Hugh Ross and Reasons To Believe

[FaithT]

What’s the Lutheran LCMS position or opinion of Hugh Ross and his website, Reasons To Believe?

And what’s the Lutheran position on Hugh Ross’s explanation on the origin of man, as explained in the FAQ section of his website?

Ross acknowledges the fossil record and believes there were other hominids around before Adam and Eve but that God specially created Adam and Eve, separate from the other hominids, and created them as the first humans.
That’s how he allows for Biblical creation of man, as well as the fossil record.

If Lutheran LCMS’s beliefs disagree with Ross, how does the Church explain the overwhelming evidence for hominid fossils that continue to be discovered on a semi regular basis?

 

[Daniel9v9]

LCMS view Reasons to Believe as heterodox, and I’d be inclined to agree.

Hugh Ross tends to be popular among Evangelicals, Charismatics, and non-denominationals. In my Charismatic days, I was quite excited about Ross’ ideas. From a Lutheran perspective, however, what he’s trying to do is align two views that are incompatible, so instead of harmonising the two views, he proposes a new third idea.

Creation is a miracle, so we shouldn’t feel the the need to explain it. When we rightly understand the doctrine of God being almighty and that He created the universe out of nothing, there’s really no difficulty.

 

[FaithT]

LCMS view Reasons to Believe as heterodox, and I’d be inclined to agree.

Hugh Ross tends to be popular among Evangelicals, Charismatics, and non-denominationals. In my Charismatic days, I was quite excited about Ross’ ideas. From a Lutheran perspective, however, what he’s trying to do is align two views that are incompatible, so instead of harmonising the two views, he proposes a new third idea.

Creation is a miracle, so we shouldn’t feel the the need to explain it. When we rightly understand the doctrine of God being almighty and that He created the universe out of nothing, there’s really no difficulty.

Then what about all the overwhelming evidence found in fossils?
That’s my stumbling block.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Then what about all the overwhelming evidence found in fossils?
That’s my stumbling block.

Well, we all have stumbling blocks, and this is not uncommon, so you're not alone.

Let me start by saying that no honest person would deny or explain away the existence of fossils. But the problem is not in the fossils themselves, but rather in how the fossils are interpreted. So creation is not a scientific problem, but a philosophical problem.

Atheistic scientists work from the standpoint that (1) there is no God, and (2) that the universe has the power and will to create itself out of nothing. These claims are not scientific. We cannot prove by hard science that God does not exist, nor can we prove that nature can produce something out of nothing. These are philosophical beliefs. (Historically, this is called Pantheism). And it's out of these assumptions that we get the theory of Macroevolution and everything that goes with that.

We Christians, however, know that God is real, because not only did He give us His Word, He even came in flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. God literally walked among us, and He told us that He is our Creator and Redeemer.

So there's an important difference between the supposed scientific view above and the Bible, and that is: Atheistic scientists propose that the world started in a crude state and gradually developed more sophisticated, entirely by itself. God's Word, however, gives us the picture of God creating the world out of nothing, and in a perfect and complete original state, which then, after the fall into sin, continues to deteriorate. So, atheism says that the creation started itself and was crude but gets more sophisticated. God's Word, however, says that God made the universe sophisticated but because of sin deteriorates. So atheism says that the universe goes from low to high, but God's Word says that the universe goes from high to low.

Now, what happens if we mix these two opposing beliefs? They do not become harmonised, but a new third belief is created. It's possible to mix the two beliefs in a variety of ways, but it's always going to reject and be inconsistent with the two beliefs. It's always going to be a new teaching.

As far as an attempt for a fusion of beliefs, while I don't agree with it, I think we can commend Dr. Ross on many points. He's a firm believer in God and he confesses Jesus Christ as Lord, he rejects the theory of Macroevolution, he believes that Adam and Eve were real persons, he confesses the reality of sin and our need for grace etc. This is all great.

So, we absolutely should deny and reject the atheistic view of creation, which is not built on hard science, but a rejection of God. And we want to stay away from theology that completely rejects the plain reading of Scripture. For anyone who is convinced by Hugh Ross' ideas - I can sympathise, and while I disagree, I don't think what he puts for is necessarily destructive to our faith. I just don't think it's necessary, and I'm not sure how helpful or useful it is. Moreover, the Christian understanding of creation is not primarily about how we are created but why.

