Why LCC/LCMS?

[KEPLER]

Jay,

The Word of God is "an area of Christian freedom"? I don't think so.

Hmmm, I think you know that that is not what I meant. In fact, that mischaracterization of what I said is somewhat beyond the bounds of a reasonable misunderstanding...

Scripture interprets Scripture.

I agree completely. In fact, I already said that:

It is the TEXT itself which leads me to that conlcusion, not any outside evidence: this is strictly analogia fidei.

Analogia Fidei, or "Analogy of Faith." That is, Biblical doctrines are to be interpreted in relation to the basic message of the Bible, the Gospel, the content of faith, often called The Faith. Cf.1 Cor.2:13, 15:1-4. Also, "Scripturam ex Scriptura explicandam esse", or "Scripture is to be explained by Scripture."

The text of Genesis and the text of Scripture as a whole leave no other interpretation than 6 consecutive 24 hour days. Does the text say "Sun and Moon" or does it say "greater light and lesser light"?

It says neither. It says:

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. 17And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. Gen 1:14-18a

There is NO DOUBT what those (greater light/lesser light) mean: the sun and the moon. Show me any interpreter who has ever said otherwise...? And while we're looking at this, what is that in verse 18 about separating the light from the darkness? Didn't God already do that in verse 4???? Hmmm.

Also, "evening and morning" are times of day and are not dependant upon the sun and moon, but rather "light and darkness" - "day and night" which occur before the first "evening and morning".

Indeed...day and night. And yet God says that the VERY things which "give light" (Gen 1:17) and had as their purpose "to separate the light from the darkness" were not created until the fourth day. Hmmmm...

Now at this point, I have one of three options:

1) I can simply overlook this and stick to the six literal days ...which is certainly an option, and I'm NOT criticizing it...but it has its own difficulties.
​

2) I can scream out "Oh look the bible contradicts itself!" and give up my faith and run and join a commune...
​

3) I can step back from a literalistic interpretation and conclude (because of no other reason than the text itself) that something OTHER than six literal consecutive days is going on here.
​

#2 is not an option, because God does not contradict himself, which leaves me with 1 or 3.

Personally, I go for option number three, and IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM does this mean that I am lowering my view of Scripture. I still believe in the complete inspiration and absolute authority of Scripture.

Don't read more into the text than is there. What is there is more than sufficient to show 6 consecutive 24 hour days.

I didn't read anything into anything; I read only what is there.

Now, mind you, I'm NOT criticizing ANYONE who decides that they prefer the "Six 24 hour days" approach. If that's the position you're comfortable with, good! Stick to it. The reason I spoke up here was merely to provide a word of caution: while it's true (perhaps I should say, I agree) that the LCMS has a higher view than the ELCA of the inspiration and authority of Scripture, you chose to pinpoint an issue on which Christians are free to hold varying views, EVEN WHEN THEY HOLD THE HIGH VIEW ON SCRIPTURE. You spoke as if Christians who hold to the inspiration and authority of Scripture HAD TO share your view on Genesis. You said:

Much of Genesis is an historical account. There is nothing in the context of Genesis that suggests that the six days of Creation are anything but 6 consecutive 24 hour days.

Oh, yes there is...go back and read my post. Read the articles from the links. I'm not suggesting that you MUST believe it, but if you're going to make an assertion like you made, intellectual honesty demands that you (at the very least) examine arguments from scholars far more experienced than yourself. And as I said, Dr Kline is no liberal. As a Professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, he subscribed an allegiance to Scripture EVERY BIT as rigorous as what Ft. Wayne and St. Louis demand of our Professors.

This is also supported by numerous mentions of the Creation account throughout the Bible including the New Testament. It is near impossible for the New Testament Church to discount the literal six days of Creation as a myth or simply a metaphor.

Now I will grant that you said "near impossible" and not "completely impossible"...so perhaps you didn't mean to sound as exclusive as you did. On the other hand, in the follow up post to me you DID say "leave no other interpretation" which actually is exclusive, now isn't it? Regardless, my position does not assert myth. And I'm not sure metahpor is the right word, either.

Excursus on "metaphor": One of the Messianic Pslams tells us that Messiah would be hung on a tree. Of course, I take that as absolutely true, but also as figurative. Christ was crucified on two beams which at one point had been a tree. Does anyone deny this? The prophecy was both dead-on accurate and figurative at the same time. Was the Psalmist's use of the word "tree" a metaphor? I guess, but "metaphor" seems too squishy for me. I don't know what the right word is...

