A New Brand of Evangelicalism

I read a lot of articles and blogs from a variety of viewpoints online. Atheist, Mormon, Catholic; you name it, I'll read it. I like to see what more than just my own group is thinking and teaching about the truth of the reality around us. This also helps me to be aware of buzzwords that certain communities use so I can recognize (at least sometimes, though not all the time) if a writer or speaker identifies with a particular community who is teaching something antithetical to orthodox Christianity. This allows me to beware, though I still try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I thought I would share this article and offer some critique of it. The point of this post isn't to trash these "progressive evangelicals" in a personal way, but to point out that bad thinking about truth, especially with regard to matters of faith, is prevalent and something to be avoided. We should strive to be good critical thinkers. Here a link to the article, though I will quote it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-phipps/progressive-evangelicals_b_11824426.html

Note: everything from the article is in quotation marks. My own comments are not.

"There is a story in three of the four gospels where Jesus stages a protest in the temple during Passover. He releases the animals that were being sold for sacrifice, he overturns the moneychanging tables, and he rebukes the merchants for taking advantage of the poor. The story ends with Jesus shouting, “Tear down this temple, and I’ll rebuild it in three days!"

It seems disingenuous to call Jesus' actions a protest. That has so many connotations in our minds concerning the 60's and the current Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter movements that to call Jesus' outburst a protest seems to me an attempt at equating him with social justice movements in general. I'll point out that Jesus' mission was of a single purpose, which he addressed right from the get go: "From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt 4:17) Christ came to call sinners to repentance and to die for that sin on the cross. Even if we could equate Jesus with social justice causes, which in many cases I don't think you can, that was secondary to his mission. What also strikes me as a mis-characterization is the authors' assertion that Jesus releases the animals. Go read it yourself (Matt 21:12-17; Mark 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-47); it doesn't say that. It also says nothing of the poor. The money-changers and animal salesmen could have been taking advantage of any socio-economic group, including, but not limited to, the poor. Finally, the author makes things very confusing when he describes the ending of the story. Jesus' quote about the temple is found in John's gospel (2:13-22), but according to this author, this is not the same story because the cleansing of the temple is found in "three of the four gospels". I don't know what to make of this. It's just confusing.

"In John’s gospel, there is a related passage where Jesus explains that “this temple” he was talking about was his own body. He foretells that he will be killed by the Jewish authorities, then rise from the dead three days later. Meaning, everything that formally took place in the temple would soon be available in Jesus himself.

So what happened in the temple? Well, a lot.
- forgiveness of sins through sacrifice

- healing of the sick

- worship

- prayers 

- and most importantly: getting close as one could possibly get to the presence of God."

Again, the author makes things very confusing by saying that the John quote is in "a related passage". It's in the one he quoted from above about tearing down the temple. It's the same story! I don't know what's going on here. I agree with him somewhat about what took place in the temple. The items listed were found in the temple, which would now be found in Jesus. Though, it should be noted that one of Stephen's major points in his speech before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7) is that God was always working outside of both the temple and the land of Israel even if the Jews didn't or refused to recognize it. Another objection is healing of the sick. This happened other places (for instance: 2 Kings 5 where Elisha heals Naaman by telling him to dip in the Jordan river 7 times). Healing didn't formally take place (whatever that even means) in the temple only.

"The temple was constructed in a series of concentric boxes. At the center of the temple was a room called the “The Inner Court.” This is where the presence of God dwelt. It was the most exclusive room in the ancient Jewish world. Only the high priest had access to this room, and even then only on certain days of the year. The next court was called “The Court Of The Jews.” Only Jewish males had access to this court. Next, was the “The Court Of Women.” Jewish Women, no matter how well they behaved were separated from God by two giant walls. The outer court, where the Jesus staged his protest was called “The Court Of Gentiles.” This is as close as non-Jewish people were allowed to get to the Divine Presence, whether male or female."

The inner court is called the Holy of Holies in the Bible. I'm not sure why the author is renaming it here. The high priest only had access to it one day of the year, not "certain days". Other than that I don't have a problem with this description.

"Humankind’s closeness to God in this culture was limited by one’s ethnicity, gender, and religious pedigree. The Gentiles were kept at a distance. They were the original group of people who “were welcome to attend,” but not “welcome to participate fully” in the sacramental aspects of the Jewish religion."

While it is true that the sacramental aspects of the Jewish religion were not fully open to everyone, it was widely understood in biblical Judaism that God would make a way for the Gentiles to be saved as well. Jews thought that only Jews had to do the temple rites. They would not have expected or required proselytes (converts to Judaism) to do these things. This is a half-truth that the author is asserting.

"What infuriated Jesus, then? Could it have been the walls that were constructed to keep people separated from one another and from God? Is it possible that he was outraged by all of the segregation taking place in the Name of God?"

