Why I Don't Get Involved in the Creation Debate
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 окт 2024
- People are always asking me questions about the days of creation, the arguments of groups like Answers and Genesis, and related topics. This video is an explanation of why I do not get involved in that debate.
I am an aerospace engineer who works for NASA and am a young earth creationist. As an LCMS Lutheran I trust God's Word and It is unequivocal. The greatest implication to the discussion is "Was there death before Adam sinned?" The scriptural answer is no.
Evolution debunked. Amen.
A careful reading of Romans 5 reveals no forward-moving linear chronological character to sin's entry into the world. That is a human deductive inference applied to the text. To infer that death as a consequence of sin only moved through time in one direction after Adam's sin is an extra-biblical philosophical argument. It could be the case, but it is an assumption.
We also see in verse 14 that the reign of death discussed in this chapter is from Adam to Moses... so it is pretty clear that hardline creationism as we know it today was not Paul's main point here.
Also, if we want to be strictly literal in our interpretation and hold to the text, the death discussed in Romans 5 is the death of "people" (polloi). ...so the addition of non-polloi death to this text is being inferred into this text rather than being read out of it.
This is not to say that the creationist position is wrong... only that it is not the only valid human reading that is faithful to the text and preserves all orthodox Lutheran doctrines.
Other rational inferences in the hardline creationist position include assumptions about the passage of time in Genesis 3. "Then" is not a unit of time and it is an English transitional term in the translation. How much time passed between each event of the Fall and Expulsion?
Was it Nanoseconds? Hours? Months? 9 Trillion Years? Was the prelapsarean Garden of Eden divinely held outside of time as we know it? The text is silent. These are not absurd questions to ask because they reveal just how many assumptions our human minds make when we think we are engaging in literal exegesis.
I get it... "Did God say..?"
Jeff H. Nice ad hominem comparing me, a fellow synod member, to the Devil. That's classy.
I'm not asking "Did God say?" I'm pointing out what the Word DIDN'T say and what well-meaning people add to it without realizing their own inductive reasoning... which could be right but is a human assumption not revelation.
The reason this debate is important is that the creationist position drives people away from faith. It says in no uncertain terms that you can either have your faith or you can have reason and science, but not both. This is of course unbiblical, but more importantly it causes many good and intelligent people to dismiss Christianity out of hand. It takes souls. "You will know them by their works."
Theologically I also think creationism is absurd, because it posits that God is some kind of trickster, who hid dinosaur bones, teleported light particles from other galaxies, sped up radioactive decay, all for the purpose of misleading people about the age of the earth.
Either God lies to us through his creation, and I am supposed to abandon my reason and my senses; Or, I can accept that a literalist interpretation of Genesis might be incorrect. I really think this issue is that black and white.
Another important point is that alternative readings of Genesis are older than hyper-literalistic readings and far older than the science of biology. Luther himself discussed Genesis in light of the astronomical mathematics of his day, and distinguished between what we know from observation and what we learn of God's revelation of his creation from his word. For example, the moon is not a light, it's a reflector. Luther admits this novelty, but says that Scripture always treats it as a light and so should our theological explorations. But our natural philosophy should NOT!
I think a lot of folks miss the point that whatever one believes about Genesis 1-3, it is not the issue upon which the church stands or falls. I am not downplaying the importance of that matter or the fact that how one answers the question has implications down the line and huge ones. But when people get more emotional about the creation of the earth in six 24-hour days than about the doctrine of justification, we have a problem. Perspective, people- and thank you, Dr. Cooper, for providing some.
It is essential we do NOT believe Adam descended from an ape! Not sure about age of earth...
How can one believe that Adam is NOT a historical person, and then hold that Jesus Christ died for the chief sin and inherited sin from a non-historical person? Further if Genesis 1-3 is not literal then is death a work of God and not a result of sin? The answer of these would either support or undermine the Chief Article.
It’s fascinating that some churches and its theologians will hold to a historical Adam but deny the seven, 24 hour day creation. You can’t have one without the other. It’s a packaged deal.
