Hugh Ross and Reasons To Believe

[FaithT]

I emailed my pastor about this and he suggested the fossils would be descendants of Adam and Eve, (if they’re human fossils) which makes sense.

 

[Daniel9v9]

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

I emailed my pastor about this and he suggested the fossils would be descendants of Adam and Eve, (if they’re human fossils) which makes sense.

Yeah, if the bones are what we can understand as Homosapien, then that would be descendants of Adam and Eve. For anything else, such as Lucy, that would be different types of monkeys. (People who believe in the theory of Macroevolution would of course disagree)

In other words, both Dr. Ross and the LCMS reject the idea that humans and monkeys have the same common ancestor that they gradually developed from, and that there is a spectrum of different human species. God's Word only allows for one human race, and there's a clear distinction between humans and animals in that humans are made in God's image.

So, for these monkey species, I suppose the LCMS would hold that they were created on the fifth day (Genesis 1:24) which would be before Adam and Eve, and then exist for a period after/contemporary with Adam and Eve.

Perhaps it's good to add here that the LCMS, being Orthodox Lutherans, only believe, teach, confess what the Bible say and try not to comment or speculate on what it doesn't say. In other words, being an Orthodox Lutheran means embracing mysteries. Dr. Ross comes from a Reformed tradition, where they are more inclined to poke into mysteries. This tendency has bled into the Lutheran Church on occasion. Anyway, I think Ross has done a much better job than the Higher Critics in Rome, and the theologically liberal Lutherans and Anglicans, because he does maintain a lot of important doctrines. So even if I disagree with his reasoning, I can appreciate that we have some unity of thought. So with respect to this topic of the distinction between man and animal, I'm glad Dr. Ross recognises it.

 

[FaithT]

Yeah, if the bones are what we can understand as Homosapien, then that would be descendants of Adam and Eve. For anything else, such as Lucy, that would be different types of monkeys. (People who believe in the theory of Macroevolution would of course disagree)

In other words, both Dr. Ross and the LCMS reject the idea that humans and monkeys have the same common ancestor that they gradually developed from, and that there is a spectrum of different human species. God's Word only allows for one human race, and there's a clear distinction between humans and animals in that humans are made in God's image.

So, for these monkey species, I suppose the LCMS would hold that they were created on the fifth day (Genesis 1:24) which would be before Adam and Eve, and then exist for a period after/contemporary with Adam and Eve.

Perhaps it's good to add here that the LCMS, being Orthodox Lutherans, only believe, teach, confess what the Bible say and try not to comment or speculate on what it doesn't say. In other words, being an Orthodox Lutheran means embracing mysteries. Dr. Ross comes from a Reformed tradition, where they are more inclined to poke into mysteries. This tendency has bled into the Lutheran Church on occasion. Anyway, I think Ross has done a much better job than the Higher Critics in Rome, and the theologically liberal Lutherans and Anglicans, because he does maintain a lot of important doctrines. So even if I disagree with his reasoning, I can appreciate that we have some unity of thought. So with respect to this topic of the distinction between man and animal, I'm glad Dr. Ross recognises it.

So, was Lucy an ape, human or something in-between?

 

[Till Schilling]

Is what Daniel laid out in this thread really what the LCMS expects her members to believe and confess?

 

[Daniel9v9]

So, was Lucy an ape, human or in-between?

Well, what we're saying is that there are no in-between species because there is no development from a lower species to a higher species. Both Dr. Ross and the LCMS classify species as either human or animal, in accordance with God's Word. So Lucy was probably an ape, though again, those who believe in Macroevolution would disagree.

Is what Daniel laid out in this thread really what the LCMS expects her members to believe and confess?

Yes, this is the Orthodox Lutheran position. LCMS reaffirmed this a couple of years ago: Convention confesses: ‘God created the world in six natural days’

 

[FaithT]

Well, what we're saying is that there are no in-between species because there is no development from a lower species to a higher species. Both Dr. Ross and the LCMS classify species as either human or animal, in accordance with God's Word. So Lucy was probably an ape, though again, those who believe in Macroevolution would disagree.’

Playing devils advocate here....what if she wasn’t an ape?

 

[Daniel9v9]

Playing devils advocate here....what if she wasn’t an ape?

Then she must have been a descendant of Adam and Eve, though Dr. Ross would disagree, as he believes she comes before.

 

[Till Schilling]

Yes, this is the Orthodox Lutheran position. LCMS reaffirmed this a couple of years ago: Convention confesses: ‘God created the world in six natural days’

Thanks, Daniel, but it does not answer my question of whether the LCMS expects her members to believe and confess this. No serious scientist could do so.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Thanks, Daniel, but it does not answer my question of whether the LCMS expects her members to believe and confess this. No serious scientist could do so.