What infuriated Jesus was the fact that the temple was holy because it was where God's presence dwelt. The answer to the next questions is, "No." I say this because Jesus wasn't concerned with walls at the temple separating people from God. He was worried about our own sin and evil separating us from God. The last question could be answered in the affirmative, but Jesus never said anything about segregation in the temple, so who knows?

"If you are a Christian, questions like these are still as relevant today for the “people of God” as they were back then. How would Jesus feel about the religious practices of Evangelical Christianity today, were he living among us?

- a church system that STILL qualifies people based on socio-economic status, race, political parties, and gender.

- a system that welcomes those who identify as LGBTQ until they decide that they want to baptized, take communion, or serve in a greater capacity

- a system that suppresses the ordination of women and their God given gifts to serve in Christian leadership

- a system that elevates the pulpit to the stature of The Inner Court."

I'll answer each bullet in turn.
-Does the church do this? Socio-economic status and political parties are not taken into account in any church I've ever been in. Race is tricky. Churches in America are self-segregated. Blacks tend to go to church with blacks while whites go with whites. I don't know why this happens, but it isn't because "white churches" have signs that say "blacks not welcome" or vice-versa. It's just a happenstance of the society we live in. Gender is assigned by God, we can't pick our own gender. Feelings don't determine gender. If he is talking about women as pastors, I'll address that below.
-I think there is a typo in the second bullet. I think it should say "a system that DOESN'T welcome"... We should welcome those who identify as LGBTQ, while also speaking the truth in love by telling them that their lifestyle is sinful and it is their own actions that separate them from God. And now, before someone says "Hey, everyone in church is a sinner, even Christians!" (whoops, too late!). Yes, everyone is a sinner, but not everyone is living in open rebellion to God without repenting. That is the issue. Read 1 John 1:5-10. Both those who proclaim to be Christian, yet "walk in darkness", and those who say they never sin are not of God. If they are not of God, they shouldn't be baptized, take communion, or serve in a greater capacity.
-If you ascribe to Christian complementarianism, you think that women and men have complementary roles given straight from God. In this structure, the man is head of the wife, the leader of both the household and the leadership of the Church. Is this suppression of the ordination of women? If you want to say it that way, yes, it is. But, it's straight from the Bible and therefore, from God. He has to make an argument as to why the historic reading and understanding of the Bible is not correct.
-No church I've ever been in has asserted that the pastorate is the only place where God is at and that everyone must hang on every word or teaching that comes from that leadership. This is just an absurd accusation.

"We are proud to call ourselves Progressive Evangelicals because we do not support this kind of system... and we don’t think that God does either. Were Jesus in some of our churches today, he’d likely be turning over communion tables, dashing offering plates into pieces, baptizing the marginalized, and performing ordination ceremonies for women."

It is ironic to me that they don't want the church qualifying people by political party, but then they clearly identify themselves with a political party. Progressives are squarely in the Democratic party. The "system" they don't support is a cariacture of what Evangelical Christianity actually is. I don't know if Jesus would break stuff in churches. He probably would be upset with some of them though, just as he was with some in the book of Revelation (chs. 2-3). If by marginalized, the author means those living in open sin and rebellion to God, then, no, I disagree 100%. As far as women pastors, I don't think that women can be in leadership positions in the Church based on my reading of scripture, so I don't think Jesus would ordain women. Again, he has to make a case for eagalitarianism rather than complain about "suppression" of women. There are good Christians that make that case. I, and many others, respectfully disagree.

"When we take an honest look at the life of Jesus, we begin to see that tearing down walls is more Christlike than building them. If there is anything solid we can plant our flag in, it is in the example that Jesus left behind for us to emulate- making the innermost rooms of God available to all people. If you are human, you are allowed access."

I agree, we should not build walls to keep people out of churches. However, telling people they are sinners and in need of a savior isn't building a wall, it's the truth. God has made himself available and nothing external the church could do could block the access he has granted. It is the individual who has kept themselves out of "the innermost rooms of God" by not repenting and turning away from sin and towards the only way to the Father, Jesus Christ.

"We long to be Christians that are known for this message about Jesus. The word, “evangelical” literally means “good news.” If the message of our faith doesn’t read like good news to people, perhaps we aren’t evangelical at all. Indeed, we may be something else. Selah."

Again, sin is the issue. We can't ignore people's sin. Jesus called everyone to repentance at the start of his ministry. The good news of Christ doesn't seem that important when there is no bad news (our sin) accompanying it. That is what this author doesn't understand.

Wednesday Night Apologetics: Lesson 5

We are going to cover steps 4&5 in this lesson. Step 4 is: If God exists, then miracles are possible. An all-powerful God who created and is sustaining the universe can certainly do miracles. Unwarranted skepticism concerning miracles still exists however. How do we combat this? Dr. Craig S. Keener will demonstrate the fallaciousness of the common anti-miracle arguments and give an abundance of examples of documented miracles in the present time.

