The Beginning of the Universe

"He asserts that the universe came from 'nothing' rather than from God. However, the different 'nothings' that Krauss appeals to for his explanations are really 'some things'—'some things' that demand nothing less than the existence and involvement of the biblical God." ~ Dr. Hugh Ross, "Universe from Nothing?: A Critique of Lawrence Krauss' Book, Part 1"

Another set of Big Bang news articles have hit the popular media. This time with headlines like "The Big Bang Didn't Need God to Start Universe, Researchers Say." This is similar to what Stephen Hawking wrote in his book The Grand Design, which I wrote about a while ago. The impetus behind such assertions is the desire to remove God from the equation when it comes to the origins of the universe. This has been a problem for naturalistic scientists ever since the first indications that the universe is expanding. So, let's talk about Big Bang cosmological theory and see if the above claims stand up within that framework.

Why is this such a big deal to Big Bang cosmologists? Well, it is often believed that "Big Bang" automatically means an atheistic world-view, but, while that may seem to be common now, that was not the original response to Big Bang cosmology. In fact, the Big Bang was originally seen by steady-state cosmologists as an inherently religious idea. Geoffrey Burbidge, for example, once lamented that his fellow scientists were running off to join the "First Church of Christ of the Big Bang." Sir Fred Hoyle first coined the phrase "Big Bang" in a 1949 BBC broadcast as a pejorative name because of its religious significance (though he did later recant). Why did they see it as religious? Because saying that the universe has a beginning means that it must have had a Beginner, and they did not want to admit the possibility of a Beginner.

Recently, however, many noted scientists have begun theorizing how the universe could have created itself from nothing. That is, of course, the holy grail of a naturalistic world-view--if you can show that the universe did not need a Beginner, then God is not necessary (at least, that is the assumption). So, we get articles like the one list above and books like Hawking's The Grand Design. As I have already written about Hawking's work, I will make a few comments about the recent articles.

The basic premise of such arguments is that "the Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there. With the laws of physics, you can get universes." What I find most interesting about this is that the scientist quoted (Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley) admits that the laws of physics cannot explain themselves. He even admits that they would require a divine Creator, though he goes on to ask who created the divine Creator, which he believes leads to a never-ending chain of causes. But does it really? Basically, Filippenko is showing the validity and necessity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is a classic argument for an uncaused Cause or a Creator. Eventually the chain of causality throughout the history of being has to have a beginning. String Theory posits a type of multiverse to explain the beginning of our universe. Filippenko and Hawking posit that the laws of physics cause the universe to create itself. Both of these simply push the need for a Creator back a step. They simply add another link to the chain of causality. Where did the multiverse come from? Where did the laws of physics come from? Believing they are simply "brute realities" takes as much faith as, if not more than it takes to believe in a Creator (I have written about this here, here, here, and here). Such theories do not solve the problem but are basically mathematical ways of skirting the question.

Furthermore, Filippenko positing quantum fluctuations as a creative event has problems. (Warning, this is going to get a little bit technical.) A consequence of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is that quantum fluctuations in the fabric of space-time will generate particles out of "nothing" (it is not really nothing as we will soon see). Seth Shostack from SETI asserts, "Quantum mechanical fluctuations can produce the cosmos." In the article, Filippenko draws on this idea and says, "If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It's not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it." The first problem with this, that is not mentioned in the articles, is that while the uncertainty principle allows for the random creation of particles, it also requires that these particles revert back to fluctuations before they can be observed. They will not stick around long enough to create anything, about a quintillionth of a second (that is 0.000000000000000001 seconds)! The second problem is even larger than the first. The article and the scientists call this creation from nothing but it is in no way creation from nothing. It is creation from other "some things" (as the quote from Dr. Hugh Ross above states). When he says, "If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way..." Filippenko reveals a major problem in his theory: quantum fluctuations require space-time (which is something, not nothing) to already exist for any type of particles (or universes) to be created. Rather than coming from nothing, they come from pre-existent physical laws and pre-existent space-time. Space-time must already exist for quantum fluctuations to create anything. So, one must again ask, "Has the need for a divine Creator really been removed from the situation?" Not hardly. If the fabric of space-time is necessary for quantum fluctuations to create anything, then space-time first had to be created by something or Someone else. Again, this pushes the need for a Creator back a step but in no way rids us of that need.

