No Creed but the Catechism

I went to mail a package the other day and wound up getting into a strange little theological conversation. It was brief. To tell the truth, I was a little surprised, and didn’t quite know how to respond to the statement that offended me. The fellow saw that I was mailing some religious books. He asked me what denomination I was. I told him I was a Missouri Synod Lutheran. He seemed to know what that was, but then told me this: “I had dinner with two Lutheran friends from out of town the other night. The one I’m not worried about. The other one… too catholic! He talked too much about the catechism.” I thought to myself that the man he was worried about and I would probably get along better than the other “Lutheran” and I would. I knew I only had a few moments to respond in some way. Rather than being confrontational, or saying something sarcastic (which is my modus operandi), I replied, “God works through His Word when and where He wills.” I got a smile of approval, finished my transaction, and left. 

This attitude among Evangelicals really does kind of bother me. It falls under the umbrella of No Creed but Christ, No Book but the Bible. This is supposed to express that the person who professes this mini man-made creed doesn’t profess man-made creeds, and that they get their doctrines from the Bible, and not man-made theology. It’s not so much because of their smug sense of superiority when expressing it, but rather that they are so certain about something that just is not so. Not only are they professing a creed that is not “Christ”, one that is far inferior to the ecumenical creeds, they often subscribe to many books other than the Bible for their theology; books that take the words of Scripture out of context and teach things foreign to it, like dispensationalism (I’m looking at you, Cyrus Scofield).

Cyrus I. Scofield, creator of the Scofield Reference Bible

Dr. Martin Luther’s Small Catechism (hereinafter referred to as The Catechism) falls into the second half of the mini-creed; it is a book other than the Bible. It must, therefore, contain the doctrines of men. After all, if it were Jesus’ catechism, it would have His name on it. There are, however, several problems: No Creed but Christ, No Book but the Bible ignores the reality of how men are converted, and how doctrine is preserved and transmitted from one generation to the next; also, my fundagelical friends have a misconception about what a catechism is. 

They don’t know what a catechism is, so they don’t know what they are missing by rejecting such a resource out-of-hand because it was “written by men”. The desire to obey God rather than men is good. We Christians should follow the example of our fathers in the faith who came before us and preached, taught, baptized, and worshiped in the face of persecution. But that is just the point: Christianity isn’t just me and my Bible, and you and yours, having personal experiences with God. Christianity is the death of Jesus as ransom for the sin of the world, and His resurrection for our justification.[1] And when a man is made a Christian by the working of the Holy Spirit through the means of the Word, he becomes a part of something bigger than himself – the body of Christ, the Church, the Communion of Saints, spread out through time and space, preserved by Him until the Last Day when Christ will come to judge the living and the dead, and establish the new creation. I don’t mean to wax metaphysical, but Christianity, rather than being a religion of “do these things in this prescribed way according to this rulebook,” is instead a religion of being. You once were dead in trespass and sin, and now you are made alive by Christ.[2] You once were dirty with the filth of your sin, and now you have been washed, you have been sanctified, you have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God;[3] You have been saved in the waters of Holy Baptism,[4] where you were connected to Christ, His death and resurrection, clothed with His righteousness,[5] washed clean of your sin.[6] You used to be a fallen, sinful creature; now Christ has made you a new creation, by the grace of God through faith in Him.[7] Now, be forgiven. This is a concept that the unregenerate human mind, hostile to God, cannot understand.[8] We Christians can only begin to grasp it, and struggle with sin while we live here in the flesh because of sin living in us.[9]

What does that have to do with The Catechism? Good question. I doubt that most people even understand what the word catechism means, let alone what the book actually is. Catechism means to instruct by question and answer.[10] Consequently, a book containing a summary of religious doctrine in question and answer format is called a catechism. So, is The Catechism not a summary of Luther’s teachings? If it is, then my friend is right, I follow Luther rather than Christ, and I am a filthy pagan. But is he correct? Not hardly. Dr. Luther’s catechism is an instruction in the teachings of the Christian faith, as it had been believed, taught, and confessed since ancient times, using Holy Scripture as it’s foundation. In the preface to his catechism, Luther wrote: 

