely bring two molecules together. Chance cannot create a single molecule in the first place. We would be smarter to say that a rabbit created the universe than to say that "chance" did so.

As for time measurements often the scientists use fossil evidence. At this website:

www dot noanswersingenesis dot org dot au/ham_hat dot htm

they talk about a miner's hat from a miner that had been in the region 50 years previous. The hat was fossilized as much as anything else is fossilized. Just as there is a cover-up of truth in many other areas of life and government, so there are many cover-ups by evolutionists concerning creation.

 

[bach90]

This is the one issue which always "trips me up" personally. It is not as if reading the first 11 chapters of Genesis allegorically is a new idea...Augustine did not see it as literal and (I'm told) the underlying Hebrew is ambiguous. It could be read "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth." It is not as simple as saying Genesis not being taken literally is a 19th century invention...many of the Church fathers did not take it to be so, and it is most certainly not a science textbook. The Bible contains all things necessary for salvation...it is not the go-to for biology.

(The Hebrew Adam simply means man, it became a proper noun in the LXX).

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

This is the one issue which always "trips me up" personally. It is not as if reading the first 11 chapters of Genesis allegorically is a new idea...Augustine did not see it as literal and (I'm told) the underlying Hebrew is ambiguous. It could be read "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth." It is not as simple as saying Genesis not being taken literally is a 19th century invention...many of the Church fathers did not take it to be so, and it is most certainly not a science textbook. The Bible contains all things necessary for salvation...it is not the go-to for biology.

(The Hebrew Adam simply means man, it became a proper noun in the LXX).

In the NIV there are around 8 references to Adam. These references form the basis of important doctrines. If we say Adam is a myth, then we have to start seeing the dominoes fall and sooner or later we have nothing left. Right?

 

[bach90]

In the NIV there are around 8 references to Adam. These references form the basis of important doctrines. If we say Adam is a myth, then we have to start seeing the dominoes fall and sooner or later we have nothing left. Right?

Again, many Christians, from the 1st through the 21st century need not see it that way. Adam in the Hebrew is a pun, it means man. It's unlikely that it meant a proper noun, although it is possible. It's ambiguous, on purpose.

Your also needlessly equivocating myth as meaning untrue. This is not so. Pagan myths are clearly fictional, the creation accounts of other religions do not deal with God creating man, and not within a human time frame. They deal with the gods in some distant time fighting each other (like the titans vs the gods in Greek culture). However, Genesis could be called a myth, if by myth you mean a non-scientific account of creation. Did the author of Genesis intend for the book to be a scientific (empirical) account of creation? Probably not, it doesn't do justice to put the idea of "evolution" into the minds of Biblical writers. They simply did not think the way that we do. While carbon-14 dating is able to be called into question...data based on the rate of decay in radioactive material does not support a 6,000 year old earth. At all. That is laughable. However, I certainly don't buy the theory of evolution as it is currently taught either, you can drive a truck through the holes in it.

The main thing from the first 11 chapters of Genesis is that man was created by God, and that man was punished. The sin of Adam is borne by all his descendents, all of humanity, and God flooded the earth and began to call a people. The idea of a flood is supported by archeological evidence, as far as the Middle East. Perhaps this is what the author of Genesis meant when they wrote of a flood on the earth, although a global flood is not out of the question. Rev is right when he points out that Biblical genealogies are not always fully filled out (not like how we would make a family tree today). There is also no telling how old Adam and Eve lived before the fall. There are questions we can't answer. I will turn to science for some answers about the physical world, but the Bible is the only book which teaches Justification by Faith in Christ and him crucified.

 

[DaRev]

Again, many Christians, from the 1st through the 21st century need not see it that way. Adam in the Hebrew is a pun, it means man. It's unlikely that it meant a proper noun, although it is possible. It's ambiguous, on purpose.

Different English translations use the word "Adam" different times for the Hebrew. KJV, NKJV, and NIV use it 30 times. The NAU, 21. The RSV, 34. In some other occasions it's translated "the man". But it is used as a proper noun in Scripture is several places, especially in the NT. We believe that God is the author of all Scripture, and that His use of the word "adam" as a proper name to refer to a specific man is not "unlikely". It's more likely that it most certainly is intended as a proper name since it refers to a specific person. Other places in the OT where "the man" appears in English it's the Hebrew "h'ish".

 

[Studeclunker]

Again, many Christians, from the 1st through the 21st century need not see it that way. Adam in the Hebrew is a pun, it means man. It's unlikely that it meant a proper noun, although it is possible. It's ambiguous, on purpose..

...And you are saying God has no sense of humour? So he makes a pun with the first man's name, what's so incomprehensible about that?