The context of this thread was Canadian's question about "Why LCC/LCMS?" The point you made delineating the difference between the way the LCMS and the ELCA view Scripture is an EXCELLENT and salient point. Using the interpretation of Genesis as an illustration, however, was not. When you use that as an example, it makes it sound as if to be LCMS one must hold to YOUR view of Genesis, which is not the case. That could have been misleading to Canadian. That's the only reason I spoke up.

One last point: just because I'm suggesting that six literal consecutive days does not satisfy my reading of Genesis does NOT therefore imply that I am advocating any other position (i.e., evolution of any variety). That will be obvious to the careful reader, but I thought I'd say it just in case...

 

[Zoomer]

I am LCMS because I feel that ELCA has strayed away from true Lutheranism. If anything ELCA is becoming more Episcopalian than Lutheran. I am just waiting for a total merge with the ECUSA.
I am not saying that the LCMS is perfect, it has it issues, but it is closer to what Martin Luther had in mind. I also disagree with the ELCA views on contemporary issues such as women in ministry, abortion, communion, interpretation of Scriputures. Some of the views, I believe to be unBiblical.

 

[nb_christseeker]

The important thing here, is to not allow satan to drive a wedge between y'all over an argument about knowledge. remember that tree we werent spose to eat from? lets eat together from the tree of life, Christ.

Ultimately you ought to have full agape love for one another, and thats what always gets lost in these debates. Knowledge puffs up, but Love builds up. Would God rather have people all agree on an interpretation of the genesis account, or would he rather have people all love each other fully and completely as Christ loves us? if the 6 day thing was that imperative for the sake of salvation, Christ would have mentioned it. judge for yourself which takes priority, love or knowledge. not that debate is bad, so long as it builds up. but the edifying aspect is often lost in exchange for foolish pride. im right your wrong kinda mentality.

so take heed lest you fall, and just take things in stride so you can love each other.

Peace to you and grace, in the name of our resurrected Lord Yeshua Christ. Amen.

 

[KEPLER]

The important thing here, is to not allow satan to drive a wedge between y'all over an argument about knowledge. remember that tree we werent spose to eat from? lets eat together from the tree of life, Christ.

I'm sorry this just can't go unaddressed...

Regardless of this disagreement that Jay and I have, nb_christseeker, I'm pretty sure that he and I both would point out to you that the tree from which Adam and Eve (yes, the real, historical Adam and Eve!) were not allowed to eat was NOT the "Tree of Knowledge", but the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil".

Peter tells us to be prepared with an answer for those who question us about our hope, and Paul tells Timothy to rightly divide the Word of Truth. BOTH of those activites require the pursuit of knowledge. The type of anti-Intellectualism that you appear to be espousing is contrary to the Christian faith. Yes we are to love one another, no one denies that. I love Jay, he's a brother. A knowledgeable brother. But it is not a vapid or empty love. It is a love informed by the teachings (i.e., knowledge) which have been passed on to us from the time of the Apostles to now.

Peace,

Eric

 

[LutherNut]

The context of this thread was Canadian's question about "Why LCC/LCMS?" The point you made delineating the difference between the way the LCMS and the ELCA view Scripture is an EXCELLENT and salient point. Using the interpretation of Genesis as an illustration, however, was not. When you use that as an example, it makes it sound as if to be LCMS one must hold to YOUR view of Genesis, which is not the case. That could have been misleading to Canadian. That's the only reason I spoke up.

I do know that the seminaries in Fort Wayne and St. Louis both hold to the six literal days of Creation in Genesis. This is what they teach.

Also from the LCMS website:

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 [CPH, 1986, p. 106]).

This I hold, teach, and confess.


The Unshod 'Nut

 

[KEPLER]

The context of this thread was Canadian's question about "Why LCC/LCMS?" The point you made delineating the difference between the way the LCMS and the ELCA view Scripture is an EXCELLENT and salient point. Using the interpretation of Genesis as an illustration, however, was not. When you use that as an example, it makes it sound as if to be LCMS one must hold to YOUR view of Genesis, which is not the case. That could have been misleading to Canadian. That's the only reason I spoke up.

I do know that the seminaries in Fort Wayne and St. Louis both hold to the six literal days of Creation in Genesis. This is what they teach.

Yes, the seminaries hold to and teach...but they do not compel the seminarians themselves to follow suit, i.e., there is no "exit interview" or any such "litmus test" to make sure that the seminarians hold to the literalist 6x24 hour day, etc.