The deplorable, miserable conditions which I have recently observed when visiting the parishes have constrained and pressed me to put this catechism of Christian doctrine into this brief, plain, and simple form. How pitiable, so help me God, were the things I saw: the common man, especially in the villages, knows practically nothing of Christian doctrine, and many of the pastors are almost entirely incompetent and unable to teach. Yet all the people are supposed to be Christians, have been baptized, and receive the Holy Sacrament even though they do not know the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, or the Ten Commandments and live like poor animals of the barnyard and pigpen. What these people have mastered, however, is the fine art of tearing all Christian liberty to shreds.[11] 

The Catechism, according to Luther, is a teaching tool, designed to help instruct people in the doctrines of the Christian faith, all of which are exposed in Holy Scripture. 

If someone claims that they only need the Bible, they probably mean to express that they are faithful Christians who hold Holy Scripture in high regard, and believe what it says. But how did they hear the Gospel? Did a Bible fall from heaven, open, in front of them? Was it a Scofield Reference Bible?[12] If so, are the notes inspired Scripture as well? Did they begin reading it without human interaction, with only the odd quiver of the liver to direct them? No. They were brought to hear preaching and teaching at church, Sunday school, Bible study, and by other Christians as they encountered them in their various vocations, etc. Did these other Christians simply read to them the Gospel of John? Did they answer each question directed to them with a bare quotation of Scripture? No. They summarized and taught, and pointed to the Word as recorded in Holy Scripture, preserved and handed down through the church by the working of the Holy Spirit, to show that what they were teaching was true. 

Some do this faithfully; others do not. But we know that the Holy Spirit preserves the Church in unity, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.[13] This Church, made up of all the faithful of all time, we cannot see, and call the “invisible” church. We seek to remain a part of this “invisible” church, and be faithful to that “visible” church (that gathering of people around the means of grace which is made up of believers and hypocrites[14]) which teaches all of the Bible’s doctrines purely, and administers the Sacraments according to their institution.[15] Moreover, we are called to avoid false teachers, churches, cults, and all organizations that teach contrary to God’s Word.[16]

What about all those people, probably the vast majority in human history, who were too poor to own a printed book of any kind? They had no Bible. How about those people who could not read? How did God make them Christians? Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ.[17] Anyone who became a Christian was baptized and taught, and their teacher didn’t just read Bible quotes at them. If he was a faithful teacher and preacher, all that he preached and taught had God’s Word, understood in it’s proper context, as a foundation, just as The Catechism does. I wonder how my fundagelical friend talks to people about Jesus. Does he share his testimony? Does he explain how to walk down the Roman Road? Does he follow the method of Dr. D. James Kennedy? These things are attempting to do what The Catechism does: summarize Christian doctrine and deliver the Word of Christ (Though, I would argue, these other methods are far inferior to The Catechism, and distort God’s Word by teaching it out of it’s proper context).

The human heart is, as I once heard a faithful preacher say, an idol factory. We can make anything into an idol – including Luther – as Rome did with the Pope, as cults do with their leaders, and as some do even with the Bible (KJV Only movement, anyone?).

But creeds and confessional statements, like The Catechism and the Book of Concord of which it is a part, are wonderful things. They distill the teachings of Holy Scripture into concentrated bits that the Church can learn and confess together. They serve as a check for the layman on the preaching of the pastor. If he deviates from the doctrine of Scripture as they have learned it, it is the duty of the people to call their pastor to account. Confessional statements and creeds serve as clear examples of what men are teaching as the Word of God from Holy Scripture. Those documents are the best starting point for Christians to begin talking to each other in a serious and meaningful way about what they believe, teach, and confess, and working toward true Christian unity, so that we teach all things that Christ has commanded.[18]

God works through preachers, and teachers, and the liturgy, and the catechism, and books written by Christians intended to teach, and people talking to one another, and all kinds of ways, provided that God’s Word, the Word of Christ, is being delivered. God does not want to deal with us in any other way than through the spoken Word and the Sacraments. Whatever is praised as from the Spirit – without the Word and Sacraments – is the devil himself.[19]

Bibliography

Concordia Publishing House. Luther's Small Catechism. Translated by Concordia Publishing House. Saint Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1991.