This is what the LCMS believes, teaches, and confesses, though I can't speak for what individual members may believe. I don't think the LCMS would throw out any members for believing in Hugh Ross' ideas or the theory of Macroevolution, but I think it's unlikely that they would ordain Pastors who would teach it.

I don't want to go in circles, but I can add that I used to hold to Macroevolution, but I've come to realise that this is absolutely not a "science vs religion" debate. It's much more complex than that, and at its core, it's a discussion of philosophy and faith, not hard science.

The short of it is that Orthodox Lutherans, myself included, believe that (1) because God is almighty and (2) because He made the universe ex nihilo - out of nothing - it then makes measuring the earth void. To give an illustration of this: Suppose a man could create a rock out of nothing. In one moment his hand is empty, and in the next, there is a rock. Now, suppose a contemporary scientist were to study this rock in an attempt to determine its origin. He would almost by necessity conclude that it must have developed over a long period. He would come to this conclusion, however, by not taking into account its creator, who made the rock fully mature out of nothing, as a divine act. In short, what is created ex nihilo, cannot be measured. So if God said He did something, we can be certain that He both could do it, and we trust that He did it.

 

[Till Schilling]

I don't think the LCMS would throw out any members for believing in Hugh Ross' ideas or the theory of Macroevolution, but I think it's unlikely that they would ordain Pastors who would teach it.

Makes me wonder what became of the user GratiaCorpusChristi who was - if my memory does not fail me - at that time studying theology at the LCMS seminary. Does anyone know?

 

[Daniel9v9]

Makes me wonder what became of the user GratiaCorpusChristi who was - if my memory does not fail me - at that time studying theology at the LCMS seminary. Does anyone know?

Oh, I'm not sure, sorry! Maybe someone else knows?

I couldn't remember his name, but I was reminded of a guy who was accepted into Concordia Seminary some time ago - I thought perhaps it was the same person. However, after rummaging through the old threads, it looks like he's gone Eastern Orthodox.

To my knowledge, there aren't many active Lutheran Pastors on here, which is a shame. I think the Reformed and non-denominational got us beat, as usual.

 

[Till Schilling]

In short, what is created ex nihilo, cannot be measured.

This gets you into a philosphical mess, essentially denying that God is a God of order. Not a God of reason, not a God of scientific investigation who made reasonable beings and enabled them to investigate, analyze and measure his creation.

 

[Daniel9v9]

This gets you into a philosphical mess, essentially denying that God is a God of order. Not a God of reason, not a God of scientific investigation who made reasonable beings and enabled them to investigate, analyze and measure his creation.

I beg to differ, because Scriptures are very clear on that God did create the universe out of nothing - and both Macroevolution and Dr. Ross' theories also amount to this, only the first movement is pushed further back. God is a God of order, yes, but He is not bound by His own creation or laws of nature, because He is above them. Every divine intervention, every miracle, is contrary to the laws of nature as we understand them, but they are consistent with God's character and power, and they prove to us that He is Lord of all.

While I certainly agree that God has blessed us with reason, we also have to appreciate that we are sinners, and this deep corruption very much extends to our ability to reason. This is why the Orthodox Lutheran position is always to confess God's Word in simplicity and embrace holy mysteries. The creation account is certainly a holy mystery.

Let me give you a different example: The Reformer Zwingli said that what is finite cannot contain that which is infinite, but this is exactly what the incarnation of our Lord is: God in flesh. We may not understand the science or logic of it, but we know it to be true because it is revealed by God who is Truth, and so, we trust in His Word.

 

[Till Schilling]

Your approach must result in controlling and limiting or at best ridiculing science. You are basically saying that much of the research in paleontology is not possible, that the data - the result of analysis and measuring - is not reliable and that therefore any theory based on the data is nonsense.

This is saying much more than just saying that God is above the laws of nature - which of course he is but choses almost all the time to let those laws stand - or saying that our reasoning is limited and impacted by our fallenness - which of course it is, but we are still beings created in the image of God.

You can call that approach whatever you want, but it is definitely out of sync with the thought in the period of Lutheran Orthodoxy in the late 16th until the early 18th century.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Your approach must result in controlling and limiting or at best ridiculing science. You are basically saying that much of the research in paleontology is not possible, that the data - the result of analysis and measuring - is not reliable and that therefore any theory based on the data is nonsense.

This is saying much more than just saying that God is above the laws of nature - which of course he is but choses almost all the time to let those laws stand - or saying that our reasoning is limited and impacted by our fallenness - which of course it is, but we are still beings created in the image of God.

You can call that approach whatever you want, but it is definitely out of sync with the thought in the period of Lutheran Orthodoxy in the late 16th until the early 18th century.