The Creation Museum does NOT understand Ancient Hebrew Religion.
Although, it is far more correct to step back away from the debate on the age of the earth and avoid declaring a position about it. It’s a largely unimportant issue and, arguably, was unimportant to the early church (I’m not sure WHEN creation happened was as important as THAT creation happened) and Ken Ham gets WAY too carried away with it.
Nope. Creation is the foundation.
@@louisacapell Agreed. There is a lot of Gospel in the Creation.
Ken Ham is right, and both he and his organization are doing a huge favor for Christians everywhere. Genesis is the origin of the world, and it explains why we need a savoir. If evolution is true then the Bible is wrong, as they both make wildly different truth claims which cannot be reconciled. The Bible says death entered the world through man, whereas evolution says man entered the world through death. If there is no original sin, then there's no need for a savoir, and of course if the first book in the Bible is wrong then all of them would also be wrong.
@@Procopius464, Please read Ben Stanhope’s book “(Mis)Interpreting Genesis” and you’ll see very quickly how ill-informed the Creation Museum is on A LOT of the ancient near eastern context of the Hebrew Bible. They misinterpret it over and over and over and then, to add insult to injury, Ken Ham has the audacity to look down on those who disagree on the age of the earth and then argue in circles over how we all just “don’t believe the Bible” and “put man’s word over God’s Word” and yada yada yada yada.
The man’s a clown and he seriously needs to stop.
@@j.sethfrazer So if I asked you to clearly state that the Earth was made in 6 days, how would you more clearly state it than what was written in Genesis? He says there was evening and morning, and says "the first day," "The second day," and so on. The only reason people want to make it into something else is because they want to shove in something which should not be there, typically evolution. Ken Ham is right, because no one will come up with evolution or millions of years from reading the Bible. They will get it from the state sanctioned establishment, which pushes evolutionism just like they push globalism and transgenderism.
"Our MODERN understanding of days as 24hr periods is OBVIOUSLY what is being discussed in these texts written 3,000 years ago which discuss events that happened over a thousand years prior to the text's writing. Nevermind any effects of the flood, nevermind day 4 of creation, nevermind our lack of understanding Hebrew, let alone how the texts were understood at the time of their writing....what WE experience NOW is all we need to properly understand these ancient texts."
I think that when we get to Heaven, people from all the different sides will go to Jesus and ask him what Gen 1-3 meant about creation, and when he tells us, we'll all slap our foreheads and say "so THAT'S what it meant!"
Or maybe he will just lay Job 38 on us.
TBH, it's not unclear. The book is written as a genealogical historical account.
Wrong, if Jesus on his return can resurrect 100 million people in two seconds then they are 7 twenty-four hour periods!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@brianlee7039 the Bible is inspired. Our hermeneutics is not.
@@catrandy7957 so then the Scripture is unclear?
I don’t think that the idea of it not being a literal 6 days is a denial of biblical error. In my mind, who is to say that God works in a 24 hour day? Why would God work off of the standards set forth by mankind. Idk where I stand but I think it could go both ways.
The only reason to question to question the literal six days is to try to make the biblical narrative fit with what scientists claim is most plausible. It's not a matter of science or biblical interpretation. It's a matter of faith in the clear word of God. It's not the doctrine of justification, but I don't like dismissing doctrines as unimportant.
It's interesting. Sometimes people will posit that some passages are meant to appeal to the sensibilities of the people during the time the Bible was written, such as the passages about slaves obeying their masters and women not being allowed to teach men. This brings up the issue of what is an analogy and what isn't. What is temporary advise for a certain historical setting, and what is meant to be taken indefinitely? Some passages are more clear then others, but then others are not so black and white.
Once told a guy he was preaching a false gospel by saying young earth creationism was required for salvation. He denied this, and then assumed I was denying creationism and condemned me as an apostate. :P
I believe that the Augustinian position is the safest one to have. It says that it did happen in 6 days however what "days" are is to be defined (usually taken as 1000 years because of 2 Peter). It also permits a period of "void" in the creation timeline where earth is a formless matter and God hasn't begun creating anything out of it yet.
