The Universe had a Beginning Part 1

To recap, here is the argument we have been analyzing and evaluating:

(1) Anything that has a beginning has a cause.

(2) The universe has a beginning.

Therefore,

(3) The universe has a cause.

We've already noted that the argument is valid.  If the premises are true, that is, if (1) and (2) are true, then the conclusion, (3), must be true.  We've now moved on to evaluating the argument for soundness.  If it is sound, then (1) and (2) are actually true.  That would mean that (3) would in fact be true.

One must defend the premises if soundness is to be established.  In the last post, I defended (1).  I leave it to the reader to review that post.  I will move on to defend (2).

It seems nearly trivial to say that the universe had a beginning.  From a theological standpoint, Genesis 1:1 is clear that God created the physical universe out of nothing.  Therefore, it must have had a beginning.  From a contemporary scientific standpoint, we are all children of the Big Bang Theory.  The Big Bang Theory supposes that the universe came into existence in the distant past as all that is exploded from an initial singularity ("singularity" is code for "infinitesimal black hole"--talk about coming into existence out of nothing!).  

However, it was not too long ago that the universe was thought to be infinite in size and sempiternal, or extending into the infinite past.  If this were the case, then there would be no sense to claiming that the universe had a beginning.  There is an obvious inconsistency between older physical theories that posit an infinite and sempiternal universe and contemporary theories (and the Bible) that posit a finite universe with a definite beginning in time.  Are there any reasons to chose the newer theories over the old ones?  Why think that the universe really did have a beginning?

Here's one answer many Christians might give:  because the newer theories posit a creation out of nothing just like the Bible, and Bible is right.  I would advise against this answer.  It may be, and is, true, but giving it would be a poor tactical decision.  Imagine this exchange:

Harry:  "We should be more inclined to accept newer physical theories that posit a finite universe with a definite beginning because they are more inline with the Bible, and the Bible is true."

Sally:  "Why do you think the Bible is true?"

There are many answers to Sally's question, some better than others, but look at what happened.  The discussion has moved away from the beginning of the universe.  Instead, Harry is going to have to switch gears and give an argument for the veracity of the Bible.  There are really good arguments available to give, but few know them.  It usually ends up that Harry will say that the Bible is true because it's God's Word.  But then:

Sally:  "How do you know it's God's Word?  After all, wasn't it written by humans?"

Harry:  "Well, look in 2 Timothy 3:16.  It says that all Scripture, that is the Hebrew and Greek texts, are God-breathed."

Sally:  "So you are saying the the Bible is God's Word because it says it is?"

Harry:  "Yes."

Sally:  "But doesn't the Koran make the same claim? And doesn't the Book of Mormon claim to trump the New Testament?  Are these also the Word of God?"

Harry:  "No, they are not."

Sally:  "Why not?"

At this point, Harry has a decision to make.  He can continue to make the circular claim that the Bible is the Word of God because it says it is, and therefore the others can't be.  On the other hand, he could give arguments that support the Bible's being the Word of God without depending on the Bible itself in any kind of circular way.  For example:

Harry:  "Well, let's look at the Koran.  It claims to be the Word of God; you're right about that, Sally.  And the Bible and the Koran can't both be the Word of God because they make incompatible claims about the way the world is.  Here is one good example:  In Genesis 1:26ff, we see that God created humans in his image.  In the Koran, humans are not created in the image of Allah.  In Genesis, Adam and Eve sin, and they become fallen.  In the Koran, there is no fall.  Allah forgives them.  Here's the upshot:  without the fall, humans are not inherently bound to sin.  We could live righteously if we tried hard enough.  But the very fact that we are enslaved by sin, the fact that we are fallen, means we can be righteous.  It is only because we can't be righteous that Jesus came.  If, as the Koran claims, we can save ourselves, the we don't need Jesus.  But, if we can't do good, then the Koran is wrong, and we do need Jesus--desperately.  The cornerstone of Christianity is the bodily resurrection of Jesus after his crucifixion.  However, the Koran denies that Jesus actually died.  Rather, Allah brought him into heaven prior to his death.  But is Christ did not die, then he could not be resurrected.  If he was not resurrected, then Christianity is false--completely false.  But if he was resurrected, then Jesus is God, which the Koran denies.  So if Jesus was raised and is God, then the Koran is false.  Now, here are some reasons why there is good reason to think the Bible is true..."

Two things to sum up this post:  (1) Punting to the Bible is the Word because it says it is, will get you off track.  Stay focussed on the argument at hand.  (2) If you do ever get into a discussion on the veracity of the Bible, there are good arguments out there that don't require the circular punt above.