Got Questions. "What is the Scofield Reference Bible?" Got Questions: Your Questions, Biblical Answers. July 26, 2019. https://www.gotquestions.org/Scofield-Reference-Bible.html (accessed August 20, 2019).

McCain, Paul T, Robert C Baker, Gene E Veith, and Edward A Engelbrecht. Concordia, The Lutheran Confessions: A Reader's Edition of the Book of Concord. 1st. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2005.

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield: G. & C. Merriam Co., 1924.

Wikipedia. Dispensationalism. "Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism (accessed August 20, 2019).

---

[1] Mark 10:45; John 3:3-5, 10-17; Romans 3:21-26; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; Romans 4:23-25

[2] Ephesians 2:1-10; Romans 6:11

[3] 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

[4] 1 Peter 3:18-22

[5] Romans 6:1-14; Galatians 3:27

[6] Acts 22:16

[7] 2 Corinthians 5:16-19

[8] Romans 8:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14

[9] Romans 7:13-25

[10] Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 1924

[11] Concordia Publishing House, 1991

[12]  The Scofield Reference Bible promoted Dispensationalism, the belief that between creation and the final judgment there would be seven distinct eras of God's dealing with man and that these eras are a framework for synthesizing the message of the Bible (Got Questions 2019). It was largely through the influence of Scofield's notes that Dispensationalism grew in influence among fundamentalist Christians in the United States. (Wikipedia n.d.)

[13] Matthew 16:18

[14] Matthew 13:47-48; 22:11-12; Acts 5:1-11

[15] John 8:31-32; Acts 2:42; 1 Corinthians 1:10

[16] Matthew 7:15-16; Romans 16:17-18; Galatians 1:8; 2 Timothy 4:3; 1 John 4:1

[17] Romans 10:17

[18] Matthew 28:16-20

[19] Concordia Publishing House, 1991. SA III VII 10

More Creation Nonsense

Purchase The Grand Design at Amazon by clicking here.

The question of origins is one of the most important questions we, as human beings, must face. How you answer this question of where life came from will ultimately determine your view on a wide range of issues. At present, there are two theories, or philosophies, that offer an answer to the question of where humans came from. One is the theory of evolution, which tells us that the existence of humanity is just a cosmic accident, taking place randomly over a period of billions of years. The other is the creationist view – that a loving, personal God created all that is, visible and invisible, out of nothing, merely by his word. There really isn't a third option. Which one is more rational and logical to believe? This question may seem silly to anyone educated in the public school system in America over the last 40 years, as the theory of evolution is rather taught as the fact of evolution. There are, however, some issues which evolutionary theory raises that we should examine, and should ask our evolutionist friends and professors to deal with.

I am not a scientist, and I am not a pastor. I am not a professional apologist who goes around debating the question of origins like the late Dr. Ron Carlson, or Ken Ham. After doing some reading and research on my own, however, I have found some questions regarding evolution to which I can find no satisfactory answer. Ultimately, the reason that I believe in creation is because it is taught in God's inerrant word. Because God's word is also efficacious, God, working with the power of his Holy Spirit, has used this word to create faith in me. I offer the following in the spirit of giving to every man an answer, the reason for the hope that lies within me.

The Laws of Thermodynamics

Newton's Second Law states that everything in the universe is going from a state of organization and complexity, and degenerating toward chaos and disorganization. This is called the problem of entropy. All you need to do to see entropy at work is clean your house. How long does the laundry stay put away, the dishes stay clean, and the windows remain dust-free? Over time, your clean house moves from a state of organization to a state of chaos (especially if you have children running around inside of it).