Step 5 then discusses what God can do with miracles. Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God. This is evidenced in the Bible in many places.

Moses is given signs to perform to show the Israelites and Pharaoh God had sent him. (Exodus 4:1-9)
Elijah defeats the prophets of Baal by a sign from God so that Israel will turn back to Him. (1 Kings 18:36-39)
Jesus told John the Baptist to look at the signs He was doing to demonstrate that He was the messiah. (Matthew 11:2-6)
Jesus also told the Pharisees they would be given one sign; the sign of Jonah (His resurrection) to prove who He was. (Matthew 16:1-4)

Next week we move on to steps 6 (The New Testament is historically reliable.) and 7 (The New Testament says that Jesus claimed to be God.).

Wednesday Night Apologetics: Lesson 3

This lesson is about the beginning of the universe. It covers step 3: it is true that the theistic God exists. You can find a more in depth treatment of the kalam cosmological argument here.

ENJOY!

Wednesday Night Apologetics: Lesson 2

This lesson is about truth and challenges to our ability to know truth.

Wednesday Night Apologetics: Lesson 1

Hey everyone! I have had some people express interest in hearing these lessons in some different ways than just on Wednesday night at Trinity Worship Center. Some people work with kids or youth or other places and can't make it; some people are in other classes, but still want to get this information; and still others are in my class and have told me they have trouble taking notes and keeping up with me (for that I apologize). I have decided to record my lectures over the powerpoint presentation that goes with it. That way, you can listen at your leisure and pause it wherever you need to. If you still have questions, please leave a comment or track me down at church. I am always happy to discuss God in the context of apologetics and theology. Below you'll find all the references that I have used in putting this class together. Enjoy!

Reference List for Christianity: True or False?

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig

            Chapter 6 Theories of Truth and Postmodernism

            Chapter 23 The Existence of God (1)

            Chapter 24 The Existence of God (2)

Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air by Francis J. Beckwith and Greg Koukl

            Chapter 3 Three Kinds of Relativism

            Chapter 4 Culture as Morality

            Chapter 5 Culture Defining Morality

            Chapter 6 Moral Common Sense

            Chapter 7 Relativism’s Seven Fatal Flaws

Tactics by Greg Koukl

Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig

            Chapter 3 The Existence of God (1)

            Chapter 4 The Existence of God (2)

Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts by Craig Keener

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona

The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by F. F. Bruce

Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem

            Chapter 26 The Person of Christ

12 Steps to Christian Theism: Step 3, The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Introduction: In the previous post of this series we concluded our discussion of truth. We learned that truth about reality is both knowable and the opposite of false. The third step in our progression to Christian Theism is: It is true that the theistic God exists. Because we can find out truth about reality, and God (if he exists) has made himself part of our reality in His creative acts, this leads us to the conclusion that we can know about God in some way if he exists. There are many arguments for the existence of God; the conclusions of which will lead us to a conception of God that fits the major monotheistic faiths: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. For Christians, it will take more steps than this one to get to God incarnate, Jesus Christ. The first of these arguments that I will cover is the kalam cosmological argument.

The word kalam is an Arabic word signifying medieval Islamic scholasticism which is a school of philosophical thought that developed this argument. Cosmology is the study of the cosmos which has two sub-disciplines: cosmogony and eschatology. Yes, you read that right, science has a branch of study concerning the physical end of the universe. Cosmogony on the other hand, deals with the beginning of the universe and is what we will be talking about today. This argument intends to show that because the universe had a beginning, it needed a beginner. It uses both philosophical and scientific evidences to support its premises. The strength of the argument is in the philosophical portions and while the scientific evidence is also strong, science is a shifting patch of sand that can leave you with nothing to stand on. However, we are going to discuss two more cosmological arguments that do not rely on science at all, but rest purely on philosophical grounds to get to God's existence because of the universes' existence. On to the syllogism!

Premise 1
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Support for premise 1: Intuitively, this seems like it is true. Something cannot come into being from nothing and our experience demonstrates this fact constantly. Believing that something can come from nothing is akin to actually believing the magician you saw as a kid really pulled a rabbit out of a hat.

Objection 1 to premise 1: Nothing created the universe, it's physics. Particularly it is the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics that suggests that subatomic particles are uncaused. This is then extrapolated to the energy filled subatomic vacuum which has spontaneous fluctuations, of which uncaused particles, and it is suggested, the universe, can come into being out of nothing. The most prominent proponents of this view are Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking. Krauss is a theoretical physicist at Arizona State University. He has written a book entitled "A Universe From Nothing" and says; "If you have nothing in quantum mechanics, you will always have something." (1) Hawking, who I presume needs no introduction, has said in his book "The Grand Design"; "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. 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." (2)

Answer to objection 1 to premise 1: First, the subatomic or primordial vacuum is simply not nothing. It is a roiling cauldron of energy that has structure and is subject to physical laws. This is hardly nothing and merely backs the problem up a step since it is made of the same material that the universe is made of; what caused the subatomic vacuum? Second, it is incoherent to say that laws cause things. Do speed limits cause people to speed? No. The question you should be asking now is; are laws like gravity working when nothing exists? The answer is no, because nothing exists. There are no laws of physics for nonbeing. Laws cannot cause anything to pop into being. Third, nothing cannot cause itself. It is nothing, i.e. no thing. Nothing is not something, it is the absence of anything and everything.