In the next part, I'll give you the first sufficient answer to why we should prefer the newer theories and the Bible over the older ones.  WARNING:  it involves some concepts from math, e.g., set theory.  It's not difficult, but I thought you might want to buckle up.  We'll be talking a lot about different kinds of infinites. 

J Green

Bucking the Trends: Reaching Men

Men: Bucking the Trend, Part 1

I ended my last post with the following bold suggestion: we have created church environments that are effeminate-positively off-putting for most real guys. Let me look at a few ways in which we have allowed this state of affairs and then propose some moderate steps of improvement (though the real men will despise my moderation; here's hoping anyway).

Corporate Prayer

Do you have a church prayer meeting? Who comes? Are there lots of men? Would you go if you weren't the leader? Often these are attended by women (whose husbands "sent" them), a few faithful men, and a handful of "eccentrics." I am extremely glad for all the women attending our weekly prayer meetings, but I am haunted by Paul's words: "I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarrelling." (1 Timothy 2:8)

A robust prayer meeting is a place to see true masculinity on display. If that seems unlikely go back and read Acts. In fact, I was so eager to aim for this that when it came to launching our Saturday morning prayer meeting a couple of years back, I started with just men. I wanted a manly meeting, so I handpicked some blokes to join me each week at eight o'clock in the morning-about 25 to start with.

For a while it grew unofficially under the radar, like a Gnostic cult (except the pastor was running it). I'd have guys in their twenties trembling and whispering the request, "I have heard about this prayer meeting. Do you, ahem, mind if I join?" I'd say, "Who told YOU about it?!" It felt like the movie Fight Club where the one rule is, "No one talks about Fight Club." Some called the meeting "Prayer Club!"

It was perfect: a testosterone-fuelled and Holy Spirit-filled set up for the weekend, and when we got the momentum we wanted, we knew we were ready to invite the whole church. Now, I am usually confident that guys will take a strong lead, praying for the gospel to be successful every week in our city (we barely ever get knocked off this focus). And if key guys are not vocal, they get mercilessly picked on afterwards!

Intentionally gather guys to seek God. They will rise to it, and the church will follow.

Preaching

Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was asked publicly why the churches of his day had so few young men in the pews. He instantly shot back, "Because there are so many old women in the pulpits." Preaching should either send men away angry or turn them in heartfelt repentance. The one thing it must not do, but too often does, is dull them.

Jesus gathered men by preaching straight, and so did Chrysostom, Luther, Wesley, Spurgeon, Moody, and Billy Graham. If you want to reach men, follow their example and preach boldly. Men get nauseated by preachers who apologize for every point they make, sharing platitudes and leaving sinful get-out clauses for every application. My favourite encouragements come from guys who spend the first two-thirds of the sermon wanting to hurt me, and then come to repentance before the day is over. It means a great deal more than, "That was a nice talk."

Originally posted by Joel Virgo, a church planter, lover of Jesus, and a real man. - Pastor Jeremy

Things that Begin to Exist are Caused to Exist

In my last post, I gave this argument:

1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

I. A Word About Logic

So everyone is on the same page, I want to define what I mean by "argument." I do not mean what everyone usually means. I don't mean "fight," "debate," "verbal dispute," or anything like "heated discussion." When I use "argument," I mean:

Argument =df. At least one statement, the premise(s), that serve as a reason(s) to think that another statement, the conclusion, is true.

Think of an argument like this. Let's say I claim that abortion ought to be outlawed. This is a rather controversial claim, so it's likely that someone will ask me why I think my claim is true. They will ask why I think abortion ought to be outlawed. Then I would say, "I think abortion should be outlawed because it is wrong to murder, murder is taking the life of an innocent human being, abortion takes the life of an innocent human being, so abortion is murder, so abortion is wrong. Further, murder is outlawed, abortion is murder, so it ought to be outlawed."

Notice that I gave several reasons why abortion ought to be outlawed. All of those reasons are my premises, and the statement I'm trying to defen as true is my conclusion.

According to this definition of "argument," the three numbered statements above constitute a argument. (1) and (2) are the premises, and (3) is the conclusion. I am trying to prove that (3) is true by citing (1) and (2).

There is a standard strategy one uses to prove this kind of conclusion. The first part of the strategy is to show that the argument is "valid." A valid argument is valid if, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. A valid argument gives you a guarantee that your conclusion will always be true if your premises turn out to be true. The second part of the strategy is to show that the argument is "sound." A sound argument is valid and it has actually true premises. This means that the conclusion must be true (the argument's being valid guarantees a true conclusion only when the premises are true, and a sound argument is a valid argument with true premises, so the conclusion must be true).