The healthiest attitude is simply acknowledging that God did create the universe, and He continues to sustain it, but He does not tell us in great detail how. Creation was clearly supernatural and of epic proportions, and same with any miracles in the Bible, we'll do well to leave room for mystery rather than obsess about it. It's not how a miracle happens that is important, but why it happens. Hebrews 11:3 sums this up well: "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." - That is, creation will always be a matter of belief, even for the unbelieving. Perhaps we will know the details of God's handiwork in the resurrection, but at least on this side of life, it's better to keep our focus on God's great love for us, and our love for God and love for each other.

The peace of Christ to you! +

 

[FaithT]

Well, we all have stumbling blocks, and this is not uncommon, so you're not alone.

Let me start by saying that no honest person would deny or explain away the existence of fossils. But the problem is not in the fossils themselves, but rather in how the fossils are interpreted. So creation is not a scientific problem, but a philosophical problem.

Atheistic scientists work from the standpoint that (1) there is no God, and (2) that the universe has the power and will to create itself out of nothing. These claims are not scientific. We cannot prove by hard science that God does not exist, nor can we prove that nature can produce something out of nothing. These are philosophical beliefs. (Historically, this is called Pantheism). And it's out of these assumptions that we get the theory of Macroevolution and everything that goes with that.

We Christians, however, know that God is real, because not only did He give us His Word, He even came in flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. God literally walked among us, and He told us that He is our Creator and Redeemer.

So there's an important difference between the supposed scientific view above and the Bible, and that is: Atheistic scientists propose that the world started in a crude state and gradually developed more sophisticated, entirely by itself. God's Word, however, gives us the picture of God creating the world out of nothing, and in a perfect and complete original state, which then, after the fall into sin, continues to deteriorate. So, atheism says that the creation started itself and was crude but gets more sophisticated. God's Word, however, says that God made the universe sophisticated but because of sin deteriorates. So atheism says that the universe goes from low to high, but God's Word says that the universe goes from high to low.

Now, what happens if we mix these two opposing beliefs? They do not become harmonised, but a new third belief is created. It's possible to mix the two beliefs in a variety of ways, but it's always going to reject and be inconsistent with the two beliefs. It's always going to be a new teaching.

As far as an attempt for a fusion of beliefs, while I don't agree with it, I think we can commend Dr. Ross on many points. He's a firm believer in God and he confesses Jesus Christ as Lord, he rejects the theory of Macroevolution, he believes that Adam and Eve were real persons, he confesses the reality of sin and our need for grace etc. This is all great.

So, we absolutely should deny and reject the atheistic view of creation, which is not built on hard science, but a rejection of God. And we want to stay away from theology that completely rejects the plain reading of Scripture. For anyone who is convinced by Hugh Ross' ideas - I can sympathise, and while I disagree, I don't think what he puts for is necessarily destructive to our faith. I just don't think it's necessary, and I'm not sure how helpful or useful it is. Moreover, the Christian understanding of creation is not primarily about how we are created but why.

The healthiest attitude is simply acknowledging that God did create the universe, and He continues to sustain it, but He does not tell us in great detail how. Creation was clearly supernatural and of epic proportions, and same with any miracles in the Bible, we'll do well to leave room for mystery rather than obsess about it. It's not how a miracle happens that is important, but why it happens. Hebrews 11:3 sums this up well: "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." - That is, creation will always be a matter of belief, even for the unbelieving. Perhaps we will know the details of God's handiwork in the resurrection, but at least on this side of life, it's better to keep our focus on God's great love for us, and our love for God and love for each other.

The peace of Christ to you! +

So, I guess it’s against the LCMS faith to believe as Hugh Ross does on this issue?

 

[FaithT]

Digging deeper into this topic, what does the LCMS teach or believe when these fossils are found? You said we don’t deny or explain away their existence so what does the Church say? How do they explain it? They must have something to say on the topic.

 

[JSRG]

LCMS view Reasons to Believe as heterodox, and I’d be inclined to agree.

You say the "LCMS view Reasons to Believe as heterodox." Is this simply an assumption based on incongruity in the beliefs of the two groups or have they actually made such a statement?

 

[Daniel9v9]

So, I guess it’s against the LCMS faith to believe as Hugh Ross does on this issue?

I can't speak for what individual members believe or what some Pastors may teach, and while the LCMS can agree with Dr. Ross on many points, the two views are distinctly different.

Digging deeper into this topic, what does the LCMS teach or believe when these fossils are found? You said we don’t deny or explain away their existence so what does the Church say? How do they explain it? They must have something to say on the topic.

Well, I want to stress that fossils aren't really the issue - they are only accidental to the issue. This is why atheists can look at a fossil and claim that it is evidence against God, whereas Christians can look at a fossil and say that is evidence for God. The fossil doesn't say anything in and of itself, but it's how it fits into the framework of our understanding.