What does this have to do with evolution? Well, according to Newton, everything in the universe – all energy and matter – is governed by the laws of physics, and evolution is no exception. Newton's Second Law tells us that the universe and all that is in it moves from a state of complexity and organization to a state of chaos and disorganization over time. The theory of evolution states exactly the opposite. Evolution claims that everything is evolving upward, to greater and greater levels of complexity, as evidenced in the rise of man. Moreover, all this happens by chance, over a long period of time. These two views are diametrically opposed to each other. Either Darwin or Newton is mistaken. They cannot both be correct.

The Law of Biogenesis

I remember sitting in 10th grade biology class learning this lesson. It was the first chapter in our textbook before we studied Darwin and the theory of evolution. It is the idea of biogenesis, that is, life only arises from life; it cannot arise from nonliving matter.

I remember our biology teacher telling us that in the 1800s, people believe in something called spontaneous generation. This, she explained, was the naïve notion that if you left meat out in the open and it began to decay, maggots and flies would spontaneously come to life on it. In the same way, if you left water out in the open, and a hair was put in it, given time that hair would spontaneously turn into a larva. I remember sitting in class laughing at the nonsense that these scientists from the 1800s believed. Our teacher went on to tell us that all such notions were dispelled by Louis Pasteur in the second half of the 19th century, when it was discovered that organisms smaller than the eye could see are responsible for the appearance of such creatures. Flies came to the meat, laid eggs that could not be seen, and maggots would eventually mature, etc.

From here, my amusement turned into confusion as we begin the study of evolution. This was the theory, my teacher explained, that all life on earth arose spontaneously by chance out of nonliving, inorganic material, 3.5 billion years ago, and evolved upward out of the primordial ooze to greater and greater forms of complexity, and eventually to humanity as we know it today.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist – or a biology teacher – to understand the problem that the law of biogenesis poses. The theory of evolution is in direct opposition to a basic axiom of biology: life cannot arise from nonliving matter. The response to this question, when raised, is frustrating. One is usually treated to a long, drawn out explanation of certain biological mechanisms and their workings, but basically it boils down to this: yes, the law of biogenesis says that life must come from living matter and cannot do otherwise. But, you must assume, by faith, that it happened at least once, because if it didn't, we wouldn't be here today.

In his book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow explain M Theory (or what is more commonly called the Multi-verse) as well as the implications quantum physics has for the origins of the universe, for the average person. It can all be summed up in two words: spontaneous generation.

According to Hawking, the origin of the universe is a quantum event. The universe has no origin as we would understand it. Instead, the universe was a singularity in both space and time. It has no initial boundaries in time or space, in the same way that the earth has no edge to use as a defining border, or to fall off of. It is a sphere. It arose out of nothing and expanded like a bubble of steam in a boiling pot of water. Hawking calls this the No Boundary Condition. In other words, the universe arose out of quantum fluctuations which spontaneously generated themselves before there was a universe, or any other matter, in existence. The universe created itself by spontaneously erupting out of the quantum mists:

In fact, many universes exist with many different sets of physical laws. Some people make a great mystery of this idea, sometimes called the Multi-verse Concept. But these are just different expressions of the Feynman Sum Over Histories. To picture this, let's alter Eddington’s balloon analogy, and instead think of the expanding universe as the surface of a bubble. Our picture of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe is then a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water. Many tiny bubbles appear and then disappear again. These represent many universes that expand, but collapse again while still of microscopic size. They represent possible alternative universes, but they are not of much interest, since they do not last long enough to develop galaxies and stars, let alone intelligent life. A few of the little bubbles, however, will grow large enough so that they will be safe from re-collapse. They will continue to expand at an ever increasing rate, and will form the bubbles of steam we are able to see. These correspond to universes that start off expanding at an ever increasing rate.[1]

In the steam analogy there is, however, a force acting on, or behind, the "nothingness" (the water in the pot) to spontaneously generate the "universes" (the bubbles of steam).