Many LCMS pastors are comfortable asserting the following, and nothing more:
God created the world, ex nihilo, and it was good.
God created humanity, Adam and Eve, as special beings with dominion over creation.
Adam and Eve are real historic persons.
Adam and Eve sinned against God, thereby bringing sin and death to all the world.
Death was not part of the Creator's intent.
God promised, immediately after the sin of Adam and Eve, to bring redemption to the World.

Also from the LCMS website:

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 [CPH, 1986, p. 106]).

This I hold, teach, and confess.

The operative word here is "generally". It does not say "absolutely". Furthermore, that phrase "compelling reason" leaves the door cracked open just enough to allow other viewpoints, as long as those viewpoints (like mine) maintain a Biblical & Confessional position. In other words, the LCMS, in its wisdom, has NOT made it a necessity of church membership that one MUST hold to a "literal 6x24 hour day" view. I need say nothing more.

What a potential new member to the LCMS should take away from this discussion is this: Generally, the LCMS has held to a "literal 6x24 hour day" interpretation of Genesis. There are those in the Church, however, who hold to other views, and as long as those views maintain the absolute authority and inspiration of Scripture, and do not violate the Confessions, they too are acceptable.

ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT NOTE, Jay...would you agree with my response above to nb-christseeker??

Eric

 

[nb_christseeker]

true, we should be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. and it was in fact the tree of knowledge of good and evil. but at the same time, isnt it interesting how arguments over knowledge can drive people to hate/notlove one another? or do you disagree on that point

 

[KEPLER]

true, we should be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. and it was in fact the tree of knowledge of good and evil. but at the same time, isnt it interesting how arguments over knowledge can drive people to hate/notlove one another? or do you disagree on that point

What I find sad is that so many people misinterpret Scripture and force the issues. Your denigration of knowledge is one such misinterpretation, and one that is, sadly, all too common. However, it is precisely because I love my brothers and sisters in Christ that I must correct them.

A father who disciplines his child is not acting hateful, is he? Why is correcting false doctrine "hateful"? The truly hateful thing to do would be to not do anything. Apathy is hateful.

 

[saami]

Okay, communing young children isn't a practice as old as I thought, but 800 yrs is still a long time.

I'm also wondering if it would be a sin for me as a father to deny my children the body and blood of Christ by moving them to a congregation where they will no longer be able to commune (even if I find I agree with the theology of the LCC more than the ELCiC)?


Peace.

How would you feel if you child cried out loudly when denied the sacrament of the altar "Daddy, doesn't Jesus love me anymore?" I have seen it has happened many times. If you believe that the Body and Blood of Christ is present for the forgiveness of sins, and your child is a sinner who needs forgiving, whay would you deny them that forgiveness and spiritual nourishment?

 

[saami]

Generally, the LCMS has held to a "literal 6x24 hour day" interpretation of Genesis. There are those in the Church, however, who hold to other views, and as long as those views maintain the absolute authority and inspiration of Scripture, and do not violate the Confessions, they too are acceptable.

How could they measure a 24 hour day before the sun was created on "day" 4?

And Gen 2:7 God formed the "adam" [earthling or male only?] from the "adamah" earth on the 6th day (Gen 1:27 "male and female" )or before the plants grew on the 3rd day (Gen 1:11)?

Which verse do I take literally and which do I not - thus bending some part of the Word? See - even we who belive the Bible is the Word of God can see that we do not take every verse equally literally, but bend and shape our understanding.

LCMS and Fundamentalism shapes it their way, other shape it another way - neither denying the value of Scripture, but questioning our interpretation of it.

And of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" isn't that what made us moral decision makers - a role we love "I'm right and you're wrong" ?

 

[KEPLER]

How could they measure a 24 hour day before the sun was created on "day" 4?

And Gen 2:7 God formed the "adam" [earthling or male only?] from the "adamah" earth on the 6th day (Gen 1:27 "male and female" )or before the plants grew on the 3rd day (Gen 1:11)?

Which verse do I take literally and which do I not - thus bending some part of the Word? See - even we who belive the Bible is the Word of God can see that we do not take every verse equally literally, but bend and shape our understanding.

LCMS and Fundamentalism shapes it their way, other shape it another way - neither denying the value of Scripture, but questioning our interpretation of it.

And of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" isn't that what made us moral decision makers - a role we love "I'm right and you're wrong" ?