The LCMS simply recognises the fossiled creatures as a part of God's creation, and that there's no reason we must believe that mankind has developed from these creatures. The existence of fossils does not demand a gradual development of animals and humans. That's a theory that is drawn out of the fossils in conjunction with a disbelief in God.

You say the "LCMS view Reasons to Believe as heterodox." Is this simply an assumption based on incongruity in the beliefs of the two groups or have they actually made such a statement?

This is not a direct quote from anyone in the LCMS, but based on their official doctrine which is that "God created the world in six natural days". This is different from what Dr. Ross proposes, though the LCMS would recognise him as Christian, given his faith in Christ. In other words, the LCMS would treat his ideas like any other Evangelical, Charismatic, Pentecostal, and non-denominational doctrines: Heterodox.

 

[FaithT]

I can't speak for what individual members believe or what some Pastors may teach, and while the LCMS can agree with Dr. Ross on many points, the two views are distinctly different.



Well, I want to stress that fossils aren't really the issue - they are only accidental to the issue. This is why atheists can look at a fossil and claim that it is evidence against God, whereas Christians can look at a fossil and say that is evidence for God. The fossil doesn't say anything in and of itself, but it's how it fits into the framework of our understanding.

The LCMS simply recognises the fossiled creatures as a part of God's creation, and that there's no reason we must believe that mankind has developed from these creatures. The existence of fossils does not demand a gradual development of animals and humans. That's a theory that is drawn out of the fossils in conjunction with a disbelief in God.



This is not a direct quote from anyone in the LCMS, but based on their official doctrine which is that "God created the world in six natural days". This is different from what Dr. Ross proposes, though the LCMS would recognise him as Christian, given his faith in Christ. In other words, the LCMS would treat his ideas like any other Evangelical, Charismatic, Pentecostal, and non-denominational doctrines: Heterodox.

 

[FaithT]

I can't speak for what individual members believe or what some Pastors may teach, and while the LCMS can agree with Dr. Ross on many points, the two views are distinctly different.



Well, I want to stress that fossils aren't really the issue - they are only accidental to the issue. This is why atheists can look at a fossil and claim that it is evidence against God, whereas Christians can look at a fossil and say that is evidence for God. The fossil doesn't say anything in and of itself, but it's how it fits into the framework of our understanding.

The LCMS simply recognises the fossiled creatures as a part of God's creation, and that there's no reason we must believe that mankind has developed from these creatures. The existence of fossils does not demand a gradual development of animals and humans. That's a theory that is drawn out of the fossils in conjunction with a disbelief in God.



This is not a direct quote from anyone in the LCMS, but based on their official doctrine which is that "God created the world in six natural days". This is different from what Dr. Ross proposes, though the LCMS would recognise him as Christian, given his faith in Christ. In other words, the LCMS would treat his ideas like any other Evangelical, Charismatic, Pentecostal, and non-denominational doctrines: Heterodox.

Ok, so if we don’t believe mankind developed from these creatures then what or who were they? If not with certainty then hypothetically? I mean how do we interpret them; how else can they be interpreted?

 

[Daniel9v9]

Ok, so if we don’t believe mankind developed from these creatures then what or who were they? If not with certainty then hypothetically? I mean how do we interpret them; how else can they be interpreted?

Well, on this point we agree with Dr. Ross in that they are created beings that did not evolve into different species - they are simply different species of animals or microorganisms.

Where we disagree, however, is with respect to the timing. We would have to say that the age of a rock cannot be determined because it was created mature and out of nothing, so it's impossible to analyse. It would be like trying to determine Adam's age based on his appearance. He might have looked like he's in his 20s or 30s (I'm guessing! The Bible doesn't say.), though he was a day old. So, when we understand the whole creation account as a short divine work, and likewise, the fall into sin as an immediate switch with some very radical changes in the laws of nature, it eliminates a lot of modern questions.

Perhaps one thing I can add - a while back, I remember Dr. Ross said in a presentation that God created fossil fuel for us to use for our technology. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. It is a gift that we can use (or abuse).

 

[FaithT]

Well, on this point we agree with Dr. Ross in that they are created beings that did not evolve into different species - they are simply different species of animals or microorganisms.

Where we disagree, however, is with respect to the timing. We would have to say that the age of a rock cannot be determined because it was created mature and out of nothing, so it's impossible to analyse. It would be like trying to determine Adam's age based on his appearance. He might have looked like he's in his 20s or 30s (I'm guessing! The Bible doesn't say.), though he was a day old. So, when we understand the whole creation account as a short divine work, and likewise, the fall into sin as an immediate switch with some very radical changes in the laws of nature, it eliminates a lot of modern questions.

