Hugh Ross and Reasons To Believe

[MountainMan17]

I am jumping into this late, but some resources / organizations I recommend checking out are the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis. True science supports a literal 6-day creation just like is recorded in Genesis. There is no need to compromise with worldly, evolutionary philosophy. Many times in history a "scientific" belief has been proved wrong, while the Bible was correct. As Lutherans, the Bible is our authority. If "science" seems to contradict the plain, literal meaning of the creation account, then it is the science that is in error, not the Word of God. FWIW, I have a Bachelor of Science degree from a secular university and I never found any of the evolutionary arguments that were present to me to hold water under closer scrutiny. When one starts with an evolutionary worldview, all interpretation of the past will fall within that worldview. There is so much more I could go into but I'd have to write a book here, lol. The resources I mentioned above will be a much more reliable source of info than Hugh Ross.

Blessings

 

[MountainMan17]

P.S.

The "hominid" fossil discoveries tend to fall into two categories, either extinct apes or humans with some sort of degenerative disease or signs of extremely advanced age. ICR and Answers in Genesis have a lot of good info on this.


Blessings

 

[Till Schilling]

... worldly, evolutionary philosophy...

... an evolutionary worldview ...

You know very well that that is not how science work. Even though the interpretations of scientific findings can be pressed into a worldview, as by Dawkins.

The scientific method - as you will have learned it - is not about beliefs but about gathering data, establishing theories based on that data and looking for more data to verify the theories. False theories will be doubted and potentially proven wrong by other scientists with other theories which align more with the data.

The theories are subjective, the data is objective and verifiable.

If you found the data shown to you in support for the theory of evolution unconvincing, you could simply put the theory into doubt and prove other better theories which fit the data better.

 

[FaithT]

I am jumping into this late, but some resources / organizations I recommend checking out are the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis. True science supports a literal 6-day creation just like is recorded in Genesis. There is no need to compromise with worldly, evolutionary philosophy. Many times in history a "scientific" belief has been proved wrong, while the Bible was correct. As Lutherans, the Bible is our authority. If "science" seems to contradict the plain, literal meaning of the creation account, then it is the science that is in error, not the Word of God. FWIW, I have a Bachelor of Science degree from a secular university and I never found any of the evolutionary arguments that were present to me to hold water under closer scrutiny. When one starts with an evolutionary worldview, all interpretation of the past will fall within that worldview. There is so much more I could go into but I'd have to write a book here, lol. The resources I mentioned above will be a much more reliable source of info than Hugh Ross.

Blessings

My pastor told me that AIG isn’t a Lutheran site and can error.
As far as jumping in late, Welcome! I wish more Lutherans, particular LCMS would join in the conversation because I’m here to learn.

 

[Till Schilling]

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

I should not be posting here, I know. I will stay out of the discussion now.

To answer your question: at the moment none. I grew up in the Evangelical Church of Germany. The last church I was a member of was the Anglican Church of England. As I moved from England, I am not a member there anymore.

At the moment I sometimes attend services in the Reformed Church of Switzerland, sometimes in a free evangelical church. I would prefer to attend a Lutheran church but there are none close.

 

[MountainMan17]

You know very well that that is not how science work. Even though the interpretations of scientific findings can be pressed into a worldview, as by Dawkins.

The scientific method - as you will have learned it - is not about beliefs but about gathering data, establishing theories based on that data and looking for more data to verify the theories. False theories will be doubted and potentially proven wrong by other scientists with other theories which align more with the data.

The theories are subjective, the data is objective and verifiable.

If you found the data shown to you in support for the theory of evolution unconvincing, you could simply put the theory into doubt and prove other better theories which fit the data better.

I don't wish to get into a debate here, but when dealing with things that happened in the past such as creation, no human being was there to observe it happen (which is required in doing the scientific method). So, the physical data that is found now can be interpreted in different ways based on the worldview of the observer. As a Christian and also as a person that likes to dig into things, I believe the model of a literal 6-day creation as recorded in Genesis is the best fit for the facts that we can observe from the fossil record, geology, etc.