Honestly, first time I listened to this video I was shocked that you didn’t have a strong stance, but after my own study on the issue both directly & indirectly (especially Young Anglicans video on Iconoclasm & Truth Unites’ on the Fall of Angels most recently) I can see why you’d say this issue isn’t just a clear cut issue.
And I say that as someone who thinks the Bible teaches young-earth & also believe Darwinian-evolution is absurd.
As a WELS member who doesn’t have a hard stance on the topic but leans towards theistic evolution, I have received a lot of ridicule from teachers and pastors about how I must not believe the Bible is inerrant because of my view. A lot of the time they send me to creationist sites and sources that are often guys who are way in over their head on the subject matter. I appreciate your charity in recognizing that you can be a Lutheran who genuinely holds to the inerrancy of scripture without being a YEC. God bless you.
I agree.
Have you had a look at Luther's explanation of his *acceptance* that the moon reflects light even though that contradicts, "lesser *light* to govern the night"? It's in his Lectures on Genesis. I strongly believe modern Lutherans ought to take those few paragraphs and adopt them as our attitude toward science in general. Please do have a look, if you haven't.
There's the old cliche that Luther rejected Copernicus.
No! Luther never heard Copernicus' name. He heard a rumor that a Polander had made a counterintuitive and counterbiblical theory and rejected what little he heard. That's just healthy skepticism, not anti-science bias!
Osiander, Luther's student, was the first person on Earth willing to publish Copernicus, for crying out loud.
I think the problem arises when people equate inerrancy with literalism. It is important to consider the genre of the writings and the intended audience. For example, Luke makes it clear to Theophilus that he is presenting a historical account all of the details that had been handed down to him in his investigations. What about the first chapter of Genesis? Was that intended to present to the ancient Hebrews a scientific explanation of how the cosmos was created, or was it intended to present theological truths about the creator and the creation? Is it possible that the story is theologically inerrant, but there was never any intention for it to present inerrant scientific facts to an audience who had very little knowledge of or interest in science as we know it today?
With respect, if one avoids this discussion of creationism in order to avoid any discussion of the inerrancy of the bible and the domino effect it may cause, then that avoidance just creates its own domino effect of other issues to avoid that may call into question inerrancy. This seems to be just hiding one's head in the sand to avoid discussions where the only support for the accuracy of the bible is the bible itself. . . and, of course, faith in its inerrancy.
God bless you! You are so right. I’m very disappointed in Jordan Cooper here. Putting your head in the sand is not the answer. We must defend the inerrancy of scripture! God created the earth in 6 literal days and rested on the 7th
I just wanted to say that I have believed that God created the earth in 6 days ever since I was 4 years old, and in a young earth since at least junior high. I had a cassette tape when I was about preschool aged that read the story of creation and I would go and turn on the light in the hallway when it said that God created light and there was light. If a child can take these things by faith so should an adult. Adults reason too much and that’s partly where a lot of the false doctrine that has crept into the church has come from. I will most certainly get involved in the debate and continue to confess and proclaim God’s Word in all its truth and clarity.
I've shared this with my grandchildren. I don't get upset, or heated about it, but I let them know that it is really about this: do I believe that God is powerful enough to do this? Can I have the faith that an all powerful God could create all of this in 6 days ("and the morning and the evening were the first day...." Very clear). People can debate this until the cows come home but you either believe or you don't believe, or you try to find a human way to explain it.... ("My ways are not your ways and my thoughts are not your thoughts"). I just simply believe. Just like I believe the Bible is true. You start chipping away at things and it's a slippery slope. ❤️
I am one who has a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, while still accepting old earth and evolution. I know, I know, "That's not possible." It is possible but without diving into that, I agree with you. The debate is way more hostile than it should be. I think a large reason for the hostility is because of how many jump into the fray with minimal knowledge of one or the other side. 9/10 times the debate revolves around strawman arguments, and hypocritical accusation. It's incredibly annoying, tbh.
