Hugh Ross and Reasons To Believe

[FaithT]

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.)

I think what Till is getting at is he’s wanting cold, hard facts to back up these theories rather than simply relying on the Bible. Correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Till Schilling]

I think what Till is getting at is he’s wanting cold, hard facts to back up these theories rather than simply relying on the Bible. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Kind of.

It is more about different spheres.

The bible is not a science book. So it must not be used to prove a scientific theory. But that is not what Daniel is doing. Others - creationists like Answers in Genesis - go in that direction.

 

[FaithT]

Kind of.

It is more about different spheres.

The bible is not a science book. So it must not be used to prove a scientific theory. But that is not what Daniel is doing. Others - creationists like Answers in Genesis - go in that direction.

You sound like a Catholic, LOL.

 

[FaithT]

Kind of.

Ok, that’s what I want to know more about. I mean the Bible is wonderful but I need some facts to back it up, and certainly there should be.

 

[Till Schilling]

Ok, that’s what I want to know more about. I mean the Bible is wonderful but I need some facts to back it up, and certainly there should be.

Creation cannot be proven. As Daniel wrote: it is an article of faith.

That Jesus existed and was resurrected is more likely than the opposite. But again it cannot be proven. You will have to trust the testimony of the authors of the gospels.

Faith is not the same as knowing.

This is not the issue here. The issue is a belief that certain events took place in nature, in time and space, regarding which science tell us that they took place in a different way. So it is a belief against the - current - findings and position of science.

Science - at least serious science - do not state that there is no God or that there cannot be miracles. They don’t claim that there cannot be a virgin pregnancy or a resurrection of the dead. These articles of faith do not stand in contradiction to science. The belief that there is no macro-evolution does.

 

[FaithT]

Creation cannot be proven. As Daniel wrote: it is an article of faith.

That Jesus existed and was resurrected is more likely than the opposite. But again it cannot be proven. You will have to trust the testimony of the authors of the gospels.

Faith is not the same as knowing.

This is not the issue here. The issue is a belief that certain events took place in nature, in time and space, regarding which science tell us that they took place in a different way. So it is a belief against the - current - findings and position of science.

Science - at least serious science - do not state that there is no God or that there cannot be miracles. They don’t claim that there cannot be a virgin pregnancy or a resurrection of the dead. These articles of faith do not stand in contradiction to science. The belief that there is no macro-evolution does.

Yeah, well, today I saw part of the AIG news program and apparently scientists are now theorizing we may have evolved from life on Mars.
Daniel, every time I turn around it’s something. How can you be so sure we haven’t evolved when so much science says we have?
It’s this constant thing that keeps making me think I belong back in the Catholic Church but I really love my new church.
But Catholicism doesn’t forbid belief in evolution.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Yeah, well, today I saw part of the AIG news program and apparently scientists are now theorizing we may have evolved from life on Mars.
Daniel, every time I turn around it’s something. How can you be so sure we haven’t evolved when so much science says we have?
It’s this constant thing that keeps making me think I belong back in the Catholic Church but I really love my new church.
But Catholicism doesn’t forbid belief in evolution.

What we can agree on, which is crucial to rightly understand and which can unburden us, is that there are no cold hard facts when it comes to the origin of the universe. What we have, simply speaking, are different theories and God's Word. We have evidence that needs to be interpreted, and how we interpret that evidence is subject to our faith. So, faith is always the seat of every system of thought, whether it be Atheism, Pantheism, Deism, Scientism, or Christianity, or any worldview.

The Orthodox Lutheran position is simply to say what God's Word says and not to speculate or make strong assertions on what it doesn't say. We don't explain miracles but allow for holy mysteries, and the creation account is a holy mystery. This is what I'm talking about in #4 and #60. So, to hammer this point further: This is absolutely not a "science vs religion" issue, so we have to get this notion out of our head. This "science vs religion" distinction is unfortunately very common, but it's also shallow, false, and unhelpful. The issue at hand is fundamentally a clash of philosophy and it's not a debate over hard science. And as said before, as we know that God is almighty, and that He created the world out of nothing, there is no difficulty. I made an illustration of this in #29.