 

[MountainMan17]

My pastor told me that AIG isn’t a Lutheran site and can error.

Yes, I am sure they have errors (as any humans do, including Lutherans). But there is a lot of good scientific information they present that will help strengthen your faith in the reliability of God's Word.

 

[FaithT]

Till: Don’t leave, the discussion is just getting interesting.

 

[Till Schilling]

Till: Don’t leave, the discussion is just getting interesting.

Thanks, Hope.

Let me actually state that I fully agree with Daniel on two points:

1. The literal meaning of Scriptures will point us to a young earth creation and no macro-evolution.

2. And I am quoting Daniel: “Moreover, the Christian understanding of creation is not primarily about how we are created but why.”

I prefer to focus on the second point and to believe just that: God created the universe out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) and created humans in his image (imago dei) for the purpose of glorifying and enjoying God. Humans collectively and individually have fallen and are separated and in opposition to God and require a savior. Scriptures first and most important job is to point us to this savior: Christ Jesus.

Whilst I realize that the subject is a serious and consequential one, I do not accept that belief in creationism theories is required in order to be a faithful Christian believer and I think theologians should not interfere with science. They have done so many times in the past and it always ended in embarrassment. Franz Pieper, an important teacher of dogmatic theology in the LCMS whose books I have in the original German - only a hundred years ago expressed the opinion that the view that the sun rather than the earth is the centre of our solar system is against Scriptures. And he was right: the heliocentric solar system is against Scriptures. It is nevertheless the truth. Noone doubts this anymore. 500 years after Copernicus. The same will happen with regards to paleontology, geology and fossils. Noone will doubt the very old age of the earth and the many different hominids anymore. In 300-400 years from now.

 

[MountainMan17]

And he was right: the heliocentric solar system is against Scriptures. It is nevertheless the truth. Noone doubts this anymore. 500 years after Copernicus. The same will happen with regards to paleontology, geology and fossils. Noone will doubt the very old age of the earth and the many different hominids anymore. In 300-400 years from now.

I agree that the Scriptures point to a young earth and no macro-evolution.

I have to respectfully disagree with Pieper regarding his opinion that the geocentric model of the universe is taught in Scripture. Again, there is too much to cover in this context, but for those who would dive in deeper the following article is a good read (as a warning, it is lengthy): Geocentrism and Creation

If we cannot accept the Scriptures as being scientifically accurate, then how can we trust the Scriptures to show us the way of eternal life? If we believe God is the Author of the Scriptures and the writers worked under divine inspiration, then the Bible must be scientifically accurate. If we find a seeming contradiction between science and the Bible, it is our understanding that is incorrect, not the Bible. A passage of Scripture must always be examined in light of context, in comparison with other Scriptures, in light of the audience to whom the passage was written, etc. Otherwise the interpreter may fall guilty of Eisegesis (reading into the text his own interpretation).

 

[FaithT]

Thanks, Hope.

Let me actually state that I fully agree with Daniel on two points:

1. The literal meaning of Scriptures will point us to a young earth creation and no macro-evolution.

2. And I am quoting Daniel: “Moreover, the Christian understanding of creation is not primarily about how we are created but why.”

I prefer to focus on the second point and to believe just that: God created the universe out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) and created humans in his image (imago dei) for the purpose of glorifying and enjoying God. Humans collectively and individually have fallen and are separated and in opposition to God and require a savior. Scriptures first and most important job is to point us to this savior: Christ Jesus.

Whilst I realize that the subject is a serious and consequential one, I do not accept that belief in creationism theories is required in order to be a faithful Christian believer and I think theologians should not interfere with science. They have done so many times in the past and it always ended in embarrassment. Franz Pieper, an important teacher of dogmatic theology in the LCMS whose books I have in the original German - only a hundred years ago expressed the opinion that the view that the sun rather than the earth is the centre of our solar system is against Scriptures. And he was right: the heliocentric solar system is against Scriptures. It is nevertheless the truth. Noone doubts this anymore. 500 years after Copernicus. The same will happen with regards to paleontology, geology and fossils. Noone will doubt the very old age of the earth and the many different hominids anymore. In 300-400 years from now.