Your also needlessly equivocating myth as meaning untrue. This is not so. Pagan myths are clearly fictional, the creation accounts of other religions do not deal with God creating man, and not within a human time frame. They deal with the gods in some distant time fighting each other (like the titans vs the gods in Greek culture). However, Genesis could be called a myth, if by myth you mean a non-scientific account of creation. Did the author of Genesis intend for the book to be a scientific (empirical) account of creation? Probably not, it doesn't do justice to put the idea of "evolution" into the minds of Biblical writers. They simply did not think the way that we do. While carbon-14 dating is able to be called into question...data based on the rate of decay in radioactive material does not support a 6,000 year old earth. At all. That is laughable. However, I certainly don't buy the theory of evolution as it is currently taught either, you can drive a truck through the holes in it..

Myth:a story, presented as historical, dealing with the cosmological and superantural traditions of a people, their gods, culture, heros, religious beliefs, etc. 2. A popular fable or folk tale... ...see synonyms under Fiction
(bolding and underlining mine)

Sorry, but the dictionary disagrees with you. Manipulating the English language in the way you are doing is dangerous, not to mention deceptive.

As to the rate of decay in radioactive material, how do you account for the gap between recent and ancient geological records? There is an unaccountable gap of several million years that the scientists have yet to come up with a truely honest explanation for. Radio-carbon dating works for short ranges only. After that it depends on assumptions and theory, both of which are unreliable.

This one paragraph demonstrates that you have more in common with the fallen liberals, biblical critics, and unbelievers than the LCMS. You admit that these people have gigantic gaps in their silly theories and ideas and yet still ascribe to them.

The main thing from the first 11 chapters of Genesis is that man was created by God, and that man was punished. The sin of Adam is borne by all his descendents, all of humanity, and God flooded the earth and began to call a people. The idea of a flood is supported by archeological evidence, as far as the Middle East. Perhaps this is what the author of Genesis meant when they wrote of a flood on the earth, although a global flood is not out of the question. Rev is right when he points out that Biblical genealogies are not always fully filled out (not like how we would make a family tree today). There is also no telling how old Adam and Eve lived before the fall. There are questions we can't answer. I will turn to science for some answers about the physical world, but the Bible is the only book which teaches Justification by Faith in Christ and him crucified.

Hmmm... and the sea fossils found in the Sierra Madre mountains aren't evidence enough for you? How about the evidence that all the continents fit together and might have once been one large continent? Would not such a tramatic event have caused a considerable, possibly world-wide, flood? I am quite certain that even if Noah's barge was found on the top of Mt. Ararat, extant and intact, there are people who would still refuse to believe in the account of the flood! The Bible is very much an enigma sometimes. Just because you don't understand it though, does not make it a story book, nor any less reliable than the silly guesses and ideas of the unbelievers.

 

[bach90]

...And you are saying God has no sense of humour? So he makes a pun with the first man's name, what's so incomprehensible about that?

I'm saying it's a fact to be kept in mind.


Myth:a story, presented as historical, dealing with the cosmological and superantural traditions of a people, their gods, culture, heros, religious beliefs, etc. 2. A popular fable or folk tale... ...see synonyms under Fiction
(bolding and underlining mine)

I'm going with the first definition. It is presented as historical, but the ancient conception of history is not the same as today. Look at the differences in Thucyidies and Herodotus. They're both historical, but in different ways. Ancient cultures were not so clear cut on a journalistic/reporter type of history compared with a commentary...the latter being particularly common in Jewish religious literature.

Sorry, but the dictionary disagrees with you. Manipulating the English language in the way you are doing is dangerous, not to mention deceptive.

Not really, it actually goes nicely with the first definition. Saying something is presented as historical does not imply that it's false, it actually implies the other.

As to the rate of decay in radioactive material, how do you account for the gap between recent and ancient geological records? There is an unaccountable gap of several million years that the scientists have yet to come up with a truely honest explanation for. Radio-carbon dating works for short ranges only. After that it depends on assumptions and theory, both of which are unreliable.

Radiological dating and carbon dating are two different things. The former is actually pretty reliable no matter how much people want to say it's not. The latter is in dispute.

This one paragraph demonstrates that you have more in common with the fallen liberals, biblical critics, and unbelievers than the LCMS. You admit that these people have gigantic gaps in their silly theories and ideas and yet still ascribe to them.

Awesome, I was waiting for the ad hominem. I actually explicitly said I don't believe in the theory of evolution. Nor carbon dating. Radiological dating is different from the two. You simply cannot make a scientific assertion for a 6,000 year old earth. And to chalk it up and say "well it's faith" makes us look laughable. Obviously deeper study in the original languages and familiarity with the culture resolves the tension between the two.

The ad hominem is actually rather papistic. There's a disagreement over an ambiguous issue, which I haven't even given a strong statement on (other then denouncing evolution). If you don't agree on every point your a heretic/liberal/pagan. I affirm the BoC in it's entirety.