I was just thinking about this last night I agree with you! I’ve always thought what is a “day” to God who is timeless. Could be much much longer then “24 hours” without questioning inerrancy. I like the thought that on the 7th day when God rested is when the dinosaurs did there thing. Then God was like eww no… ☄️ definitely not married to this idea but I do hold strong on old earth and that dinosaurs existed.
Do you take the cosmic temple inauguration view, by chance?
@@MissingTrails not particularly. I think God is in, around, and beyond the Cosmos. It isn't his "home", merely, no more a creation than us.
@@riahsrabbitry9268 interesting notion. I take a old earth perspective, but a 24 hour interpretation of the days. Though, I'd say God is still in his day of rest.
@@MissingTrails For my part, I definitely lean toward the cosmic temple inauguration view. While I believe it’s unlikely that every aspect of John Walton’s position is correct, I do find the general thrust of his case around Genesis 1 in particular to be compelling. I also think there’s an argument to be made that Jesus himself was reading Genesis in a similar manner, building that argument on the foundation of N.T. Wright’s historical Jesus work and G.K. Beale’s overall work in temple theology.
I'm personally a diehard young earth creationist, but I think that certain forms of theistic evolution are completely fine and Biblically sound. The only real danger is when people get into actual Darwinism.
Right, and I think that's solid. The real problems with old earth perspective is that it lacks scientific/historical basis, not that it contradicts scripture (all the time.)
As someone who adheres to theistic evolution I agree. Darwinism is dangerous if its dysteleology
I'm totally with you, Dr Cooper. For the same reasons. It seems relevant (perhaps) for two reasons: The Sabbath rest and Genesis 3 that flows out of this. Paul's whole argument of a Second Adam seems to require a literal, historical First Adam... and implied in that, sin (and the entirety of the Fall) is not something God "created" but something mankind did. But does that require a certain understanding of Genesis 1 and 2? I'm not sure.... And again, I know incredibly LITTLE about geology and biology - FAR too little to say anything definitive on this. And I'm "okay" leaving the issue of Creation to the geologists and biologists (willing to stay out of it), focusing on theology (and hoping the geologist and biologist stays out of that).
How can this not be an important issue? I’m attracted to the LCMS but this is the one sticking point I can’t get over.
It’s an incredibly important issue, Coopers response to it is unbelievably disappointing. Where do you line up as far as your view of creation? As a confessional Lutheran myself I could recommend which Synod would appeal to you more
LCMS, WELS, ELS, all hold to the 6 day creation model and are confessional synods that I would recommend depending what’s available in your area.
Same I don't want my kids to have the same crisis of faith I had where I thought it was science or faith.
@@ronv7995that's ok I just wish they were open to the possibility of interrupting Genesis differently and that you can be Christian and still accept the age of the earth and evolution.
@@ronv7995This video pre-dates that tragic resolution.
The problem is there have always been Christians who think for someone to be saved they have to be in agreement on some exhaustive list of things, and this is one of those things they'll include on that list. Most Christians would define that list with a very small number of things; namely, believing Jesus (the Jesus of Nazareth according to the four main gospels) is Lord, and God (God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the other prophets of the Old Testament) raised him from the dead.
At some point I hay extrapolation of salvation requirements crosses an unnecessary line, and the understanding of Genesis 1-3 would probably be one of those. The only necessity is probably believing Genesis 3:15 is a promise of God fulfilled by Jesus. Rejecting that would seem heretical.
I know this video is five years old but I need to say that not taking a stand on this subject weakens your "plain language" argument on other topics. My biggest frustration since becoming Lutheran are pastors who lean on "plain language" when it supports their argument but not when it doesn't. It is very clear language in Genesis 1-3 (which is not poetry as some people claim) and that it is 6, 24-hour days. If you don't believe the beginning then where in the Bible are you going to start believing it and where else will you compromise?
Fr. Seraphim Rose has a great book on this called "Genesis, Creation & Early Man"
That book changed my whole view on the debate. Wish they still have it in print because it is worth the read.
