LCMS and YEC vs OEC

[FaithT]

I wrote to my LCMS pastor about my concern regarding not believing in a young earth. I’m not going to Cut and Paste his exact words, but the gist of what he said,
because I don’t have his permission.

He told me there are two choices with this. My 1st choice is to say that I know God is able to do anything, so He is able to make the earth in 6 days or make it in 6 billion days; but my thoughts on Genesis 1 and 2 is that it was not 6 calendar days that was intended to be communicated.
My 2nd choice is to say that I don’t believe God is able to make the earth in 6 days because it’s against scientific reasoning, meaning that God isnt all powerful but is instead subject to scientific theory.

If someone believes Choice 2 then he would say we’d need to talk more, but if someone believes Choice 1 even though that person interprets the Bible different than he does, that person still finds the Bible to be authorative over science and believes God is All Powerful. These beliefs are both in line with LCMS doctrine.


I said that I believe that God is able to create the earth as long He chose to create it,but that I believe he created billions of years ago. I added that God is All Powerful but a variety of science disciplines say it’s billions of years old, so that’s what I believe.....then asked what choice I fit into.

Pastor said that I fit in with choice #1.

Do you all agree?

 

[GospelS]

And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. Genesis 1:5
And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. Genesis 1:8
And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. Genesis 1:13
And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. Genesis 1:19
And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day. Genesis 1:23
And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Genesis 1:31

If there was gap between the days then they won't be called second day/ third day/ fourth day/ fifth day/ and sixth day. The scripture mentions consecutive days, one after another, straight, recording morning and evening of the first six days.

 

[FaithT]

Resha Caner?

 

[Tigger45]

Resha Caner?

@Resha Caner

 

[TKA_TN]

I’d say you fall into 1.

 

[FaithT]

@Resha Caner

That’s a poster here. I’d like him to weigh in.

 

[Tigger45]

That’s a poster here. I’d like home to weigh in.

Yep I know. By adding the @ before their username it automatically alerts them. Just trying to help out.

 

[FaithT]

Yep I know. By adding the @ before their username it automatically alerts them. Just trying to help out.

Oh, I didn’t know that. Thanks.

 

[Resha Caner]

I wrote to my LCMS pastor about my concern regarding not believing in an old earth. I’m not going to Cut and Paste his exact words, but the gist of what he said,
because I don’t have his permission.

He told me there are two choices with this. My 1st choice is to say that I know God is able to do anything, so He is able to make the earth in 6 days or make it in 6 billion days; but my thoughts on Genesis 1 and 2 is that it was not 6 calendar days that was intended to be communicated.
My 2nd choice is to say that I don’t believe God is able to make the earth in 6 days because it’s against scientific reasoning, meaning that God isnt all powerful but is instead subject to scientific theory.

If someone believes Choice 2 then he would say we’d need to talk more, but if someone believes Choice 1 even though that person interprets the Bible different than he does, that person still finds the Bible to be authorative over science and believes God is All Powerful. These beliefs are both in line with LCMS doctrine.


I said that I believe that God is able to create the earth as long He chose to create it,but that I believe he created billions of years ago. I added that God is All Powerful but a variety of science disciplines say it’s billions of years old, so that’s what I believe.....then asked what choice I fit into.

Pastor said that I fit in with choice #1.

Do you all agree?

I'm flattered you're directing this question at me, but I try to constantly reinforce the importance of trusting your pastor and seeking his counsel. I know you've done that in this case, but I want to be sure we're crystal clear on that point. Given that, I agree with your pastor and I agree it sounds like you fit in category #1.

However, given we have a rather impersonal Internet relationship, maybe I have the luxury of being blunt. Therefore, let me put two more things in front of you to consider.

First, with respect to your pastor's line of thought, it seems you have agreed to the following: 1) God is all powerful and could have created the world in 6 days had he chosen to do it that way. 2) You believe the evidence shows God didn't do it that way. Then let me add a third part: 3) Since you're not God, do you acknowledge you could be wrong? Is it possible you're wrong with respect to the belief stated in number 2? If so, then you're way ahead of most.

Second, given our past discussions, might I suggest that it's not so much that you believe the evidence shows something different than a 6-day creation, but rather you don't feel qualified to challenge the overwhelming cultural currents pushing everyone toward that position? I don't mean that as an insult. I think it's a sign of maturity when someone knows themselves well - knows their strengths and weaknesses - and it's something for which I have a lot of respect. You seem like that kind of person.