For more on this topic, I would suggest you read Dr. Hugh Ross' review of Lawrence M. Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing. Krauss' book is a much more highly developed argument than the article I have been citing or even Hawking's book. Dr. Hugh Ross does a very good job of laying out the issues with it in part 1 and the theological explanations in part 2.

By His Grace,
Taylor

How to Find a Wife (Biblically)

"We have to realize that the Bible does not speak to every issue we will face in life. Just ask Solomon, who had to use wisdom when the two prostitutes came to him claiming to both be the mother of one child. We must follow those things that God has given us. In all of our relationships we have the obligation to exercise the fruit of the Spirit and not mistreat anyone, that is especially true for a prospective spouse." ~ Rev. Scott Clark, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California and Associate Pastor at Oceanside United Reformed Church

This quote is from a great "tongue-in-cheek" article about how we Christians sometimes try to say we have the "biblical" way of dating, courting, or whatever you call the way(s) of looking for a spouse. After his satirical list, Rev. Clark gives some great reflection on what the Bible actually does say about this issue. It is short and worth reading.

By His Grace,
Taylor

The Charge of Inconsistency

"Simply stated, the 'homosexuality and shellfish' argument falls apart when read as the Scriptures are meant to be read—with a redemptive-historical approach in view." ~ Matthew Everhard

You often hear stated today, "Christians love to quote the Bible and pick and choose whatever rules they want us to obey and what rules they want to ignore. I can quote the Bible too, and Lv. 11:9-11 says that you should not eat shellfish. You eat shrimp, so why should we believe what you say about homosexuality?" This is the "shrimp argument" and it sounds like a good one on the surface, but it actually comes from a lack of understanding of Scripture and Christianity as a whole. It is leveled by those who want to charge Christians with inconsistency if they do not agree with homosexuality. Yet, as we will see, citing a random verse from Scripture does not prove Christians inconsistent at all. It in fact opens up the door to show how Christ has changed everything.

First of all, let's be clear about what the Bible says. People who use the shrimp argument generally quote from Lv. 18:22 or Lv. 20:13 as if they are the only thing the Bible has to say about homosexuality. That is simply not the case. The New Testament (NT) is not silent on the issue but is quite clear (cf. Ro. 1:26-27; 1 Co. 6:9; 1 Ti. 1:8-11). So, if we are going to throw around the charge of "picking and choosing," let's not pick and choose what prohibitions we mention or which Testament we go to for those prohibitions. (It is often argued that Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality. Stand to Reason has a good article answering that charge.)

So, is it inconsistent for Christians to say homosexuality is sinful but eat shrimp? No, because with His life, death, and resurrection, Jesus changed the Biblical landscape, and now proper interpretation of the Old Testament (OT) law must take Christ's work into account (the redemptive-historical view mentioned in the quote by Everhard).

The OT, especially Leviticus, commits a large amount of space to what is called the "ceremonial law." This law told Israel how it could approach and worship God. Because Christ had not yet come, man could not just approach God in any state. For God's people to be in right relationship to a holy God and to worship that God rightly, there had to be sacrifices to deal with sin and rules to deal with the purity of the Israelite people. You could not approach God if you had eaten certain foods that were declared unclean (like shrimp), if you had touched an unclean object, or if you did not wear the right clothing. Through the ceremonial law, God made it clear that He is holy and people are not, therefore they could not just approach Him and worship Him in whatever fashion they pleased. They had to be pure. When Jesus came on the scene, however, He fulfilled the ceremonial law. The book of Hebrews argues this point at length, showing that with Christ's death and resurrection, approaching God has changed, and people cannot go back to the ceremonial law. Christ's is one-for-all sacrifice (He. 10:12), His righteousness is now our purity before God (Ro. 5:12-18; He. 10:19-23), and now all foods are clean (Mk. 7:19). When Jesus died on the cross the veil of the Temple was ripped and replaced with Jesus Himself (He. 10:20), which shows that the ceremonial law, with its sacrifices and cleanliness laws, has been fulfilled and can no longer be observed by Christians. Jesus makes us clean now, not what we eat, wear, touch, or what sacrifices we make.