I'm in much agreement! Frequently, when I'm asked, I tell them that it's a loaded question. Then I go about unpacking the question by setting up foundational propositions: Do you believe scripture is inerrant? Do you believe faith and science are in agreement/can be resolved? If so, we can go further... Then I launch into the fact that the science has evolved much since a large portion of the arguments have been made. For example, I'll ask if spacetime is 1 word or 2. Then I'll ask about the relationship to mass and time (ref. E=MC2)... Pretty soon you start to quickly realize that we don't even have an understanding of what time actually is. Further, you can start delving down the path of translating the Hebrew word for "day"... At this point, it becomes pretty clear that anyone who claims an absolute understanding probably relies on their hubris more than scripture.
I honestly totally agree with Dr. Cooper on this. It's not that this isn't an issue but historically it hasn't posed some craxy threat to the unity of the church and I don't recon now is the time for it to do that. Honestly as long as you hold to the inerrency of scripture in it's respective genre, hold to a historical adam and eve, and hold to the sovereignty of God over his creation. I don't see this as something to wage war on, we are not going to get anywhere "fighting" modern sicence or less convinced christians. Truly it has little affect on the faith if you affirm the things I said. The age of the Earth, the length of the days, or the literalistic vs allegorical nature of the creation account does not affect ones theology past those three chapters, the echos stop there if you have some bumper guards on the interpretation. I honestly think this has about as much importance as a flat earth or geocentrism debate in the Church, and thankfully we aren't often dying on that hill. I think it harms the witness and unity of the body of the church to separate on the issues unless they are explicitly affecting your soteriology, which I don't think it should. I don't take a strong position on this because I DO NOT KNOW, and thats totally cool! I find saint augs\ustines approach much more tennable, Augustine speaks of the breadth of interpretation concerning the creation account and ultimately says something along the lines of "A believer may have many sorts of reverent varying opinions, i think they're wrong, but whos to say other than God on these mind boggling passages" Augustine has absolute utmost respect for the Scripture, a deep deep love for God, and a healthy view of the possibilities of civil intra church disagreement. The Church has never stood or fallen on this topic like this in the past, even when there was a plethora of different theories (for example augustine didn't hold to a literal 7 days he thought creation was instantaneous). Honestly this seems like a stubborness issue for many rather than an actual concern for the Kingdom of God or a protection of the inerrancy of scripture.
It is definitely a hermeneutical issue. I'm a newly converted Lutheran and adhere to an old Earth. We need to remember that at a point hyper literalism encouraged flat earth beliefs. We understood our mistakes there, this is no different
What saith the Scripture?
I personally am able to be at peace with it all, I look at people and go “yeah that’s what biologists and evolutionists tell us, yep that’s what they found, what’s interesting is this and well how about that, blah blah blah” personally it doesn’t matter to me, if God made the earth millions or thousands, I personally do bet on the thousands cause God’s word describes it that way for me, but I do not care, workout your questions with god on your own if it doesn’t bring divisions or false doctrines, for all I care and for that matter for all Jesus cares I think we can do us a favor and just not bother to press this issue outside of simple “okay what does the Bible say? 6 days? 6 days.”
i mean, does he not want to debate this issue, or what? :p
Maybe he's just more concerned with trifles like justification, and the Real Presence, and baptismal regeneration, and other things, and would rather talk about them.
I get the sense that he does not 😉😁
Dr.JordanBCooper Sorry but am I missing something obvious here? Did you suggest that the perspicuity of scripture requires you to have a greater KNOWLEDGE of biology? How does particular knowledge (secret?) have any part in sound hermeneutics? What you actually said, coming from anyone else, would suggest a plausible evolution model.
This is the most sound position on the topic I think. I wish everyone would have the humility and self-awareness to refuse to speak on topics they are ill equipped to discuss competently.
Personally, it seems like an absurd debate to get heated about when we clearly live in a universe where Time is not even universally constant.
Mike Baker, there is nothing humble about rejecting scripture and compromising with unbelieving scientists. If you can’t get past the first page in the Holy Bible, you can’t get through the rest.
