Catholicism

[Fritz Kobus]

^
This. It literally mentions 42 generations. Multiply 42 with an average human lifespan and you don't get millions of years.

I think we all ought to be able to agree that when the Bible mentions 14 and 14 and 14 generations that the sum total, though not specifically mentioned is implied. I cannot see where any harm is done. It certainly does mention 42 generations in three separate statements.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

So we don't have to quote Scripture accurately? We can just insert things that aren't there? We can say God said things He never said? That's a dangerous practice.

I have absolutely no assurance that what we currently call Scripture is 100% approved by God or complete. It was compiled by a bunch of men whose opinions happened to overthrow the opinions of others who were labeled heretics and whose writings were left out.

 

[Albion]

I have absolutely no assurance that what we currently call Scripture is 100% approved by God or complete. It was compiled by a bunch of men whose opinions happened to overthrow the opinions of others who were labeled heretics and whose writings were left out.

That being the case, I cannot imagine why you'd care enough to argue, one way or the other, what the conventional Christians here believe about the days of creation.

Although...if you want to say that the Old Testament simply could not have failed to mention any generations, etc. when making a reference to the lineage of Jesus, it seems that you wouldn't be saying now that you have no assurance that Scripture is "complete"...which you just did.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

I think we all ought to be able to agree that when the Bible mentions 14 and 14 and 14 generations that the sum total, though not specifically mentioned is implied. I cannot see where any harm is done. It certainly does mention 42 generations in three separate statements.

He said it literally said 42 generations. It doesn't. I did say how one would arrive at the sum of 42, but that doesn't mean Scripture literally says there's 42 generations.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Fritz Kobus]

He said it literally said 42 generations. It doesn't. I did say how one would arrive at the sum of 42, but that doesn't mean Scripture literally says there's 42 generations.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Well if he said it "literally mentions 42 generations" then he is right. Each of the 42 generations is literally mentioned in the three lists. I think we are just seeing this differently.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Well if he said it "literally mentions 42 generations" then he is right. Each of the 42 generations is literally mentioned in the three lists. I think we are just seeing this differently.

If he said it? Read the thread before commenting. He is not right, but I'm not getting into a back and forth about what the Bible plainly says.

It never says 42 generations in the text. You have to multiply 14x3 to arrive at 42. So the Bible says 14 generations in three lists, not 42 in three lists

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Yes, it doesn't mention the number 42, but it can be calculated from the text.

Also, Jesus mentions only the right eye, hand and foot as causes of sin, so I guess the left eye, hand and foot can't cause people to sin...

 

[Castle Church]

If I may interject:

I don't think this is the thread to debate the age of the Earth. The OP is struggling enough with the subject, we should not hijack her thread for a debate on a subject that is difficult for many people.

 

[Josiah]

IMO....

Christians can disagree on what they consider to be the age of the planet Earth and/or "universe." And we see that here.

But the issue before us is the possible disagreement between two specific faith communities - Catholicism and Lutheranism. And the key issue there is that NEITHER has a stance on this issue; nowhere in the Catholic Catechism or the Lutheran Confessions is such an opinion stated, much less as doctrine. Neither requires a certain stance from its members or even clergy, as the opening poster knows.



.

 

[Faith]

IMO....

Christians can disagree on what they consider to be the age of the planet Earth and/or "universe." And we see that here.

But the issue before us is the possible disagreement between two specific faith communities - Catholicism and Lutheranism. And the key issue there is that NEITHER has a stance on this issue; nowhere in the Catholic Catechism or the Lutheran Confessions is such an opinion stated, much less as doctrine. Neither requires a certain stance from its members or even clergy, as the opening poster knows.



.

 

[Faith]

Yeah, but @Josiah, what about this, below, from the LCMS Q & A site?

<<<<<< QUESTION: What is The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod’s position regarding the age of the earth? Must we accept literally the creation account that points in the direction of a relatively young earth, given the amount of scientific evidence that concludes the earth's age to be in the billions of years?

ANSWER: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod does not have an official position on the precise "age of the earth," since the Bible itself does not tell us how old the earth is.

Nor is it the Synod's position that everything in the Bible is to be understood "literally." There is much in the Bible that clearly purports not to be understood literally — but this must be determined by the Bible itself, not by science or human reason. There is nothing in the Bible itself to suggest that the creation account is not meant to be taken literally.