Hi Zion,

Wow, you're dredging up all the old posts! Good, the board has been bored lately..! I hope you drew from the context that I'm not one of the "literal 6x24 hour" dayers. I agree in fact that a genuinely biblical (and literal) reading really doesn't allow for it. Jay will argue otherwise, and of course, I respect his right to do so, as long as he refrains from scolding me for being a bad Lutheran. That's when I open up a can of whoop-a$$. ( Hi, Jay!)

I subscribe more to the "Framework interpretation" of Meredith Kline, which sees the "days" not in a chronological sense, but in a typological sense. Yes, they describe real actions of God, but their purpose in so describing is to create a witness to our ultimate Eschatological purpose, which is to rest with God (a la Hebrews chapter 4 and our hope of a sabbath rest).

In a nutshell, I read Genesis as a theologcal book, and not as a science book.

Cheers,

Eric

 

[LutherNut]

How would you feel if you child cried out loudly when denied the sacrament of the altar "Daddy, doesn't Jesus love me anymore?" I have seen it has happened many times. If you believe that the Body and Blood of Christ is present for the forgiveness of sins, and your child is a sinner who needs forgiving, whay would you deny them that forgiveness and spiritual nourishment?

If the child is not able to examine himself, he cannot receive the Sacrament worthily and therefore will not be receiving "forgiveness and spiritual nourishment" but rather would be committing sin which leads to judgement.
See 1 Corinthians 11:27.

How could they measure a 24 hour day before the sun was created on "day" 4?

Does God need the sun in order to know what a day is or how long it is?
See Genesis 1:5


Jay

 

[ByzantineDixie]

If the child is not able to examine himself, he cannot receive the Sacrament worthily and therefore will not be receiving "forgiveness and spiritual nourishment" but rather would be committing sin which leads to judgement.
See 1 Corinthians 11:27.

So...what about the first 1200 years of church history and all those infants and children who received? Do you think the Roman church got a special revelation regarding the true meaning of 1 Cor 11:27 in the 13th Century theretofore unknown?

Even Luther admited the statement regarding examination did not apply to infants and childrens.

If Lutheranism is the continuation of the church catholic...where did infant communion go?

 

[KEPLER]

If the child is not able to examine himself, he cannot receive the Sacrament worthily and therefore will not be receiving "forgiveness and spiritual nourishment" but rather would be committing sin which leads to judgement.
See 1 Corinthians 11:27.

I confess that this whole "infant communion" thing is new to me...and I have not yet formed an opinion about it. But it seems, Jay, thatthese are merely reductions of the same baptist asguments about infant baptism, ala "Scripture says you have to believe first", or "Scripture says you have to repent first". It's true Scripture makes those implications, but we have reasons for believing otherwise. How do we know that this is not also the case here?

On the other hand, Dixie, how does a proponent of infant comuunion argue around Jay's objection? Communion, it seems to me, is indeed somewhat different than the case of infant baptism...?

Eric

 

[Kotton]

Does God need the sun in order to know what a day is or how long it is?
See Genesis 1:5


Jay [/QUOTE]

My King James Says" And the evening and the morning were the first day, second day, third day... etc. " Apparently it was just the time from from evening to morning, the night, about 12 hours, depending on what season it was and whether or not God was on Daylight Savings time. Perhaps he did it in 1/2 the time previously thought! In any case our God is an awsome God!!

 

[ByzantineDixie]

On the other hand, Dixie, how does a proponent of infant comuunion argue around Jay's objection? Communion, it seems to me, is indeed somewhat different than the case of infant baptism...?

Eric

Here are a couple of papers which deal with precisely this issue (written by LCMS Lutherans no less):

Truly Worthy and Well Prepared--Marincic
The Discontinuance of the Practice of Communing Infants in the Western Church--Gehlbach

And here's a little something Luther said regarding examining oneself for communion:

...However, it doesn’t follow that the children are damned who either do not pray or are not afflicted. When in I Corinthians [11:28] Paul said that a man should examine himself, he spoke only of adults because he was speaking about those who were quarreling among themselves. However, he doesn’t here forbid that the sacrament of the altar be given even to children.#_ftn1

From what I can tell the only thing keeping infants from communion at Lutheran tables is a tradition established by the papacy in the middle ages...and a modern interpretation of 1 Cor. 11 that the church historically had never maintained. YIKES....a tradition of men and an innovation regarding Scriptural interpretation...that ought to raise an eyebrow or two!