I’ve been very upfront with my pastor about my believing the earth is old. He told me that it was ok but after I brought the subject up a number of times, worried that maybe I don’t fit in with the LCMS he consulted with his “denominational supervisor” (whatever that is) and they both made it clear that it’s ok if I believe in an old earth. He personally doesn’t but said that there are many faithful Christians who do and it’s ok.

I also talked with another pastor who’s a guest at my church sometimes. I told him my thoughts on the age of the earth and he agreed with me.

 

[FaithT]

P.S.

The "hominid" fossil discoveries tend to fall into two categories, either extinct apes or humans with some sort of degenerative disease or signs of extremely advanced age. ICR and Answers in Genesis have a lot of good info on this.


Blessings

I agree that ICR is a good and informative website.

 

[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.

The peace of Christ to you! +

Can you talk a little more about that, please? You’ve said that before and I don’t think I understand.

 

[Till Schilling]

If we cannot accept the Scriptures as being scientifically accurate, then how can we trust the Scriptures to show us the way of eternal life?

In a way we do not even need Holy Scriptures for that. We have the testimony and tradition of the church, we have the creed, the rule of faith. That contains enough revelation for saving faith. It, the creed, also contains sufficient information about the doctrine of creation.

We do not believe in the bible but in Christ. And in the bible not everything is of equal importance: the gospels, the eye witness reports about Jesus’s life and teaching are the centre. If we only had the gospels as Scriptures we would already have more than the Old Testament believers.

 

[Daniel9v9]

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.

Well, thank you for that and thank you for clarifying - I'm not easily offended, so no worries. I know our position is unpopular, so I can sympathise, though I disagree.

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?

This will be off-topic, sorry - but I was born and raised in a Pentecostal house and spent much of my youth in non-denominational, Charismatic, and Evangelical churches. I had some exposure to the Lutheran Church in Norway and some to the Anglican Church in the UK, where I lived for 10 years.

So, my theological background was weak and confused. I used to hold to very loose Arminian Baptist ideas, and I sadly confess that had a complete disregard - even a hatred towards the Sacraments. I accepted Macroevolution as hard science, as that's what I was taught and everyone around me believed. Only when I actually started to read the Scriptures, and study Church History and Theology at our seminary, and digging into Orthodox Lutheran texts did I realise that everything is a lot more nuanced and complex - and a part of this is how the common distinction between "religion" and "science" is false. I'm convinced that the Lutheran Church is the Church where the Word of God is proclaimed the clearest, with its proper distinctions of Law and Gospel, Justification and Sanctification, Coram Mundo and Coram Deo. The Lutheran Church lets the Bible interpret itself.

In short, and related to this topic, I believe we need room for holy mysteries, which the Bible does give us. I like to explain it this way: Most other church bodies will recognise the mystery of God, but the Lutheran Church recognises that the mystery also extends to His divine works.

 

[FaithT]

Well, thank you for that and thank you for clarifying - I'm not easily offended, so no worries. I know our position is unpopular, so I can sympathise, though I disagree.



This will be off-topic, sorry - but I was born and raised in a Pentecostal house and spent much of my youth in non-denominational, Charismatic, and Evangelical churches. I had some exposure to the Lutheran Church in Norway and some to the Anglican Church in the UK, where I lived for 10 years.