@@OriginalSinner I don't have a position on the science. I don't see its theological relevance and the supposed theological complications of not holding a firm position one way or another are easily dismissed with compelling exigetical and metaphysical arguments.
Original Sinner~ I really didn't see it that way. As a young earth creationist, I'm ok with accepting not everything in this life is meant for us humans to fully understand. Unless this is a particular area of interest, I don't see the point of spewing out a bunch of non-facts or opinions just to have skin in the game. The church in general has enough men like that that just cause division. This topic is very hard to give an honest debate in my opinion because science is always changing.
Agreed about the humility comment ^.
If a person on their death bed believes in Christ’s saving work, it does not matter what he thinks about the exact way God created the world.
None of us has Perfect Faith. There is grace enough for that, too.
Ken Ham and his ilk have essentially turned Genesis 1 into an idol in and of itself, giving it a degree of importance that should rightfully be reserved for the resurrection. Christianity stands or falls based upon the personhood of Christ, not the age of the earth.
Anyone have a recommendation to look to to try and understand/explain things in a nuanced way? This is a blind spot in my personal theology.
I recommend looking into John Walton's work. He has a series of books called "The Lost World Of..." including "Genesis 1," "Adam and Eve," and "The Flood." His cosmic temple inauguration view of Genesis 1-2 pretty much obliterates the young earth/old earth dichotomy by rejecting the materialist interpretation altogether.
The problem i have with evolution is what it aims to do. The goal is to bring about man's existence without God. It is constantly trying to push God out of the picture. That is why I mainly reject many of its ideas; however, there are many aspects of the field that i don't reject.
If Gods existence is proven by philosophy, then whether or not humans are product of supernatural or natural phenomena is irrelevant. In either case, God is the creator, and we are the product of divine providence.
I would invite you to look at the Christ-centered model for early Genesis. Lutherans are Christ-centered in their overall approach to scripture, so far early Genesis seems to be an outlier. You may not enjoy geology and biology and all the rest in the creation debate, but surely you would enjoy seeing about how the creation account really points to the work and person of Christ.
An interesting book on this topic is The Genealogical Adam and Eve by Swamidass. Tries to bridge the gap between different perspectives and in the book he talks about consulting with LCMS theologians.
Matthew 19:4-5 He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"
In this saying, Jesus quotes Genesis 2. This proves that Jesus regards the creation account as true and reliable for establishing doctrine. True Christians will follow His teaching. John 1:1-3 tells us that He was there on the sixth day, when God created them male and female.
In making this comment, I'm probably guilty of throwing what is holy to the dogs.
Hi Ben,
Iraneaus quoted the text of the New Testament in the 100s AD. So, this is proof that the text existed at that early date.
Beyond that...
What is your standard for "credibility"?
kind regards,
Daniel
@Ben L
Well, the main thing is Jesus' resurrection. The New Testament is written mostly by people who were eyewitnesses of the fact that Jesus died and was buried, and three days later He was alive again. He walked and talked and ate and did miracles before ascending bodily into heaven.
There are a couple of questions with regards to credibility. 1) Were the N.T. accounts written by Jesus' disciples? 2) Have we preserved the actual words that they wrote? Then the question becomes whether or not their accounts are reliable. Did Jesus' resurrection and ascension really happen?
The two credibility questions I listed can be approached systematically. The other questions are spiritual. Whether you can believe God's Word (or not) is between you and God.
The specific passage you raised (the Son of God quoting Genesis) only becomes relevant once you believe in Him already. As long as you think Jesus was just some guy who lived 2,000 years ago, then you're not going to care very much about what He said or didn't say. And, up until the time of Christ, the Old Testament was only believed by the Israelites. The Egyptians, Assyrians, Greeks and Romans all had their own competing beliefs about the gods. But the Holy One of Israel confirmed the validity of the true account (i.e. the Old Testament) when the Father sent His only-begotten Son to fulfill the promises made in it.
"And they made His grave with the wicked --
But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labour of His soul, and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities."
-- Isaiah 53:9-11
Except that Christ here was making a comment upon the sanctity of marriage, not opining upon the validity of a literalist reading of Genesis.