But doesn't this violate the laws of physics? How can something spontaneously generate from nothing? Why don't we see this happening around us? Maybe the 17th and 18th century scientists we made fun of in high school were right? Hawking explains that gravity is the key to explaining why universes can spontaneously generate from nothing, but other matter can't:

If we want to go back even further in time and understand the origin of the universe, we must combine what we know about general relativity with quantum theory. To see how this works we need to understand the principle that gravity warps space and time.[2]

Hawking says that the warpage of space and time can be detected and measured, even though we can't step outside of our closed system of space-time. Hawking says that the universe’s positive and negative energies make the universe locally stable, and prohibit the spontaneous generation of matter:

Any set of laws that describes a continuous world such as our own will have a concept of energy, which is a conserved quantity, meaning that it doesn't change during time. The energy of empty space will be a constant, independent of both time and position. One can subtract out this constant vacuum energy by measuring the energy of any volume of space relative to that of the same volume of empty space. One requirement any law of nature must satisfy is that it dictates that the energy of an isolated body surrounded by empty space is positive, which means that one has to do work to assemble the body. That's because if the energy of an isolated body were negative, it could be created in a state of motion, so that it's negative energy was exactly balanced by the positive energy due to its motion. If that were true, there would be no reason that bodies could not appear anywhere and everywhere. Empty space would, therefore, be unstable. But if it costs energy to create an isolated body, such instability could not happen because, as we've said, the universe must remain constant.[3]

Hawking continues:

If the total energy of the universe must always remain zero and it costs energy to create a body, how can a whole universe be created from nothing? That is why there must be a law like gravity. Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative. One has to do work to separate a gravitationally bound system such as the earth and the moon. This negative energy can balance the positive energy needed to create matter, but it's not quite that simple. The negative gravitational energy of the earth, for example, is less than 1 billionth of the positive energy of the matter particles the earth is made of. A body, such as a star, will have more negative gravitational energy, and the smaller it is, the closer the different parts of it are to each other, the greater this negative gravitational energy will be. But before it can become greater then the positive energy of the matter, the star will collapse to a black hole, and black holes have positive energy. That's why empty space is stable. Bodies such as stars, or black holes, cannot just appear out of nothing, but a whole universe can...Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable, but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described [in chapter 6]. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something, rather than nothing; why the universe exists – why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.[4]

Hawking comes to the conclusion that the universe spontaneously generated itself out of nothing, as the result of quantum fluctuations, and passed through an infinite number of histories. He comes to his conclusions about life, the universe, and everything, through abstract logic, something he chided Aristotle for doing earlier in the book:

But perhaps the true miracle is that abstract considerations of logic lead to a unique theory that predicts and describes a vast universe full of the amazing variety that we see. If the theory is confirmed by observation, it will be the successful conclusion of a search going back more than 3000 years. We will have found of the grand design.[5]

These things, interesting as they may be, are all the result of the abstract thoughts of theoretical physicists, and have yet to be confirmed by observation. We have left the realm of science and reason, and entered into philosophy and religion, a place Hawking repeatedly ridicules others for venturing into. The theoretical physicists are the priests of a godless religion; The so-called New Atheists are the apologists. The popular physicists mask their true aim of denying the Creator and deifying man behind the guise of seeking the mechanisms of the cosmos through the scientific method.

---

[1] Hawking, Stephen; Mlodinow, Leonard. The Grand Design. Narrated by Steve West. Audible, 2010. Audiobook.

[2] ibid.

[3] ibid.

[4] ibid.

[5] ibid.

Creation Nonsense

When I was a kid, I found a really old King James Bible. I thought it was cool, because it had charts and maps in the back, as well as a center column with lots of notes and references. At the top of each page there was a heading that gave you the theme of that particular page. It also gave you a year. The thing with which I was most fascinated was, if you turned all the way back to the book of Genesis, you could find out what year the world was created. 4004 BC. I thought that was amazing, that someone kept records that far back.

It wasn't until years later that I learned this chronology was worked out by a man named Bishop Ussher in the 17th century. In fact, Bishop Ussher had figured it out so precisely, that I was delighted to find the first day of creation was October 23, 4004 BC. I was beginning to suspect that this might not be something we could pin down so precisely, but the thought of this date at the top of my Bible made me smile nonetheless. As I went to high school, and learned about evolution, I struggled with how to fit the six days of creation and the young earth, together with the millions and millions of years required by Darwin's theory. In the end, I understood that Darwin's theory was just that – a theory – and the proof offered to high school students as validation of the Theory of Evolution does not exactly hold up to scrutiny. I also understood, thanks to my faithful pastor, that God's word is true even if we don't understand it fully.