The Synod has affirmed the belief, therefore, based on Scripture's account of creation in the book of Genesis and other clear passages of Scripture, that "God by the almighty power of His Word created all things in six days by a series of creative acts," that "Adam and Eve were real, historical human beings, the first two people in the world," and that "we must confess what St. Paul says in Rom. 5:12" about the origin of sin through Adam as described in Genesis 3 (1967 Synodical Resolution 2-31).

The Synod has also, therefore, stated that it rejects "all those world views, philosophical theories, exegetical interpretations and other hypotheses which pervert these biblical teachings and thus obscure the Gospel" (1967 Synodical Resolution 2-31).

At the same time, the Synod firmly believes there can be no actual contradiction between genuine scientific truth and the Bible. When it comes to the issue of the age of the earth, several possibilities exist for "harmonizing" Biblical teachings with scientific studies (e.g., God created the world in an already "mature" state so scientific "data" leads one to the conclusion that it is older than it actually is, etc.).

Numerous books are available that discuss these issues in more detail. One of these is Studies in Creation by John Klotz (1985), available by contacting Concordia Publishing House (800-325-3040 or www.cph.org) and asking for stock no. 12-3004.

Return to The Bible FAQs | Return to menu>>>>>>

 

[Faith]

I’d like to hear from Josiah when he gets on here.

 

[Josiah]

Yeah, but Josiah, what about this, below, from the LCMS Q & A site?

<<<<<< QUESTION: What is The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod’s position regarding the age of the earth? Must we accept literally the creation account that points in the direction of a relatively young earth, given the amount of scientific evidence that concludes the earth's age to be in the billions of years?

ANSWER: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod does not have an official position on the precise "age of the earth," since the Bible itself does not tell us how old the earth is.

There you are.



.

 

[Faith]

There you are.



.

That’s it? I think we discussed this Q&A site before. What were your thoughts on it? Because at first it says that The LCMS doesn’t have a position on the age of the earth but the it goes on, making it sound as if the church believes it’s young.

 

[Castle Church]

That’s it? I think we discussed this Q&A site before. What were your thoughts on it? Because at first it says that The LCMS doesn’t have a position on the age of the earth but the it goes on, making it sound as if the church believes it’s young.

The LCMS does not have an official position on the age of the Earth, but they may have an opinion, or at least the person/s managing the website Q&A have a position. YEC is certainly the most common position in the LCMS, but it is neither doctrine nor dogma.

 

[Albion]

The LCMS does not have an official position on the age of the Earth, but they may have an opinion, or at least the person/s managing the website Q&A have a position. YEC is certainly the most common position in the LCMS, but it is neither doctrine nor dogma.

So we might say that it's a view commonly held within the LC-MS, although not required, whereas it's rare among members of many other churches (Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, Congregationalist, etc.).

For some people, this fact is a big concern. The character or profile of any church isn't defined simply by what's stated in some formal written decrees, etc. What is actually believed has to be considered.

But other members and also inquirers can be completely comfortable with the situation I'm referring to, saying to themselves that because the official stance of their denomination permits some variances in belief, they are authorized to disagree and that's good enough for them. For them, this is the deciding factor even if there are quite a few people in their own congregation who disagree with them on both the belief itself and on the approach to the problem.

 

[Josiah]

So we might say that it's commonly held within the LC-MS, although not required

It's not dogma, it's not required. But yes. it's common.

So.... as Faith's pastor told her (and she accepted).... as the LCMS website specifically states.... the age of the Earth and/or "universe" is NOT a matter of doctrine, not a matter where a certain opinion is required. And yes, I image many individual persons in the LCMS have a "young earth" opinion... probably most also hold that the USA is the best country in the world, that Capitolism is the best economic system, that Costco is the place to go for gas. But those aren't dogma, those opinions are not required. Just as her pastor told her... just as the LCMS website states. Opinion (even if held by a majority in the church, is not doctrine and not binding.

I wonder if we have much ado about nothing (or at most, not much)? Like I posted, I've been an LCMS member and for some time a Deacon in the LCMS, and I've NEVER heard this come up... in a sermon, in a Bible study, in any of my Deacon classes. I disagree that it's "the biggest" thing for the LCMS (and Catholicism - which also has no doctrine on this matter) or that it overshadows all else (including Justification, Purgatory, Infallibility of the Pope, the nature of the church, etc.) which ARE doctrines and where the LCMS and the RCC DO have dogmatic positions.

