Stardust

[-57]

If everything, even the earth is made of stardust what is your objection about?

A question for you.

What authority do you believe, do you believe the bible or do you believe what men say?

Your choice is to believe the bible is true or it is not true. To b elieve in creation or in evolution, it is your choice and no there is no middle ground.

Yo that I might add...

In post 2 I said...To make things worse if man evolved and Genesis is wrong... then there was no Adam, Eve....no Garden, no Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, no serpent, no deception, no fall....basically no need for Jesus'.

How would one get around this

 

[Tigger45]

I've had this very conversation with a LCMS pastor and his response was that a literal 7 day creation is what they teach but it is not a required belief of lay members.

 

[AMM]

Meaning I, (we) don’t have to believe all the LCMS teaches as long as I (we) believe Jesus is the Son of God and my Savior?

more or less. Are you familiar with Luther's Small Catechism? And the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds?

I think he’s getting tired of having to answer all of my questions.

to be fair, that's kind of his job. I'm sure he's glad to help you understand and sit down with you to talk about these things. That being said, I do get your concern as I felt the same way when I was becoming Orthodox and pestering my priest with questions

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes, it matters because it goes against LCMS teaching.

That's not strictly true. LCMS teaching is more nuanced than that. The LCMS believes in an inspired, inerrant Bible, and most traditional interpretations of that Bible.

Therefore:
1) What you think about the origins of life does not determine whether you are saved. Both creationists and evolutionists can be saved.
2) What you think does not prevent membership in the LCMS. Both creationists and evolutionists may be members.

With that said, most LCMS pastors favor YEC. Just keep in mind that what pastors think about the origins of life is not the same as the theology of the church. The job of a pastor is to preach Christ, not teach you science.

Next, make sure you get your science correct. Science doesn't make truth claims. It presents what it considers the most probable model, and there is an important difference between that and claiming truth. Further, evolution says nothing about the age of the earth or life's origins. Those two issues come from geology and abiogenesis respectively. What you'll find on the Internet constantly misrepresents what scientists are actually saying, and what the Bible actually says (at least per the LCMS view).

With all that said, if you do manage to remove the clutter, there are still differences between what science says about some things and what the traditional interpretations of the Bible say. But it's hard to have a good conversation about it given there are 1001 views all arguing different ways to resolve the problem.

 

[klutedavid]

I’ve learned that the LCMS believes in a young earth and no evolution. That has been bothering me but now today, I was watching a news program online from the Answers in Genesis website. They said something about humans not being made out of stardust but every single thing I’ve read about this online today says that humans, all of life and even the earth is made from stardust. I assume Lutherans don’t believe this. How do you all remain LCMS when so much of what is scientifically taught goes against church teaching?

The idea that the Genesis account is a scientific, literal, and a historical narration, is an interpretation applied to the text. A specific way of reading the text.

The Genesis account is a very simple account describing the creation of mankind.

Whether or not we are to assume that the creation account describes a duration of time, that is, a six literal day creation, is ultimately an open question.

It certainly appears that the Genesis account is an overview of that creation process.

It is probably better not to apply an interpretation to the text.

 

[Resha Caner]

It is probably better not to apply an interpretation to the text.

That would make the text useless. The LCMS does have an exegetical approach.

 

[klutedavid]

That would make the text useless. The LCMS does have an exegetical approach.

The Genesis text is not useless at all. The Genesis text is a theological narration and has nothing to do with any scientific perspective.

The Genesis text lays the foundation for the nation of Israel. Your looking at a simple narration that really focuses on Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation.

If you lean on the Genesis text at any point you are probably over stretching the very fabric of this ancient text. And ultimately degenerating the real purpose of the Genesis text.

To look at Genesis with a modern scientific mindset is an alarming method of interpretation. One that I would most strongly advise against.

 

[Resha Caner]

The Genesis text is not useless at all. The Genesis text is a theological narration and has nothing to do with any scientific perspective.

The Genesis text lays the foundation for the nation of Israel. Your looking at a simple narration that really focuses on Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation.

If you lean on the Genesis text at any point you are probably over stretching the very fabric of this ancient text. And ultimately degenerating the real purpose of the Genesis text.

To look at Genesis with a modern scientific mindset is an alarming method of interpretation. One that I would most strongly advise against.

Anything you take away from Genesis is an interpretation of the text. I'm not advocating for a "scientific" interpretation, nor do I think that's possible for the most part. But scientific models do have philosophical implications that impinge on Genesis.

 

[FaithT]

Yo that I might add...