@@kyledonahue9315
Hi Kyle,
Question: Did you read and think about my comment before opining upon it?
Daniel
@@kyledonahue9315
Sorry, but...
I asked you a question, and you didn't answer.
My question was: Did you *think* before opining upon?
I think you are a secret young Earth creationist. ;-)
Well next question: What is your opinion on the EVANGELICAL HERITAGE VERSION OF THE BIBLE?
Wait do you live here in missouri dr Cooper? If so what institution can you be visited at?
you could have said all this in 1 minute instead of rambling for 7 and a half.
You are free not to watch these videos if you don't like them.
@@DrJordanBCooper I am subscribe to your channel because I do want to hear what you have to say. But in this case (and in few other cases) you go on repeating the same thing over and over. That's not good. But your videos are, in general, very informative and beneficial. So, keep up the good work, I'll continue to listen, God willing.
You would be better not to speak at all.
Dr. Cooper,
Do you believe that there was death before sin?
If the evidence shows that the bible is wrong about the origin of humans and the earth then so be it we should be honest
I agree.
You should research Dr. Hugh Ross take on creation. His a very special soul that uses science to interpret the consistency of the Bible. It could give you an ingest-able stance. Check him out
This is too long an explanation. Keep it simple, saint. Let Scripture speak. And don't change the "genre" of Exodus 20 please. Exodus 20:11 in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything that is in them.
Ya need to do recommended academic books for people interested in Lutheran theology.
I am looking at the Grace Upon Grace that you recommended for less academic books.
have you read "Evolution vs Creationism" by Eugenie Scott? She is the national director of the Center for Science Education and then there is "The Evolution Dialogues" from the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Ignore this advice: Scott has anti-supernatural and hence anti-Christian presuppositions.
In the beginning.......GOD..........
This is cowardice in its truest form. Making me have serious doubts about why the LCMS chooses to associate with pastors who seem to be perplexed about how to read the literal first page of the bible. Just imagine getting 2 verses into the bible before believing you are smarter than God lol, thinking that YOU know better and are wiser than the words God deigned to share with us about how he created the earth.
That is not what he said.
Luther's favorite theologian, Augustine, held that the 7 days were all at once.
You are correct, it truly disheartens me to see a “confessional” Lutheran hide from this topic. Confessional evangelical Lutherans must affirm YEC
@@Possum880Nah, confessional evangelical Lutherans should recognize the problems and debunked nature of YEC, how it's not a necessary position for Biblical inerrancy, and abandon their current stance on it. Or, watch the average parishioner age continue to climb.
Jordan we need you to respond back to the anti faith pro reason direction that this nation is going in
Chicken.
Here's why I think Pr Cooper is right that this debate needs to be downplayed in significance:
There are compelling faithful arguments for some nuances in interpretation of Genesis and Romans 5.... but... many people are scandalized by them, the athiests take those arguments out of context to cast doubt on the validity of Scripture, and there is a slippery slope between nuance permitted by the text and impious types of radical textual criticism.
This is why this discussion should fall into the realm of pious opinion similar to the semper virgo and the long ending of Mark.
The irony is that, contrary to the strawman arguments of hardline creationists, those who refuse to speak authoritatively on the interpretation of Genesis 1 are the actual literalists because they restrain themselves from adding meaning to the text to preserve its mysteries and clear doctrines.
And they are in good company with people like R.C. Sproul who repeatedly pointed out that one could not know the age of the Earth by revelation alone but must engage in human deductive reasoning and St. Augustine who admitted it was impossible to truly know the character of the 6 days of Creation.
A literal 7 day creation is fundamental and tied to every other major theological point in scripture. To simply shrug it off is, well, disappointing and a little surprising coming from a deep thinker like yourself.
I guess Augustine was a fool then.
@@kidflersh7807 Augustine didn't know what we know now.
@@kidflersh7807 It's every bit as important as real presence and virgin birth, and more... it ties directly to baptism (8th day)... etc. It can't be cherrypicked out.