 

[KEPLER]

Here are a couple of papers which deal with precisely this issue (written by LCMS Lutherans no less):

Truly Worthy and Well Prepared--Marincic
The Discontinuance of the Practice of Communing Infants in the Western Church--Gehlbach

And here's a little something Luther said regarding examining oneself for communion:

...However, it doesn’t follow that the children are damned who either do not pray or are not afflicted. When in I Corinthians [11:28] Paul said that a man should examine himself, he spoke only of adults because he was speaking about those who were quarreling among themselves. However, he doesn’t here forbid that the sacrament of the altar be given even to children.

From what I can tell the only thing keeping infants from communion at Lutheran tables is a tradition established by the papacy in the middle ages...and a modern interpretation of 1 Cor. 11 that the church historically had never maintained. YIKES....a tradition of men and an innovation regarding Scriptural interpretation...that ought to raise an eyebrow or two!

Thanks for the links Dixie, I will look at them...(anything to avoid the dissertation, you know!)

 

[saami]

Hi Zion,

Wow, you're dredging up all the old posts! Good, the board has been bored lately..! I hope you drew from the context that I'm not one of the "literal 6x24 hour" dayers. I agree in fact that a genuinely biblical (and literal) reading really doesn't allow for it. Jay will argue otherwise, and of course, I respect his right to do so, as long as he refrains from scolding me for being a bad Lutheran. That's when I open up a can of whoop-a$$. ( Hi, Jay!)

I subscribe more to the "Framework interpretation" of Meredith Kline, which sees the "days" not in a chronological sense, but in a typological sense. Yes, they describe real actions of God, but their purpose in so describing is to create a witness to our ultimate Eschatological purpose, which is to rest with God (a la Hebrews chapter 4 and our hope of a sabbath rest).

In a nutshell, I read Genesis as a theologcal book, and not as a science book.

Cheers,

Eric

Eric - I didn't realise that the posting I was quoting was so old. I do find a thread now and then and just start reading. Interesting thing, however is that I was just having this discussion in the "real" world the day before.

I agree that the "framework" makes sense for me. My systematic theology professor who was also a theoretical physicist showed us time again how we did not have to abandon faith to listen and appreciate science/math. We don't have to make a false choice.

The "choice" is after all to hold to Gen. 1:1 and John 1:3 God made the world through the Logos and the Ruach/Pnuema and Jesus is the Word Incarnate who saves us.

Unfortunately Kansas does not agree with us.

 

[saami]

If the child is not able to examine himself, he cannot receive the Sacrament worthily and therefore will not be receiving "forgiveness and spiritual nourishment" but rather would be committing sin which leads to judgement.
See 1 Corinthians 11:27.





Jay

Are any of us able to fully examine ourselves? Isn't that the very task that drove Luther to dispair? When we "confess" before a worship service I remember as a pre-communing/pre-confirmed child doing so and meaning it -

"I a poor miserable sinner confess unto thee all my sins and inquities with which I have ever offended thee and justly deserve thy temporal and eternal punishment. But I am heartily sorry for them and sincerely repent of them and I pray thee of thy boundless mercy and for the sake of the holy, innocent, bitter sufferings and death of thy beloved son Jesus Chirst to have mercy upon me, a poor sinful being" TLH p. 16

Do we expect that we will have named each sin - or category of sin - more effectively than a child?

1 Cor. 11:27-29 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Perhaps we are taking communion in an unworthy manner and should examine ourselves if we don't recognize that our children are part of the Body of the Lord - the Church and are as capable /more capable than we are of recognizing the presence of Christ in the Bread and Wine as the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[saami]

I am LCMS because I feel that ELCA has strayed away from true Lutheranism. If anything ELCA is becoming more Episcopalian than Lutheran. I am just waiting for a total merge with the ECUSA.
I am not saying that the LCMS is perfect, it has it issues, but it is closer to what Martin Luther had in mind. I also disagree with the ELCA views on contemporary issues such as women in ministry, abortion, communion, interpretation of Scriputures. Some of the views, I believe to be unBiblical.

In what way has the ELCA become more Epscopalian than Lutheran?

If it is regarding the notion of bishop - that is actually the historic stance of the European Lutherans since Luther. We have an "historic episcopacy" already since the days when Catholic Bishops (not yet Roman until the Council of Trent) became Lutheran and then installed their successors or neighboring new bishops. American Lutheranism to a great extent forgot, found it inconvenient or rejected this ministry.

We all hold to the Book of Concord as our defining documents, and hold the Bible is inspired and authoritative for faith