J. C. W. Lindemann vs LC-MS: Postscript

      After reading (in JCWL 8, ToC in Part 1) C.E. Luthardt's incredible quote of “The Copernican system is Truth and a triumph of the spirit!”, it was doubly sad that Ludwig Fuerbringer followed Luthardt's judgment in 1932 on the authorship of Copernicus's epitaph.  We can see how Fuerbringer's weakness, even in 1932, is partially responsible for the continued downfall of the later Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

Concordia Commentary,  Joshua 

      Prof. (emeritus) Adolph L. Harstad, an ELS theologian, denies the Bible's plain, clear meaning of Joshua 10:13 in his commentary Joshua (CPH 2004 edition, p. 423): 

“When the text speaks of the sun and moon standing still, this does not necessarily imply that the author believed that the sun revolves around the earth instead of the reverse. Rather, it is using language that describes phenomena as they appear to us from our vantage point on the earth.”  – 

This assertion is an accommodation of the Bible to "Science" and is clear proof that the new (English) ELS is not the “little Norwegian” of its fathers Madson and Ylvisaker or even of J.A.O. Preus II.  Indeed J.A.O. Preus, while still at the ELS in 1949, spoke against the “science” of Copernicanism (see here) in a writing against the opponent of the ELS, the ELC.

LC-MS Today (Harrison's “here and now”)

      Schaum and Collver, in their 2019 CPH book Breath of God, Yet Work of Man, essentially trample on the orthodox Lutherans of "Lindemann's List". They say (Look Inside, p. 431): 

"If you trust your physician, the same science suggests that you can trust a physicist. Even if  [Einstein's] general relativity has ended geocentricism for good, the Bible remains true and Christ still has redeemed me, a lost and condemned creature."

LCMS    —     ILC     —     LLDP     —     CTSFW
Harrison    —    Collver    —    Schaum    —    Rast

They are following the exact same reasoning as the followers of Copernicanism, that "Science" has proved the Bible to be incorrect in its account of natural history.  CTS-FW President Lawrence Rast Jr. wrote the Foreword to this book, thereby lending his name to its content.  It is offered by the LC-MS to other worldwide Lutheran groups as a teaching aid, as part of their "Lutheran Leadership Development Program" (LLDP).  Although Dr. Collver's "employment ended" in March 2019, yet his (and Schaum's) book was written while he was general secretary of the International Lutheran Council (ILC) and so this book is apparently still considered LC-MS doctrine… for worldwide Lutheranism.  It is sad that the LC-MS has dug its heels in so firmly. 

“Science” over the Bible… in the seminaries, universities
      In today's modern climate of "Science" over Scripture, a writer for Notre Dame University Press, Nicholas H. Steneck, stated in 1988 the following in his book Science and Creation in the Middle Ages in regard to a naturalist that Lindemann mentioned in Part 1, Henry of Langenstein (p. 42, emphasis mine):

“Laying bare the Creator’s design brings science squarely into focus. The revealed word of itself cannot lead to a full understanding of nature. In this regard Henry would not agree with Luther, for example, when the latter discards the “needless opinions” of the philosophers and turns “to Moses as the better teacher.” Using science and the works of scientists to help interpret Scripture is not only desirable, it is necessary… Ignorance of the way things are leaves the theologian vulnerable to the attacks and ridicules of philosophers. [JCWL: “fear of being considered stupid”] If nature and Sacred Scripture cannot be reconciled, the way is left open for the rejection of the latter’s teachings—even teachings that do not pertain strictly to nature. … No apology is needed for what follows, for unless we fully understand the workings of creation, the Creator too will fall beyond our intellectual and affective grasp.”

Steneck summarizes a position that matches the doctrinal position of the LC-MS.

Luther

Copernicus

< Lindemann's Luther, with Holy Scripture

vs. 

LC-MS replacement, Copernicus? >

May the true confessors of "Lindemann's List" be a strong testimony against today's teachers of the 
LC—MS and the ELS.

[I am planning to open my original Copernicanism series to comments after several years of restricting this.]