If I can show that the above argument is sound, the it must be the case that the universe has a cause. Of course, there is more work to do to get to the existence of God, but that is a bit down the road. What I want to do now is to defend each premise over two posts, beginning with this one. As for validity, the argument is clearly valid. I just need to defend the premises, so that's what I'm going to do.

I'll start with (1).

II. Defending (1) Anything that begins to exist has a cause.

Now (1) may seem so self-evident that it's hardly worth defending. True enough, but I want to be clear about what (1) does NOT claim. First, (1) does not claim that everything that exists has a cause. It claims only that if something has a begining then it has a cause. This is important because a common criticism of Christianity is that we require that everything has a cause. If that is so, then God must have a cause. Then they nail us with the uppercut, "So what caused God?" If we make the weaker claim that things with beginings are things with causes, then we can deny that God has a cause because he has no beginning.

Second, (1) does not make the extremely strong claim that every true statement requires an explanation or reason. Again, this may seem reasonable. Nevertheless, it is false. If we took all the true statements in the universe and put them together in one long conjunction (e.g., if we let lower-case letters a-z stand in for statements, then we could take statement a, statement b, ..., and statement z and make one long statement a and b and ... and z), then we would have one long super-statement that was true and in need of an explanation. But the explanation would be a true statement in the universe. That statement would already be in the conjunction itself, so it can't explain the entire conjunction. In fact, there would be no true statement that was not already in the conjunction so there could be no explanation or reason for that long conjunction. so the strong prinicple that every true statement must have a reason or explanation of its truthfulness is false.

(1), on the other hand, does not have any of the immediate problems of its two false cousins. So that is at least some evidence in its favor. However, some claim that quantum physics says that there are uncaused entities that begin to exist. If this were true, (1) would have to be false. It's a good thing that these people misunderstand the issue. Quantum physics says that there are indeterminite events, such as the unpredictable generation of a fundamental particle. However, it does not follow from an entitie's beginning being indeterminite that it must also be uncaused. We need some further reason to suppose that there is no cause; the burden of proof is on the objector to show this.

Thus, since there are no logical problems with (1) like there are with "every true statement must have a reason or explanation," and there are no theoretical problems with (1) like there are with "everything has a cause," and since (1) is unaffected by the putative objection from quantum physics, I think there is very good reason to think that (1) is indeed true.

Next time: The universe had a beginning.

Reclaiming MANhood

What we lack is a biblical image of redeemed masculinity that attracts, inspires, galvanizes, and steadies fellows into fruitful manliness. The place to start is Jesus, but even here we need to remove some cobwebs. Many aspects of his personality are obscured in popular perception by his safer, more sympathetic qualities.

Pagan men in my city are surprised to find out that Jesus spent a lot of his time ignoring protocol, defending the weak, electrifying multitudes with his words, upsetting hypocrites, speaking the blunt truth to politicians, giving his best friends nicknames (including "Satan" on one occasion), and getting very angry.

Culture Shapers, Leaders, and Warriors

Here I am only unfolding the idea of masculinity launched in the Bible's opening pages. Adam, from day one, was soberly called to a life of industry, responsibility and, when necessary, conflict (Genesis 2:16-17). In fact, it was his sheer unwillingness to engage in conflict (with the serpent in Genesis 3) that led to his ultimate failure.

The fact is that men are the principle—though not exclusive—culture makers. Statistics prove that if you win a man to Christ, his wife and children are many times more likely to follow than if the woman is converted first. Of course we want to see women and children saved, but I'm saying that we will reach them too by aiming for men.

The three core callings of culture shaper, leader and warrior, while not only held by men, are certainly weighted towards them. And it is the Bible, and the worldview it teaches, which provides this dignifying and inspiring identity for men—an identity only attainable by virtue of creation in God's likeness and redemption in Christ through sheer scandalous grace. Guys will work at, lead and fight for whatever the church does; it's only through the gospel we preach that these God-given and sin-tarnished characteristics can be deployed rightly.

So how has the worldview, with the most tantalizing and rewarding design for manhood, managed to alienate men so successfully in our day? Wherever have we gone wrong? I tentatively suggest (and I may need to be less tentative and more manly) that we have created church environments that are effeminate—positively off-putting for most real guys.

Post from Joel Virgo - church planter in the US

The Kalam Cosmological Argument Part 1

Here's a nifty little argument:

1. Anything that begins to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
   
   Therefore...
   