Let me finish on this point so I don't end up in a loop: The Holy Bible doesn't just contain some of God's Word, but it IS God's Word, so it is entirely reliable. When we read or hear the Scriptures, it is the Holy Spirit talking to us, calling us to repentance through the Law and giving us the comfort of forgiveness of sins in the Gospel. This clear distinction of Law and Gospel is regrettably not found in the Church of Rome, so I pray that you stay and speak with your Pastor. I don't believe he or anyone would ask you to leave the LCMS if you believe in the theory of Macroevolution, or Hugh Ross' ideas, or some other theory, and there's certainly no requirement to adopt any of the views on Answers in Genesis. It's sufficient to trust in that Jesus died for you and that He loves you.

We can be assured that all of creation is the work of God's hands, and that He not only made us, but that He sustains us daily. He maintains the whole universe and cares for the believer and the unbeliever alike. And He gives us everything we need for our salvation and Christian living in His Word. We believe in Christ through faith, yes. We believe that He made the universe through faith, yes. We grab hold of these things through faith alone, yes — but you can be comforted with that nothing in the world can disprove God as our Creator and Redeemer. Whatever we find in nature is from God, and it's OK to not know how it all fits together, because no one knows, even if some make strong assertions. Just always keep before you that what seems impossible to us, is not impossible to God.

The peace of Christ to you! +

 

[Till Schilling]

It’s this constant thing that keeps making me think I belong back in the Catholic Church but I really love my new church.
But Catholicism doesn’t forbid belief in evolution.

Neither does the LCMS. You mentioned that you have asked your pastor and he confirmed that.

May I ask what were your reasons to convert from the Roman-Catholic church to the LCMS?

 

[FaithT]

Neither does the LCMS. You mentioned that you have asked your pastor and he confirmed that.

May I ask what were your reasons to convert from the Roman-Catholic church to the LCMS?

OMGosh, sheer boredom. The monotony of the liturgy. The music. That’s mostly it, plus some of their rules such as birth control.

 

[Till Schilling]

OMGosh, sheer boredom. The monotony of the liturgy. The music. That’s mostly it, plus some of their rules such as birth control.

In fact the Roman-Catholic church does require you to hold much more beliefs than the LCMS. Beliefs that often go well beyound Scriptures. And the LCMS does not require you to believe in young earth creation. Your pastor confirmed that, didn't he? They accept your opinion even though disagree. To leave the LCMS because of a disagreement which is not actually causing any problems for you but has been accepted does not seem to make sense.

See also:
"
QUESTION: A person, because of his study of science, does not believe that the universe was created in six literal 24-hour periods. Does this fact, by itself, render this person ineligible for membership in the LCMS?

ANSWER: A person’s private views regarding this question do not automatically disqualify a person from becoming a member of the congregation.

It is possible, of course, that someone holding to a given theory about the “six days” of the creation accounts also holds to views about the Bible that would be troublesome and perhaps in some cases detrimental to saving faith.

But judgments in this regard belong in the realm of individual pastoral care, and are not a matter of hard and fast rules so that someone’s personal opinions in this area would become in effect a kind of litmus test for membership.

It has generally been taught in our church that unless there is a compelling reason, on the basis of the biblical texts themselves, to understand the six days of the Genesis accounts as anything other than normal 24-hour days, we are to believe that God created the world in six 24-hour days (see Luther’s Small Catechism with Explanation, Question 97 [Concordia Publishing House, 1986, p. 106]).

Official members of the LCMS (congregations, pastors, rostered church workers), of course, pledge to honor and uphold the official position of the Synod on doctrinal issues, including its official position on creation."
The Bible - Frequently Asked Questions - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod




I want to recommend to you a little book to understand the background of Lutheranism better:

The Spirituality of the Cross - Expanded & Revised