It may seem cheesy to reference the TV show Friends, but there is a great episode where Ross (the scientist) and Phoebe (the spiritual one) get into an argument about evolution. Phoebe has no hope of winning a scientific argument with Ross, but she does an excellent job of putting Ross in his place for being so arrogant as to think himself superior to Phoebe because he "understands" the science supporting evolution and she doesn't. I was actually surprised and impressed that the writers would create an episode that did that.

I hope that helps. As always, since I jumped in, if you want to discuss it more, let me know. I have a seemingly odd social deficiency where I'm rarely intimidated by anyone. It can be a blessing, but it's often a curse. Anyway, it means I have my own reasons that I think answer mainstream science regarding why it's highly likely the Bible is telling us God did create the world in 6 days.

 

[FaithT]

Oh, I didn’t know that.

I'm flattered you're directing this question at me, but I try to constantly reinforce the importance of trusting your pastor and seeking his counsel. I know you've done that in this case, but I want to be sure we're crystal clear on that point. Given that, I agree with your pastor and I agree it sounds like you fit in category #1.

However, given we have a rather impersonal Internet relationship, maybe I have the luxury of being blunt. Therefore, let me put two more things in front of you to consider.

First, with respect to your pastor's line of thought, it seems you have agreed to the following: 1) God is all powerful and could have created the world in 6 days had he chosen to do it that way. 2) You believe the evidence shows God didn't do it that way. Then let me add a third part: 3) Since you're not God, do you acknowledge you could be wrong? Is it possible you're wrong with respect to the belief stated in number 2? If so, then you're way ahead of most.

Second, given our past discussions, might I suggest that it's not so much that you believe the evidence shows something different than a 6-day creation, but rather you don't feel qualified to challenge the overwhelming cultural currents pushing everyone toward that position? I don't mean that as an insult. I think it's a sign of maturity when someone knows themselves well - knows their strengths and weaknesses - and it's something for which I have a lot of respect. You seem like that kind of person.

It may seem cheesy to reference the TV show Friends, but there is a great episode where Ross (the scientist) and Phoebe (the spiritual one) get into an argument about evolution. Phoebe has no hope of winning a scientific argument with Ross, but she does an excellent job of putting Ross in his place for being so arrogant as to think himself superior to Phoebe because he "understands" the science supporting evolution and she doesn't. I was actually surprised and impressed that the writers would create an episode that did that.

I hope that helps. As always, since I jumped in, if you want to discuss it more, let me know. I have a seemingly odd social deficiency where I'm rarely intimidated by anyone. It can be a blessing, but it's often a curse. Anyway, it means I have my own reasons that I think answer mainstream science regarding why it's highly likely the Bible is telling us God did create the world in 6 days.

well, my pastor kept saying that I didn’t believe God created in six days. I think He probably did......I however don’t think the earth is young, I believe in an old earth, which is what he and I were actually discussing. We’ve discussed it several times.

 

[Resha Caner]

well, my pastor kept saying that I didn’t believe God created in six days. I think He probably did......I however don’t think the earth is young, I believe in an old earth, which is what he and I were actually discussing. We’ve discussed it several times.

OK. My answer remains much the same. I don't accept the whole 6000 years thing, but I don't accept 4.5 billion years either. So again, I'm challenging you a bit. Do you think yourself A) qualified enough to argue with PhDs in geology about the age of the earth or are you B) accepting their credentials and conclusions?

My point is that if it's A), then you believe the evidence. If it's B), what you're really doing is trusting a person (or a cultural meme).

 

[FaithT]

OK. My answer remains much the same. I don't accept the whole 6000 years thing, but I don't accept 4.5 billion years either. So again, I'm challenging you a bit. Do you think yourself A) qualified enough to argue with PhDs in geology about the age of the earth or are you B) accepting their credentials and conclusions?

My point is that if it's A), then you believe the evidence. If it's B), what you're really doing is trusting a person (or a cultural meme).

Well, I’m certainly not qualified enough to argue with PhDs.

 

[FaithT]

I made a mistake in my OP, but just edited it. I wrote old earth instead of not believing in a young earth.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, I’m certainly not qualified enough to argue with PhDs.

I think you could get there if you really wanted to.

Like I said, I have this deficiency whereby I actually believe I am capable of arguing with PhDs on many different topics. So, while I don't believe I'm (currently) wrong, I acknowledge the possibility. I acknowledge it because I've had to admit many times I was wrong, and my position on this topic has changed as a result.