@@shawno66 God bless you! You are so right. As a Lutheran who has greatly enjoyed Dr Coopers work I’m greatly disappointed by his approach to this topic. The creation account in Genesis is true!
William Lane Craig has an interesting take on this as well.
Good. You've said you don't know much about. That's fine. But doubting the literal meaning of those words can also lead to skepticism of other historical accounts. The creation account must be taken as it is, supernatural event and wr ought not try to explain it in naturalistic view of philosophy. Of course, the Bible is pre-scientific but not unscientific. There are lots of things that go along with Scripture, but never theistic evolution neither the poor interpretation of the word "yom" in Genesis 1&2.
Have you ever considered the cosmic temple inauguration view?
All I hear is “sola scriptura” in the Lutheran Church, but I have yet to see it (my home church included). It says 6 days; that means 6 days. “The evening and morning were the first day.”
*We are the salt of the earth, the light of the world.* Do not be quiet on this extremely important issue. One cannot be a Christian evolutionist; it’s an oxymoron. ✝️
Aaron - The Bible states in Genesis 3 (and elsewhere in the Old and New Testaments) that death was a curse - a direct result of Adam's sin against God. The theory of evolution requires death as a mechanism to advance. The two are inherently incompatible - certainly spiritually, with Jesus destroying death as the last enemy, but even intrinsically due to the sequence of specified events.
Jeff H.- That's a very interesting point. It makes me think though, there has been plenty of times in history people went through famine and what not. Certainly the weaker or genetically inferior died off first leaving the more genetically apt to carry on. Wouldn't this in a way be a process of natural selection? I have always thought death in general, regardless of cause, fell under the umbrella of sin. So whatever the cause or purpose is kind of irrelevant.
Aaron, There are other plausible explanations such as the Day Age Theory or even the Gap Theory, that one can hold to and have a high view of scripture. Neither of the aformentioned theories are capitulating to Darwinian evolution as some have alleged. This is probably a major reason why Pastor Cooper has no interest in taking a definitive position, because frankly it's not a central issue to sola scriptura nor to an understanding and application of law and gospel. Normally the most rabid YEC's are predominately fundamentalist Baptist's, not Confessional Lutheran's.
@Aaron Robertson Phil Johnson has a long form answer to this in the beginning of his book "Defeating Darwinism by opening minds."
Ironically Luther's got the best quote on this one:
When Moses writes that God created Heaven and Earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are.
EVOLUTION......ALL THE WAY.😊😊😊😊😊
*Involved
😉
Involved* 😉
If we cast doubt on, or question, the biblical record of creation, that opens the door to questioning/ doubt everything else the Bible says. We have already made a muddle of that, treating Scripture as if it were a smorgasbord, choosing to believe what we want and leaving the rest. To say anything else says we don believe God could have done that, therefore casting doubt on His omnipotence. We either believe the Bible or we don’t. We can’t live in both camps.
No doubt has been cast, he literally affirmed inerrancy
I personally think you would have been better off not making this video since you have nothing to say on the topic.
Oh, but he does.
Honestly, there is no debate. Scripture teaches a literal 7 day creation. The end. Nothing to talk about.
Very sophisticated.
Then scripture is wrong. Period, the end, nothing further to talk about.
Everything we have ever seen DOES unquestionably support our current understanding of biological history. So you better find a way to reconcile scripture and science.
As convincing as some arguments for Christianity can be, they’re nowhere close to the strength that our evidence for evolution has. They will break before Darwin, at this point
@@lebecccomputer287 Oh boy. You're going to wish you'd not made that choice one day. 😭 I'm very sad for you, you never know what day will be your last.
I pray God has mercy and softens your brittle heart. ❤️
@@louisacapell quit acting sanctimonious. I don’t think there’s any contradiction between the two. There’s a difference between being a Christian and being an idiot
@@lebecccomputer287 what are you talking about? You said the scriptures are wrong.
If morning and evening isn't descriptive enough for you, your a heretic!
I guess augustine is heretic
@@kidflersh7807
He definitely had heretical views, but not nearly as satanic as theistic evolution/old earth false theology