That, however, is not the only type of law in the OT. Another type is the "judicial law" that governed the nation of Israel. In it, there are a lot of laws that seem odd to us, and there are some that seem extreme, like the stoning of blasphemers (cf. Lv. 24:16). What about those laws? How do those work? Blaspheming is obviously still a sin, but should we stone those who do it? No, because with the coming of Christ, God's people are no longer a physical nation but a spiritual one. In the OT, God's people were a physical nation, so sins had civil punishments. However, now that Christ has come, God's people are a spiritual people living in governments throughout the world. The Church is not the civil government, so the Church no longer deals with sin through civil punishments but through exhortation, censoring, and, as a last resort, exclusion from fellowship (cf. Mt. 18:15-20; 1 Co. 5; 1 Ti. 1:19-20).

But the third type of law--the moral law, which, for example, tells us about sexuality--is still in place. Why? Because it is not a consequence of how we can approach/worship God (ceremonial law) or the political organization of God's people (judicial law) but an extension of God's very character and created order, which can never change or be done away with. Even the coming of Christ does not change the requirements of the moral law (but He does secure forgiveness and eternal life for those who put their faith in Him). What the OT has to say about generosity, loving our neighbor, families, relationships, and even sex continues into the NT (cf. e.g. Mt. 5:27-30; 1 Co. 6:9-20).

So, how we look at the OT and its regulations depends not on "picking and choosing" but on Jesus Christ Himself. Now, one might reject the Christian premise that Jesus is God and that His death and resurrection changed the biblical landscape. But even if one does reject that premise, one cannot fairly say that Christians are inconsistent if they accept the moral statements of the OT and do not practice the ceremonial or judicial aspects. From the premises of Christianity, this is entirely consistent. One can say they disagree, one can reject the conclusion, one can say Christianity is wrong, and one can even say it is "hateful" (those are different arguments), but the charge of inconsistency fails when looking at the data seriously from a biblical, Christian standpoint.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Heaven, A Prayer

"O my LORD, may I arrive where means of grace cease and I need more more to fast, pray, weep, watch, be tempted, attend preaching and sacrament; where nothing defiles..." ~ "Heaven Desired," The Valley of Vision

In some previous posts I have mentioned that I was taking a class on worship and our professor, Dr. Derek Thomas, had encouraged us to write out prayers on various subjects so that we can think about how we would lead a congregation in prayer before a sermon. This was not so that we would memorize prayers but so that we would engage in the practice of "studied prayers" and be prepared to pray well before a congregation.

Below is one I wrote about Heaven. I hope you find it helpful, perhaps something you can pray through, and perhaps a blessing to your soul.

Father, we lift our praise to You, who are in heaven. We praise You because sit on Your heavenly throne, high and lifted up, with angels all around You singing “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” From there, the earth is Your footstool and You rule the universe in Your sovereignty. Oh, how we long to see You in heaven, Sovereign Lord. We long to see You face-to-face.

Jesus, we lift our praise to You, the King of Kings seated at the right hand of God the Father. From heaven You rule as King by subduing us to Yourself, ruling and defending us, and restraining and conquering all Your and our enemies. From heaven You minister as Prophet, revealing to us by Your Word and the Holy Spirit, the will of God. From heaven You intercede for us as our High Priest who offered Himself as the once-for-all sacrifice to satisfy divine justice. Jesus, we long to be with You in heaven and see You in Your glory at the right hand of God the Father.

Here on earth, we are just sojourners, wandering through the wilderness of this life. You, Father, have given us Jesus to be our Prophet, Priest, and King. You have given us the Spirit to unite us to Christ and be our comforter in this life. We thank You for those wonderful gifts. Yet, we long for the day when we stand before You united to Christ in heaven. You have given us the means of grace—prayer, Your Word, and the sacraments—to communicate to us the benefits of our redemption in Christ and to sustain us in this life. We thank You for those wonderful gifts. Yet, we long for the day where the means of grace cease because we will stand before You perfected, with our sinful flesh destroyed. We long for the day when we will not need to fast or pray because we will be in perfect communion with You. We long for the day when we will not need to keep watch or fight temptation because You will have defeated the evil one. We long for the day when we will not be able to sin for You will have made us perfect in Christ. We long for heaven where there is no grief, sorrow, sin, death, tears, frail bodies, damaged minds, broken souls, fleeting pleasures, terrible fears, paralyzing worries, or incompleteness. There, we will be near You and stand in Your presence as the bride of Christ, the body of Christ, and one with Him who is with You. There, we will truly understand the joy of our salvation.