 

[FaithT]

I think you could get there if you really wanted to.

Like I said, I have this deficiency whereby I actually believe I am capable of arguing with PhDs on many different topics. So, while I don't believe I'm (currently) wrong, I acknowledge the possibility. I acknowledge it because I've had to admit many times I was wrong, and my position on this topic has changed as a result.

But just to be clear, you still agree with my pastor that I fit in Choice 1, right?

 

[Resha Caner]

But just to be clear, you still agree with my pastor that I fit in Choice 1, right?

Yes, but I'm pushing you to go a little further.

Some people have mastered the subtly of agreeing but not agreeing. They find vague words that make it sound like they agree when they really don't. It's a nifty trick for preserving social niceties. So I'm digging to find out if that's what you're doing.

If you honestly accept your belief about the age of the earth could be wrong, I can accept you're not just seeking a social comfort zone.

 

[FaithT]

Yes, but I'm pushing you to go a little further.

Some people have mastered the subtly of agreeing but not agreeing. They find vague words that make it sound like they agree when they really don't. It's a nifty trick for preserving social niceties. So I'm digging to find out if that's what you're doing.

If you honestly accept your belief about the age of the earth could be wrong, I can accept you're not just seeking a social comfort zone.

I do believe I could be wrong but I doubt it because I’ve spent money on books and have talked to my pastor and others a lot. I’ve tried to believe the earth is young but I don’t.
My husband thinks that people who believe in a young earth are “misguided”.

 

[Resha Caner]

I do believe I could be wrong but I doubt it because I’ve spent money on books and have talked to my pastor and others a lot. I’ve tried to believe the earth is young but I don’t.

OK. You're seeking. That's good. I'm sure you know the Bible verse (Matthew 7:7).

What started me down the alternative path long, long ago was an existential crisis I had in my engineering job. It had nothing to do with evolution, the age of the earth, etc. Rather, I was leading a research team trying to meet some regulations for machines built by my company. We met the regulations, but I just couldn't let go of the fact that the "science" wasn't matching as well as everyone seemed to think. I dug deeper and deeper trying to figure out what was going on, and ended up losing faith in the most fundamental assumptions of science. It pushed me to what is called an "instrumentalist" position. Sorry. I like telling stories.

 

[FaithT]

How old do you think the earth is?

 

[Resha Caner]

How old do you think the earth is?

I don't think we can know that. If I was guessing, I'd guess something in the hundreds of thousands of years, but there's no way to know. And that is another important step - accepting "I don't know" as an answer. It's one of the things I love about Lutheran theology - that it seems one of the few strains of Christianity that is willing to answer some questions with "I don't know" or even "that's not a religious question." Some strains of Christianity seem to think the Bible will answer every question from how long to boil an egg to where you left your car keys.

So, if you read the Bible instead of creationist websites (not saying you do that), you'll notice the Bible never states the age of the earth. All the numbers people come up with are uninformed numbers games. At one time I had a paper from an Egyptologist who was explaining why it's nearly impossible to date the reigns of the Pharaohs, and such is the case with much of ancient history.

We're not even sure about the correct date of birth for Martin Luther.

And geology is no better. For the most part I'm willing to accept geological methods for sequencing - that is, for saying this thing is older than that thing, but when it comes to specific dates ...

Sometimes people speak about science as if it just documents what is obvious and plainly right in front of your face, as if because of "method" all you need is a monkey to push buttons, which is simply not true. Some can teach, some can't. Some can create beautiful art, some can't. Some can lead a nation, some can't. Some can do science, some can't.

In these cases, then, when the answer heads toward "I don't know", you need to ask yourself, "Is it really important?" Given the Bible doesn't state the age of the earth, I'm willing to venture it's not an important religious question - if it's even a religious question at all.

It sounds like you're willing to - maybe even like to - read. If so, I'd suggest "Natural Science in Western History" by Frederick Gregory. It stays at a fairly simple level, but has an excellent summary of the problems that have plagued science - things you won't learn in school or hear from proponents of scientism. There is also the book by Kitty Ferguson that isn't as academic ("The Fire in the Equations"). Anything beyond that and you'll have to dig into some deep esoteric issues to really understand what's going on. Though I guess another read that espouses the view that science is not infallible comes from Jonah Lehrer and was published in The New Yorker in December of 2010 called "Is There Something Wrong With the Scientific Method?" I think the article is spot on, but people who say such things are often labeled as nuts, so keep that in mind.