Hmm, I’m not sure I’d call the Enlightenment’s influence on the European Lutheran churches particularly orthodox. The Church of Norway, for example, where I’m originally from, are no longer Sola Scriptura - they don’t believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but that it merely contains His Word, so they are completely sold over to Higher Criticism, and therefore hold to Macroevolution. It’s my understanding that the union churches in Germany are the same.

In any case, what I’ve been saying is not my personal views, but what’s confessed by bodies like LCMS, WELS, and our own synod ILD.

If you look into the history of the LCMS, you’ll find that they were in part established by people who escaped the Rationalism in Europe, so I don’t think it’s accurate to say that they are out of sync of Lutheran orthodoxy.

 

[FaithT]

Hmm, I’m not sure I’d call the Enlightenment’s influence on the European Lutheran churches particularly orthodox. The Church of Norway, for example, where I’m originally from, are no longer Sola Scriptura - they don’t believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but that it merely contains His Word, so they are completely sold over to Higher Criticism, and therefore hold to Macroevolution. It’s my understanding that the union churches in Germany are the same.

In any case, what I’ve been saying is not my personal views, but what’s confessed by bodies like LCMS, WELS, and our own synod ILD.

If you look into the history of the LCMS, you’ll find that they were in part established by people who escaped the Rationalism in Europe, so I don’t think it’s accurate to say that they are out of sync of Lutheran orthodoxy.

ILD?I thought you were LCMS.

 

[Daniel9v9]

ILD?I thought you were LCMS.

No, I’m ILD, which is a very small synod, but I’m always glad to defend and explain the position of LCMS, along with any Confessional Lutheran body.

Doctrinally the ILD and the LCMS are the same, so I’m quite familiar with the LCMS’ teachings. We use Concordia Publishing House (LCMS) materials in our seminary (along with older pre-LCMS works). I also partner with them in some charity work, so there’s a small connection there, but our synod is its own organisation.

 

[Till Schilling]

Hmm, I’m not sure I’d call the Enlightenment’s influence on the European Lutheran churches particularly orthodox. The Church of Norway, for example, where I’m originally from, are no longer Sola Scriptura - they don’t believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but that it merely contains His Word, so they are completely sold over to Higher Criticism, and therefore hold to Macroevolution. It’s my understanding that the union churches in Germany are the same.

In any case, what I’ve been saying is not my personal views, but what’s confessed by bodies like LCMS, WELS, and our own synod ILD.

If you look into the history of the LCMS, you’ll find that they were in part established by people who escaped the Rationalism in Europe, so I don’t think it’s accurate to say that they are out of sync of Lutheran orthodoxy.

Daniel, I was only refering to your position on the relation between science and faith. Your theology is of course orthodox Lutheran. However, the term Lutheran orthodoxy refers first of all to an historic epoche:

"Lutheran orthodoxy was an era in the history of Lutheranism, which began in 1580 from the writing of the Book of Concord and ended at the Age of Enlightenment. Lutheran orthodoxy was paralleled by similar eras in Calvinism and tridentine Roman Catholicism after the Counter-Reformation."
Lutheran orthodoxy - Wikipedia

And if you study that epoch and the positions Protestants took towards the beginning of the scientific revolution which happenend at the same time and its finding, you will find that the LCMS's approach is different. In that sense your approach is not the same as the approach of Lutherans during the actual period of Lutheran orthodoxy. I know this is quite offensive to you and hope you can accept my frankness. It does in no way limit my respect for your activity as a theologian and on the field of theology which I have witnessed here in many of your posts.

 

[FaithT]

Your approach must result in controlling and limiting or at best ridiculing science. You are basically saying that much of the research in paleontology is not possible, that the data - the result of analysis and measuring - is not reliable and that therefore any theory based on the data is nonsense.

This is saying much more than just saying that God is above the laws of nature - which of course he is but choses almost all the time to let those laws stand - or saying that our reasoning is limited and impacted by our fallenness - which of course it is, but we are still beings created in the image of God.

You can call that approach whatever you want, but it is definitely out of sync with the thought in the period of Lutheran Orthodoxy in the late 16th until the early 18th century.

What denomination are you? It says “Protestant” but that can be any number of things.

 

[FaithT]

This is what the LCMS believes, teaches, and confesses, though I can't speak for what individual members may believe. I don't think the LCMS would throw out any members for believing in Hugh Ross' ideas or the theory of Macroevolution, but I think it's unlikely that they would ordain Pastors who would teach it.

I don't want to go in circles, but I can add that I used to hold to Macroevolution, but I've come to realise that this is absolutely not a "science vs religion" debate. It's much more complex than that, and at its core, it's a discussion of philosophy and faith, not hard science.

Can you talk more about what made you switch your position from believing in Macroevolution to Microevolution, plus any other beliefs you eventually decided against?