There seem to be many Christians today who are embarrassed of God's word. Some Christians, overwhelmed and impressed by the so-called mountains of evidence that evolution is true, and the world is millions of years old, would like other Christians such as myself to go away. We are an embarrassment. We are fundamentalists, a by-word among the enlightened liberal elite. We take God at his word, and supposedly ignore science. This accusation doesn't bother me much when it comes from liberal theologians, who follow Bultmann, and Ehrman, and Barth, and have long ago given up any notions that God's word is true in a literal sense. It bothers me, however, when the people who are trying to reconcile creationism with evolutionary theory are those in my own denomination, the supposedly theologically conservative Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod.

There are good reasons to question the theory of evolution. The things that did it for me were the large periods of time required for evolution, the laws of Thermodynamics, and the Law of Biogenesis. That, however, is an article for another time. What I want to focus on now is the idea that it's okay to believe some parts of the Bible, and not others. It isn’t. I suspect that this is more accurately described as Christians being embarrassed by the supernatural things in the Bible.

Generally, the reason people deny, and seek to explain away the miracles of Holy Scripture, is because they are uncomfortable "asserting and defending the miraculous." This is why Thomas Jefferson created his Jefferson Bible, swept clean of all the miracles of Jesus.[1] This is why your average Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Lutheran gets squeamish when confronted by non-Christians about the miracles of Christ. It's the reason people are seduced by such explanations of Jesus's miracles as I once heard in a Roman Catholic Church in Evansville, Indiana.

The priest was expounding on Jesus's feeding of the 5000. The priest asserted that we get much more out of this story of the feeding of the 5000 when we realize that nothing supernatural occurred at all. His explanation for the feeding was, when the people had heard Jesus' teaching, and saw that a little child had willingly given his small bit of food to share, they all felt ashamed and brought out the food they had been selfishly hiding from each other. The priest still maintained that this was a miracle, but nothing supernatural had happened. Jesus had simply gotten the people to recognize and overcome their selfishness, and the result was overflowing abundance.

More Law, in other words. Follow these rules to be a good person. There is no sin to be atoned for, simply a “self” to make better. What need is there of Christ to take on human flesh, die, and rise from the dead?

We try to explain away supernatural phenomenon all the time. Who knows, there may very well be natural physical explanations for some of the supernatural incidents recorded in the Bible. The bottom line is, however, if the Bible is not trustworthy when it tells me about creation, Jonah and the big fish, the sun standing still for Joshua, Jesus walking on water, or Jesus miraculously feeding 5000 people with some loaves and fishes, how can I be certain that it is trustworthy when it tells me I am a sinner, and that my sins are forgiven by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ? The answer is, that you cannot. Denying the six-day creation, and a literal Adam and Eve, and all the rest, eventually brings you to denying Jesus Christ.

If we are willing to believe that God exists, and that he has rescued us from sin, death, and the devil by the vicarious atonement of Jesus Christ, why would we think that this same God was not powerful enough to create the world out of nothing by his word? Why would we be unwilling to believe that He could cause violations of the laws of physics (which we call miracles)? To be willing to believe that God is omnipotent and omnipresent, that he can raise the dead, but cannot create out of nothing, or cause Christ to walk on the water, or multiply the loaves and fishes, is absurd. 

You may as well not believe in any of it at all. That is the point to which you will eventually come anyway.