But other members of the same church and inquirers can be completely comfortable with the situation I'm referring to, saying to themselves that because the official stance of their denomination permits some variances in belief, they are authorized to disagree and that's good enough for them. For them, this is the deciding factor even if there are quite a few people in their own church who disagree with them on both the belief itself and on the approach to the problem.

Every organization that has more than one member is going to have opinions that differ.

My wife and I don't agree on everything. She likes Cauliflower, I don't. It's not a core value for either of us, not a cause for divorce, not a determining factor for engagement. I welcome her eating the stuff, she welcomes me saying "No thankful, my beautiful wife."

In my LCMS parish, it became fairly evident during the Trump years that the great majority are Republicans (although not all of them Trump supporters). For some, evidently this is fairly passionate! But we have some Liberals, too. And they are loved and embraced as FULL brothers and sisters in Christ and certainly equally Lutheran. There has been no changes in the Lutheran Confessions making it dogma that folks be Republicans.

On a finer point, the LCMS is boldly pro-life. So is our parish and our pastor. Not everyone in the parish agrees... we have a person on the Board of Director's who is pro-choice. He's not been excommunicated...he is WELCOMED and LOVED and serves on the Board. Most of us disagree with him on this but respect his opinion and (more importantly) him. Life in an organization with more than one person in it. There ARE things were Lutherans are clear, bold and dogmatic (all stated in the Lutheran Confessions, "The Book of Concord").... areas where we hold to "mystery" and "we just don't go there" (as my doctrine teacher noted)... and areas where there are opinions but not dogma. I image the same in true in every church (and organization, for that matter).

Perhaps we can move on?


- Josiah


PS Watch this thread become about cauliflower.... lol




.

 

[Albion]

It's not dogma, it's not required. But yes. it's common.

Then we're in agreement about that. And it's an uncommon belief in other churches where the matter just wouldn't be an issue of conscience for an inquirer.

With the LC-MS, though, we have a church that is very emphatic about the truth of Holy Scripture, bases its beliefs on Scripture, and doesn't go for sloppy exegesis. That causes some people to be concerned in the way our friend "Faith" is, although I know for a certainty that lots of other people wouldn't care.

And yes, I image many individual persons in the LCMS have a "young earth" opinion... probably most also hold that the USA is the best country in the world, that Capitolism is the best economic system, that Costco is the place to go for gas. But those aren't dogma, those opinions are not required.

However, Costco and Capitalism are not issues of Bible interpretation like determining the age of the Earth can be.

Just as her pastor told her... just as the LCMS website states. Opinion (even if held by a majority in the church, is not doctrine and not binding.

I wonder if we have much ado about nothing (like I posted, I've been an LCMS member and for some time a Deacon in the LCMS, and I've NEVER heard this come up... in a sermon, in a Bible study, in any of my Deacon classes.

Well, I have heard it come up, and I don't mean just on these pages.

I disagree that it's "the biggest" thing for the LCMS

Okay, but I don't know whom you are disagreeing with there. I didn't say anything like that.

It MAY make a difference, however, to some people, and that's why it's been discussed here.

 

[Joshua1Eight]

Is this really your most pressing issue in your walk with Christ? I think you should return to your RCC roots. But not because of an issue as insignificant as the age of the Earth. I’m pretty sure there’s those on both sides of the debate on both sides. There’s Lutherans who believe in a young Earth, there’s Lutherans who believe in an old Earth. There’s Catholics who believe in a young Earth, there’s Catholics who believe in an old Earth. The age of the Earth is really immaterial to which church you join. There’s people on both sides of the aisle in every church.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

Yeah, but @Josiah, what about this, below, from the LCMS Q & A site?

<<<<<< QUESTION: What is The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod’s position regarding the age of the earth? Must we accept literally the creation account that points in the direction of a relatively young earth, given the amount of scientific evidence that concludes the earth's age to be in the billions of years?

ANSWER: ... When it comes to the issue of the age of the earth, several possibilities exist for "harmonizing" Biblical teachings with scientific studies (e.g., God created the world in an already "mature" state so scientific "data" leads one to the conclusion that it is older than it actually is, etc.).

I think that statement could be rather misleading. God created the heavens, the earth, and all that is in them, but is is men who say it was created Mature. Sure, Adam was created a man, not a baby or a boy. But the thing that gets evolutionists believing in long ages are the sediment layers which they misinterpret as being laid down over eons instead of by the flood in a year or less. Nothing mature about those sediment layers, but the evolutionists read it in.