In post 2 I said...To make things worse if man evolved and Genesis is wrong... then there was no Adam, Eve....no Garden, no Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, no serpent, no deception, no fall....basically no need for Jesus'.

How would one get around this

I don’t know.

 

[klutedavid]

Anything you take away from Genesis is an interpretation of the text. I'm not advocating for a "scientific" interpretation, nor do I think that's possible for the most part. But scientific models do have philosophical implications that impinge on Genesis.

Scientific models only represent a superficial interpretation of universe.

1) Science has no tangible explanation for the origin of the universe. Even the early inflation event is well beyond the domain of science. During the early inflation event not even atomic particles existed, nor were the fundamental forces in play. Science hits a road block at this point.

2) Species observed in the fossil record appear suddenly and the transient species are missing in that fossil record. The hard evidence of the transient species may be absent in the fossil record but the overview of these speciation events. In the fossil record remains valid according to the scientific narration.

3) If we attempt to explore subatomic physics we reach a destination that no one understands. 'Anyone who claims to understand quantum theory is either lying or crazy', physicist Richard Feynman once said.

It is when you lean on science too much in order to understand the universe. That you find that science kicks back with questions, that are bordering on incomprehensible.

Science is an empirical methodology that is attempting to understand processes and events that are beyond the domain of empiricism.

So when I read Genesis I read it gently and the way that it was written. A simple text for a simple audience.

 

[Resha Caner]

Scientific models only represent a superficial interpretation of universe.

I don't know who you're trying to convince. I said I don't advocate a scientific interpretation of Genesis (whatever that means).

So when I read Genesis I read it gently and the way that it was written. A simple text for a simple audience.

OK. That's your exegetical approach to Genesis. At first blush it appears to be different than that of the LCMS (whose forum you are in).

 

[FaithT]

more or less. Are you familiar with Luther's Small Catechism? And the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds?

to be fair, that's kind of his job. I'm sure he's glad to help you understand and sit down with you to talk about these things. That being said, I do get your concern as I felt the same way when I was becoming Orthodox and pestering my priest with questions

Yes, I’m familiar with the Creeds, but I haven’t read the Lutheran Catechism.

I just want to be sure that according to the LCMS
I shouldn’t be bothered by this evolution, age of the earth and stardust stuff as long as I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior? Or am I wrong?

 

[AMM]

Yes, I’m familiar with the Creeds, but I haven’t read the Lutheran Catechism.

I just want to be sure that according to the LCMS
I shouldn’t be bothered by this evolution, age of the earth and stardust stuff as long as I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior? Or am I wrong?

The creeds as well as Luther’s catechism are pretty much the essentials/fundamentals when it comes to the LCMS - here’s the catechism, it’s pretty short and worth a read in my opinion. Luther’s Small Catechism by Dr. Martin Luther

And yep that’s pretty much correct, as far as I understand it (again with the caveat that although I grew up LCMS, I am no longer, and I don’t speak officially for them). You can be LCMS and believe those other things too

 

[FaithT]

The creeds as well as Luther’s catechism are pretty much the essentials/fundamentals when it comes to the LCMS - here’s the catechism, it’s pretty short and worth a read in my opinion. Luther’s Small Catechism by Dr. Martin Luther

And yep that’s pretty much correct, as far as I understand it (again with the caveat that although I grew up LCMS, I am no longer, and I don’t speak officially for them). You can be LCMS and believe those other things too

Anybody currently LCMS want to answer?

 

[FaithT]

Yes, I’m familiar with the Creeds, but I haven’t read the Lutheran Catechism.

I just want to be sure that according to the LCMS
I shouldn’t be bothered by this evolution, age of the earth and stardust stuff as long as I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior? Or am I wrong?

Anybody currently LCMS who’d care to answer?

 

[Resha Caner]

Anybody currently LCMS want to answer?

I am LCMS, and that is correct. You don't have to take a side regarding evolution. The important thing is your faith in Christ. If you want to discuss it more, let me know.

 

[TKA_TN]

Anybody currently LCMS who’d care to answer?

"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9

 

[FaithT]

I am LCMS, and that is correct. You don't have to take a side regarding evolution. The important thing is your faith in Christ. If you want to discuss it more, let me know.

thank you!

 

[Tolworth John]

Yo that I might add...

In post 2 I said...To make things worse if man evolved and Genesis is wrong... then there was no Adam, Eve....no Garden, no Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, no serpent, no deception, no fall....basically no need for Jesus'.

How would one get around this

A pointless question as genesis is accurate.