Moreover, if Jesus is God in human flesh, should we not take into account what he had to say about these things? I don't expect non-Christians to accept Jesus's explanation of things, but certainly we Christians should. Jesus believed that the creation account of Genesis was true, and that there was an Adam and Eve. He speaks of these things as though they were historical events. Ken Hamm of Answers in Genesis points this out:

Now, when we search the New Testament Scriptures, we certainly find many interesting statements Jesus made that relate to this issue. Mark 10:6 says, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” From this passage, we see that Jesus clearly taught that the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed “from the beginning,” not billions of years after the universe and earth came into existence. Jesus made a similar statement in Mark 13:19 indicating that man’s sufferings started very near the beginning of creation. The parallel phrases of “from the foundation of the world” and “from the blood of Abel” in Luke 11:50–51 also indicate that Jesus placed Abel very close to the beginning of creation, not billions of years after the beginning. His Jewish listeners would have assumed this meaning in Jesus’ words, for the first-century Jewish historian Josephus indicates that the Jews of his day believed that both the first day of creation and Adam’s creation were about 5,000 years before Christ.[2]

Jesus also believed that Jonah was really swallowed by a big fish:

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.” But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and indeed a greater than Solomon is here (Matthew 12:38-42).

We don't believe the things that Scripture tells us because we can find rational explanations of their occurrence. We believe these things because Scripture is trustworthy. It is, essentially, the same argument Luther had with Zwingli. Zwingli used rational arguments to say that Jesus's body and blood was only present in a spiritual way in the elements of the Lord's Supper. Luther, on the other hand, pointed to Christ's word: This is my body. We don't understand it, but we believe it because Scripture is trustworthy and tells us it is so.

Now to this purpose the comfort of the Sacrament is given when the heart feels that the burden is becoming too heavy, so that it may gain here new power and refreshment. But here our wise spirits twist themselves about with their great art and wisdom. They cry out and bawl, "How can bread and wine forgive sins or strengthen faith?" They hear and know that we do not say this about bread and wine. Because, in itself, bread is bread. But we speak about the bread and wine that is Christ's body and blood and has the words attached to it. That, we say, is truly the treasure – and nothing else – through which such forgiveness is gained. Now the only way this treasure is passed along and made our very own is in the words "given…and shed for you." For in the words you have both truths, that it is Christ's body and blood, and that it is yours as a treasure and gift. Now Christ's body can never be an unfruitful, empty thing that does or profits nothing. Yet, no matter how great the treasure is in itself, it must be included in the Word and administered to us. Otherwise we would never be able to know or seek it (LC V 28).[3]

Cosmologists such as Stephen Hawking, and popular "scientists" such as Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye, attack people who believe God's word as backward fools. Each one has their own nuance, but the argument always goes something like this: Religion may have been a necessary mechanism for primitive humanity to come to terms with the world around them, and natural phenomenon they could not explain, but it has certainly outlived its usefulness. In religion’s place, we are given theoretical physics. And, if physics doesn't automatically preclude the idea of God, it most certainly limits him in the way he could have created the universe to such an extent as to make Him irrelevant. Though they cry out and bawl, “How,” we speak of the Creation, and the words attached to it. For, if we deny the Creation, we will eventually deny Christ.

---

[1] Jefferson produced the 84-page volume in 1820—six years before he died at age 83—bound it in red leather and titled it The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. He had pored over six copies of the New Testament, in Greek, Latin, French and King James English. “He had a classic education at [the College of] William & Mary,” Rubenstein says, “so he could compare the different translations. He cut out passages with some sort of very sharp blade and, using blank paper, glued down lines from each of the Gospels in four columns, Greek and Latin on one side of the pages, and French and English on the other.” Much of the material Jefferson elected to not include related miraculous events, such as the feeding of the multitudes with only two fish and five loaves of barley bread; he eschewed anything that he perceived as “contrary to reason.” His idiosyncratic gospel concludes with Christ’s entombment but omits his resurrection.

Edwards, Owen. "How Thomas Jefferson Created His Own Bible." Smithsonian.com. January 01, 2012. Accessed November 21, 2017. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/how-thomas-jefferson-created-his-own-bible-5659505/.

[2] Ham, Ken. "Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?" Answers in Genesis. December 20, 2007. Accessed November 21, 2017. https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/did-jesus-say-he-created-in-six-literal-days/.

[3] McCain, Paul Timothy., ed. Concordia: the Lutheran confessions: a readers edition of the Book of Concord. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Pub. House, 2005.