Hmmm... and the sea fossils found in the Sierra Madre mountains aren't evidence enough for you? How about the evidence that all the continents fit together and might have once been one large continent? Would not such a tramatic event have caused a considerable, possibly world-wide, flood? I am quite certain that even if Noah's barge was found on the top of Mt. Ararat, extant and intact, there are people who would still refuse to believe in the account of the flood! The Bible is very much an enigma sometimes. Just because you don't understand it though, does not make it a story book, nor any less reliable than the silly guesses and ideas of the unbelievers.

I never said the Bible was unreliable. It just has to be relied upon in what it says it's reliable upon. II Tim 3:16 assures that the Bible is infallible as regards everything to be known for salvation. However...it is not a science textbook. I think you've taken my statements to their illogical extreme and attacked those statements as opposed to looking at what I've actually said. I prefer to think, wow look at all God has done, as opposed putting up the blinders and dumbing-down the texts.
​

The idea of a Pangaea actually supports a much older earth than 6,000 years.

.

 

[Resha Caner]

it is not a science textbook

You've said this several times, but I'm not quite sure what you mean to convey. If you mean that one cannot extract from the Bible that which God did not put upon the author's heart, then I would agree. If you mean that when the Bible disagrees with a science textbook one should take science as having the "real story" and take the Bible as allegory because of some "scientific method" or because science uses "evidence" or some other such reason, then I would disagree. Science is subject to human frailty and God's Word is not.

So, as an example, when 1 Peter 1:22 says we should love from the heart, we shouldn't try to take that as a statement about human anatomy. That would be to make the Bible say something it doesn't say. But neither does that mean we are forced to accept the position of some biologists that love is merely a chemical drive for reproduction.

 

[bach90]

You've said this several times, but I'm not quite sure what you mean to convey. If you mean that one cannot extract from the Bible that which God did not put upon the author's heart, then I would agree. If you mean that when the Bible disagrees with a science textbook one should take science as having the "real story" and take the Bible as allegory because of some "scientific method" or because science uses "evidence" or some other such reason, then I would disagree. Science is subject to human frailty and God's Word is not.

So, as an example, when 1 Peter 1:22 says we should love from the heart, we shouldn't try to take that as a statement about human anatomy. That would be to make the Bible say something it doesn't say. But neither does that mean we are forced to accept the position of some biologists that love is merely a chemical drive for reproduction.

I am trying to say, that if the Bible is explaining natural processes (which it does in only a very few places, and mostly in Genesis) AND if there is some grounds for taking the text as an allegory (which I'm not saying Gen 1-2 necessarily is), then, the scientific explanation regarding the mechanics of such an action are to be preferred. What I am saying, is, that you cannot get a scientific account of creation from the Book of Genesis and I would argue it's foreign to the text to try and take it that way.

As far as the example of 1 Pet 1:22 I would agree. It's clearly a poetic phrase, the heart does not have human emotions. I would absolutely disagree with the idea that love is a chemical drive for reproduction...in fact many biologists wouldn't use the term "love" when talking about human psychology.

The Bible does not contain everything that can possibly be known, only everything that can possibly be known (with certainty) about God and about salvation.

 

[Resha Caner]

I am trying to say, that if the Bible is explaining natural processes (which it does in only a very few places, and mostly in Genesis) AND if there is some grounds for taking the text as an allegory (which I'm not saying Gen 1-2 necessarily is), then, the scientific explanation regarding the mechanics of such an action are to be preferred. What I am saying, is, that you cannot get a scientific account of creation from the Book of Genesis and I would argue it's foreign to the text to try and take it that way.

Maybe I have misunderstood you, but it came across to me as if you were trying to say that Genesis is an allegory.

I agree that some parts of the Bible use allegory. I agree that the Bible is not intended as a scientific treatise. But to say that science is "foreign" to the Bible goes too far. It implies that things like the 6 days of creation were written because Moses didn't know any better ... because he was trapped in a Bronze Age mentality ... that God acquiesed.

As far as how some Jews (or even early Christians) may have interpreted the Bible, that can be of use, but it is ground that must be tread carefully. The idea that the Resurrection was only an allegory and not a historical event has been around for a long time, but it is a false idea. Just because some Jews interpreted scripture in a particular way does not mean they were right. In fact, my understanding is that most of the Jewish exegesis known today is post-Christian and is tainted by suspicions of an intentional effort to distance Jewish interpretation from Christianity.

Second, in cases where the Bible uses allegory or story-telling, it is quite obvious, but for reasons other than that is sensational. As an example, Jesus' parables aren't about Medusa and Perseus. He doesn't use a centaur to draw his allegory. His parables, though likely fictional accounts, are things that actually could have happened.

So, with respect to the account of creation in Genesis, I think an important question that one must ask is: Could God create the universe in 6 days? Even if our interpretation is wrong and he chose to create in 6 eons, do you believe God is powerful enough that he could have chosen to do it in 6 days?