Perhaps one thing I can add - a while back, I remember Dr. Ross said in a presentation that God created fossil fuel for us to use for our technology. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. It is a gift that we can use (or abuse).

So you’re saying that these fossils just weren’t actually human? Because anthropologists say they are human.
And not all people in the sciences are atheists, correct?

 

[Till Schilling]

What’s the Lutheran LCMS position or opinion of Hugh Ross and his website, Reasons To Believe?

And what’s the Lutheran position on Hugh Ross’s explanation on the origin of man, as explained in the FAQ section of his website?

Ross acknowledges the fossil record and believes there were other hominids around before Adam and Eve but that God specially created Adam and Eve, separate from the other hominids, and created them as the first humans.
That’s how he allows for Biblical creation of man, as well as the fossil record.

If Lutheran LCMS’s beliefs disagree with Ross, how does the Church explain the overwhelming evidence for hominid fossils that continue to be discovered on a semi regular basis?

You might want to take a look at this older thread and the resource linked in it.

Young Earth Six Day Creationism: The Scandal of the LCMS

The Scandal of the LCMS Mind

 

[Daniel9v9]

So you’re saying that these fossils just weren’t actually human? Because anthropologists say they are human.
And not all people in the sciences are atheists, correct?

If you’re talking specifically about hominids, then we’d agree with Dr. Ross insofar that they are not human, but we’d have disagree with respect to the timing. The claim that they are human - or perhaps more accurately expressed as that humans and apes share a common ancestor, comes out of the theory of Macroevolution, which both Dr. Ross and the LCMS reject. Macroevolution is rooted in an atheistic or really Pantheistic worldview - the notion that the universe created and developed by itself, for which there is no hard evidence of. Many Christians believe in theories that come out of this view, and that can take different forms. But as mentioned above, those beliefs are always an attempt to harmonise two opposing beliefs.

 

[FaithT]

If you’re talking specifically about hominids, then we’d agree with Dr. Ross insofar that they are not human, but we’d have disagree with respect to the timing. The claim that they are human - or perhaps more accurately expressed as that humans and apes share a common ancestor, comes out of the theory of Macroevolution, which both Dr. Ross and the LCMS reject. Macroevolution is rooted in an atheistic or really Pantheistic worldview - the notion that the universe created and developed by itself, for which there is no hard evidence of. Many Christians believe in theories that come out of this view, and that can take different forms. But as mentioned above, those beliefs are always an attempt to harmonise two opposing beliefs.

If they aren’t human, then what are they? Beings that predated Adam and Eve?
And if so, what kind of beings are they, because at the risk of being repetitive, anthropologists call them humans.
Im sorry, but I’m just trying to understand this.

 

[Daniel9v9]

If they aren’t human, then what are they? Beings that predated Adam and Eve?

If I understand Dr. Ross correctly, he claims that they are animals that predate Adam and Eve by many years. I suppose the LCMS would say the same, only that they were contemporary with Adam and Eve.

 

[FaithT]

If I understand Dr. Ross correctly, he claims that they are animals that predate Adam and Eve by many years. I suppose the LCMS would say the same, only that they were contemporary with Adam and Eve.

So then it’s okay for LCMS to agree with Ross on the point that these “human remains” (as anthropologists would call them) were actually animals that predated Adam and Eve or were contemporaries of Adam and Eve?

 

[FaithT]

We aren’t allowed to believe in polygenism are we? I know Catholics aren’t.
And if these beings, animals or whatever you call them were around with Adam and Eve, wouldn’t that be polygenism?

 

[Daniel9v9]

So then it’s okay for LCMS to agree with Ross on the point that these “human remains” (as anthropologists would call them) were actually animals that predated Adam and Eve or were contemporaries of Adam and Eve?

Yes, I think the important thing we want to maintain is that mankind was created distinctly apart from animals. That is, Adam and Eve were the first in the human race, and they were highly sophisticated.

We don’t believe humans and animals intermingled, so we reject the theory of Polygenism. Adam and Eve is the only source according to God’s Word.

 

[FaithT]

Yes, I think the important thing we want to maintain is that mankind was created distinctly apart from animals. That is, Adam and Eve were the first in the human race, and they were highly sophisticated.

We don’t believe humans and animals intermingled, so we reject the theory of Polygenism. Adam and Eve is the only source according to God’s Word.

And you’re sure it’s ok for us to believe what’s in post #17?