Father, here on earth we know You, but we only know You imperfectly, incompletely, and dimly. Your Word is glorious, reveals who You are and Your will, and we are so thankful for it, yet we want to know You even more. We know in part now but in heaven we will know, even as we have been fully known. In heaven we will see You face-to-face and we long to know You with that intimacy. We long to know You as well as You know us.

Father, help us to be so enthralled with the thought of dwelling with You in heaven that we must tell everyone about what awaits they that repent of their sin and put their faith in Jesus. There are many in this world—friends, neighbors, coworkers, and even family members—who do not know Your love, the sacrifice of Christ, and the joy of relationship with You. They do not know forgiveness, imputed righteousness, and freedom from sin. They cannot look forward to the hope of heaven. And, we confess, Father, that many times we do not love them enough to share the gospel with them. Break our hearts for them, Father, so that we cannot help but share Christ with them. Grant us such joy in Christ that they cannot help but see Him in us. Give us the words to express Your gospel clearly and completely. Send the Holy Spirit to regenerate their hearts and renew their wills, so that they can really understand the depths of their sin, see Jesus as He truly is, understand the gift of salvation in Him (in all its glory), and find Your grace in Him irresistible.

Father, thank You for heaven and the hope of glory that we have in it, and we long to be there with You. We pray all these things in the name of Jesus, who has won access to heaven for us, Amen.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Book Review: "Perspectives on Christian Worship: 5 Views"

In the tradition of many recent works on various controversial topics, Perspectives on Christian Worship: 5 Views is a "debate in a book." How do we worship God properly? That is a big question for which there is much disagreement today. This book seeks to contribute to the debate by allowing five traditions to be heard in their own words and responded to in an orderly way.

Pinson sets the stage for the book in the introduction, where he presents a brief sketch of the history of worship. He makes note of the "tension between the need to remain faithful to the gospel and the Christian tradition while at the same time faithfully communicating that Evangel in a changing and complex cultural milieu that presents mammoth challenges to the continued witness of the Christian church." It is, in general, this tension that each contributor addresses in their essay. Five views on worship are presented by leading pastors/theologians in their various traditions: liturgical (Timothy Quill), traditional evangelical (Ligon Duncan), contemporary (Dan Wilt), blended (Michael Lawrence and Mark Dever), and emerging (Dan Kimball). After the presentation of each view, the other contributors are given a chance to respond to the said view. Below is the conclusion of my review followed by a link to the review:

In conclusion, this book is an excellent introduction and addition to the worship debate. There are a few things we would have liked have seen in it. First, while it is admitted that this book is not a complete coverage of the spectrum of worship traditions, a charismatic view would have been an excellent addition, particularly if the chapter included some information about their view of gifts in worship. Second, we would have liked it if each contributor had been given a chance to do one final response to the rebuttals. Of course, both of the previous desires would have added considerable length to the book and probably more time to its construction, so it may not have been feasible. Third, we would have like some kind of wrap up from the editor—something that would pull major strands together and emphasize points of agreement. A final chapter of this sort could have potentially added to the overall contribution of this book to the worship debate. 

Those who would like to read this book might find it helpful first to read H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture. Some of the underlying issues of the debate in this book stem from a theology (conscious or not) of how Christians should engage culture. Niebuhr’s five views would be helpful in thinking about the philosophy that drives a representative’s theology of worship. Of course, that adds a lot of extra reading.  

We would recommend this book for pastors, seminary students, or any other believer who wants to thoughtfully consider their worship of God. The views set forth, while not representing the complete spectrum of Protestant worship theologies, give a great introduction to five of the major theologies of worship extant in the Protestant Church. In addition, the endnotes of each chapter provide an excellent resource for further study on a particular topic, if the reader is so inclined.

You can read the whole review here. 

By His Grace,

Taylor