So, my theological background was weak and confused. I used to hold to very loose Arminian Baptist ideas, and I sadly confess that had a complete disregard - even a hatred towards the Sacraments. I accepted Macroevolution as hard science, as that's what I was taught and everyone around me believed. Only when I actually started to read the Scriptures, and study Church History and Theology at our seminary, and digging into Orthodox Lutheran texts did I realise that everything is a lot more nuanced and complex - and a part of this is how the common distinction between "religion" and "science" is false. I'm convinced that the Lutheran Church is the Church where the Word of God is proclaimed the clearest, with its proper distinctions of Law and Gospel, Justification and Sanctification, Coram Mundo and Coram Deo. The Lutheran Church lets the Bible interpret itself.

In short, and related to this topic, I believe we need room for holy mysteries, which the Bible does give us. I like to explain it this way: Most other church bodies will recognise the mystery of God, but the Lutheran Church recognises that the mystery also extends to His divine works.

Can you please explain that last paragraph further?

 

[FaithT]

Well, thank you for that and thank you for clarifying - I'm not easily offended, so no worries. I know our position is unpopular, so I can sympathise, though I disagree.

If our position is unpopular, doesn’t that suggest we may be wrong?

 

[Daniel9v9]

If our position is unpopular, doesn’t that suggest we may be wrong?

No, I don't believe so — and certainly not by necessity. To judge by numbers is a dangerous game. For example, most people in the world reject that Jesus is God. However, that alone means nothing — it doesn't mean they're right, just because they're in majority. In this sense, we can say that to believe that Jesus is God is unpopular, and where I live it's extremely unpopular. Less than 1% of the population here in Japan identify as Christian.

Or to take a different example, most Christians believe in some way or another that Holy Baptism is something we do for ourselves or for God, but that's also wrong, for it is something God does for us; it's God grace for us. He has graciously given us Baptism for our comfort. So, just because this understanding is unpopular in the world of Christendom doesn't automatically mean it's false. Nowhere in Scriptures does it say anything to the effect of that "Baptism is our public declaration of faith", which is very commonly expressed in our time. Rather, the Bible says things like: "Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." And: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." And: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

So, whatever it may be, we always go with the plain reading of God's Word, unless there's something in the text that suggests that it should be taken figurately. This is what it means to be Sola Scriptura. I wrote a short article about it here if you're interested in understanding this in a bit more detail:
Exegesis | THE REJECTED STONE

Oh, and when I say we are few in numbers and that our position is unpopular, you have to remember that the Orthodox Lutheran body is still a very large Christian body in the world. The International Lutheran Council alone has 7.15 million members, and there are other councils and synods scattered around the world. But let us not be guided by numbers that are unreliable and changeable, but God's Word, which is reliable and unchangeable.

Can you please explain that last paragraph further?

Sure. The whole Christian Church confesses a belief in that God is one, in the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that the fullness of God dwells in Christ bodily, so Jesus is God in flesh; 100% God and 100% man. Not 50/50. Not a demi-god. But completely God and completely man. So, what is infinite is somehow supernaturally contained in what is finite. But exactly how this is possible scientifically or logically speaking is a holy mystery, that we accept through faith. We believe it because it is the truth that God has spoken and showed us in His Son. This is to say, God is too great for us to comprehend in His fullness, but He has graciously made a way for us to see and believe in Him, in Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour. So we recognise the profound miracle of Christ and believe in Him with childlike faith. Again, the Church has always recognised God as a holy mystery.

Now, the Lutheran Church, and to some extent, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, recognise not only God as a holy mystery, but also His works. The Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Reformed, however, have a tendency to claim that God is a mystery, but His miraculous works are not. I believe this to be wrong and arbitrary, and I think this is a mark of Lutheran orthodoxy — that when the Bible presents us with a paradox, we accept it as a holy mystery, knowing that what seems impossible to us is not impossible to God.

Let me give you a practical example of this using two opposing Reformed doctrines, and contrast it with the Lutheran system:

Calvinists rightly claim that salvation is entirely from God, but wrongly that damnation is also from God (either actively or passively). Arminians, on the other hand, wrongly attribute salvation to man (not as a work, but as a decision), but rightly say that damnation is entirely from man. Both Calvinists and Arminians claim reason or logic on their side, but both parties compromise on the Bible, which says that salvation is entirely from God, and that damnation is entirely from man, and this is what the Lutheran Church believes, teaches, and confesses, while understanding that it is a holy mystery rightly apprehended through faith alone.