   
3. The universe had a cause.

The first thing to notice is that the argument is valid. That is, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. So, two questions are obvious: are the premises true (that is, are (1) and (2) above true)? What kind of cause is necessary?

In the posts to come, I'll tackly defending both premises, and then I'll move into analyzing what kind of cause has to be responsible for the creation of the universe.

Zombies Part 3

This is the latest installment of the zombies posts. There will be one more.

The key things to remember about zombies are: (i) zombies look alive, even if their bodies are severely damaged or corrupted, but never forget that they're really dead; (ii) they have to consume the living in order to stave off their impending doom; (iii) those that don't get eaten but are merely wounded eventually become zombies too.

In Part 1, we saw how Jesus calling the Pharisees a bunch of "whitewashed tombs" was essentially calling them zombies. The Pharisees preyed on their disciples and used self-righteousness as camouflage. It was an effective means by which to suck the life out of others, and there are those INSIDE THE CHURCH that use the same M.O.

In Part 2, I expanded the notion of what it meant to be a zombie. This was never intended to be a series about false teachers or hypocrites. Rather, this part showed how we are all, and we always will be, zombies. I'll spend a little more time reviewing this because I want to make sure the point is clear.

Humans are not self-existent beings. We rely on outside sources to fuel our lives. This not a result of the Fall. God created us this way. Even in the Garden of Eden, despite having all we needed to live forever, most of what it took was outside of Adam and Eve. Like the zombies in the movies, Adam and Eve had to get life to stay alive. God granted them and endless supply of the very life they craved. He gave them access to the tree of LIFE. They had unmediated access to God--the limitless source of all life. There was no need to prey on other finite organisms to feed on their life.

After the Fall, humans were separated from God and the Garden. All of the sudden, Adam and Eve had to find their own life. Remember, the Serpent told Eve that she would be like God, and that's what hooked her and Adam. God booting them from the Garden is almost like he's saying, "You two think you can be gods? Let's see how well you can handle being self-sustaining!" Obviously, that's not something anything in the biological world can do. We were doomed.

One result of Jesus' atonement is that as individuals and as a species (through the church), God is redeeming us, restoring us, and making us what humans are supposed to be: dependent on him as our source of life.

Is it any surprise, then, that Jesus promises the gift of ETERNAL life? Is it any surprise that he called himself the LIVING water? Is it any surprise that he called himself the bread of LIFE, or even the RESURRECTION and the LIFE?

If it is life we need, and we need an infinite supply, and it is life that our sin and rebellion has blocked us from getting, doesn't it only make sense that the Atonement provide the means by which humans are put back in right relations with the One they need most?

Vital Signs of a Church's Health

Vital Signs
By Bill Easum

However you describe your church – missional, emergent, vibrant, healthy, thriving, biblical – good health boils down to six traits:
- Biblically grounded - Mobilizes and equips the laity
- Culturally relevant - A community built on trust
- Exists to transform lives - Structured to grow disciples

The problem in most churches is that either one or more of the traits are missing or the church doesn’t know how to measure each one and thus it falls short in the execution of that trait. Determining how to measure each of these triats is crucial to the life of the church. Honestly answering each of these questions should give you an accurate health assessment.

1 – The best way to determine if a church is biblically grounded is by observing the way it makes decisions. Do prayer, discernment and Scriptures guide leaders in their decision making?

2 – A culturally relevant church exegetes its surrounding community to the point that all of its ministries emerge out of that exegesis. Do all of FHCC’s ministries have their origins in the hopes, dreams and needs of the surrounding community of nonbelievers?

3 – The trait, “existing to transform lives,” is the easiest to measure. How many adult baptisms are occurring and how many spiritual giants are being raised up and seint into some form of regular ministry? Are FHCC leaders disappointed if a week goes by without someone giving their life to Jesus?

4 – A mobilized congregation means that 80% of the participants are involved in some form of weekly or monthly ministry and the staff primarily equips others for ministry rather than doing ministry. Who does most of the ministry at FHCC – the staff of the laity? When people need their spiritual needs met, do they go to their small group instead of the pastor?

5 – Measuring the “trust factor” can be done by observing how quickly, without much fuss, decisions can be made; new ministries can be established; and the expected behavior of the leadership. Another way to put it is that bullies and would-be-controllers are shown to the door. Can any one of two people in the congregation derail something that most people want to see happen? Do you trust your leaders when they make a decision, even if it is controversial?

6 – People often ask why Mormonism is growing so fast. The truth is because they are structured to grow. Does FHCC eat, sleep, and dream about making disciples?