So simply speaking, we believe that the holy mystery of God extends to His divine work. This is why we're not in the business of explaining how miracles occur, but focus on why they occur and what it means to us. We don't have to question the nature or works of God, for we know that whatever He says and does is true.

 

[Till Schilling]

I know our position is unpopular

How so? The LCMS is an US-American church and the majority of Christians in the US hold to some kind of belief in creatinist theories. The LCMS fits right in.

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia

So simply speaking, we believe that the holy mystery of God extends to His divine work. This is why we're not in the business of explaining how miracles occur, but focus on why they occur and what it means to us. We don't have to question the nature or works of God, for we know that whatever He says and does is true.

You are pulling the carpet from unter the feet of science. Our ability to do science is part of common grace, of humans being created in the image of God and being bestowed with reason. You are taking a concept that refers - in a quite limited way - to doctrines that are part of special revelation, that refer to our salvation and relation to God in redemption, and you apply this concept to natural life. Which philosophically opens up the door wide to all kind of irrationality.

Our reason cannot fathom God and his nature nor the way of how God wants to redeem us. Nor does our will. But our reason can understand the normal laws of nature. If it could not, you computer would not work, airplances would not fly, Covid-19 vaccines could not get developed.

 

[Daniel9v9]

How so? The LCMS is an US-American church and the majority of Christians in the US hold to some kind of belief in creatinist theories. The LCMS fits right in.

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia



You are pulling the carpet from unter the feet of science. Our ability to do science is part of common grace, of humans being created in the image of God and being bestowed with reason. You are taking a concept that refers - in a quite limited way - to doctrines that are part of special revelation, that refer to our salvation and relation to God in redemption, and you apply this concept to natural life. Which philosophically opens up the door wide to all kind of irrationality.

Our reason cannot fathom God and his nature nor the way of how God wants to redeem us. Nor does our will. But our reason can understand the normal laws of nature. If it could not, you computer would not work, airplances would not fly, Covid-19 vaccines could not get developed.

To your first point, I'm talking relative to the world of Christendom. And I should say, I don't insist on any creation theory. What I'm concerned about is maintaining purity of doctrine, which means if someone, for example, were to ask me if there was death before the fall, then I would have to say no, because death is a consequence of the fall; death means both spiritual and physical. Or if someone were to ask if there are several species of humans, again, no; God only created Adam and Eve in His image.

My attitude to the creation account and what I always encourage others with is to take God's Word in its simplicity, knowing that God is the only one who was present at the creation, and He has left us a reliable witness. And in it, we find that the focus is not on how the universe was created, but on why it was created. So we can trust in God's Word and let our focus be on Christ.

To your second point, when I say that the mystery of God extends to His divine work, what is implied is His miraculous work (and not Divine Providence), which we'll do well not to speculate on beyond what the Scriptures say. So first of all, we shouldn't think of the creation account in a purely naturalistic way, because it was created ex nihilo. Secondly, there is a big difference in natural law before and after the fall. In other words, the act of creation was a miracle, and the fall was a miracle as well, albeit terrible. (When I say miracle, I mean something contrary to what we know as natural law)

So, what I argue is that reason can only go so far when it comes to divine miracles. There is certainly a place for reason in the Christian faith, in loving God and our neighbour practically, and in studying God's Word, and in the realm of God's Divine Providence, which would be the hard sciences and the study of natural law as it exists now. But I believe we'll do well to make a careful distinction between reason as it relates to a miracle and reason as it relates to natural law, because that has serious implications.

The Orthodox Lutheran position is that the creation account is an article of faith, not reason, which is exactly what Hebrews 11:3 says: "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."

(Now, I need to hop off this thread so I can get some work done, sorry! But I hope this is sufficient.)