Objection 2 to premise 1: Some critics will propose that everything in the universe must adhere to premise 1, but this does not apply to the universe.

Answer to objection 2 to premise 1: The answer to this objection is that premise 1 is not merely a physical principle like the law of gravity, which cannot cause things in the universe to come into being. It is a metaphysical principle with a long history of thought in the philosophical world. Being cannot produce nonbeing; something cannot come into existence uncaused from nothing. On this principle, the skeptic is stuck with no universe because there is not even any potentiality for the universe to exist since nothing has no potential and there was nothing before the big bang.

Objection 3 to premise 1: A final objection to premise 1 deals with theories of time. The B-theory of time suggests that moments of time are tenseless and exist equally. The "Back to the Future" movies would be a good way to think of this theory. Marty McFly goes back to 1955 in the first movie and the citizens of Hill Valley are going about their business: running into manure trucks and preparing for the Enchantment Under the Sea Dance. Eventually, he makes it back to 1985 and things are continuing on as if nothing happened. This seems to presuppose a B-theory of time in which every moment of time is equally real. On this view, it would be nonsensical to say that anything begins to exist. If every moment of time is equally real all the time, nothing comes into being, it just is. William Lane Craig says: "On a static or so-called B-theory of time (according to which all moments of time are equally existent) the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the big bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction." (3) If nothing comes into being because it just exists, there is no need for a cause.

Answer to objection 3 to premise 1: The A-theory of time suggests that temporal becoming is real. There are actually moments of time that are tensed one at a time. So, right now as I write, it is 10:09:09. That moment of time was real at that very second and now it is gone, no getting it back. Sorry Doc Brown, your invention will never work. This seems to be the common sense view of time. Another way to think about this theory is that the past and future are not real anymore or yet, respectively. Only the moment that is presently tensed is real. Time travel is impossible on this view and can be used to show a problem with the B-theory.
1. If you could travel back in time, then you could kill your grandfather before you father was ever conceived. (For what's to stop you from bringing a gun with you and simply shooting him?)
2. It's not the case that you could kill your grandfather before your father was ever conceived. (Because if you did, then you would ensure you never existed, and that is not something you could ensure.)
3. You cannot travel back in time.
I think another major problem for the B-theory arises if you are a Christian. It comes in the form of a question: is Christ hanging on the cross eternally tenselessly?

Premise 2
 2. The universe began to exist.
Four arguments will be offered. Two philosophical and two scientific (4).

Support 1 for premise 2: It is impossible for an actual infinite to exist.
1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. An infinite temporal regress of physical events is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of physical events cannot exist.
If the universe is eternal, there are an infinite number of physical events that occurred before today. That is impossible. In rough terms an infinite is a set greater than any natural number. If you think you can have a set of anything that is infinite, you're wrong; you can always have one more, a million more, an infinity more because infinity is a set larger than any natural number. A thought exercise called Hilbert's Hotel can demonstrate this more clearly. If I attempt to check into a normal hotel that is full, I will not get a room. Hilbert's Hotel is different though. It has an infinite number of rooms and they are all full. If I attempt to check into Hilbert's Hotel, I can get a room, even though they are all full. The proprietors would move the person in room one to room two, room two to room three, and so on. I would then occupy room 1. There would now be no more people in the hotel than there was before, i.e. infinity.
Another scenario could arise due to housekeeping. In order to clean the rooms, the owners moved guests into the room double their own room number, it would go like this: room 1 to room 2, room 2 to room 4, room 3 to room 6, and so on. Since every number doubled is an even number, we now have a hotel with an infinite number of people in an infinite number of even rooms while we also have an infinite number of empty odd-numbered rooms. That can't be. We cannot have a hotel that is infinitely full and infinitely empty. We could go on, but I think it is evident that an actual infinite can't exist and thus, the universe had to have a beginning.

Objection 1 to support 1 in premise 2: We just don't know enough about infinites to make these assertions.

Answer to objection 1 to support 1 in premise 2: Cantorian mathematics deals with infinites and has developed an entire dialogue structure for infinites. Because of these methods, we know quite a bit about infinite mathematics. We are making these inferences based on what we know about infinity, not about what we don't know.

Objection 2 to support 1 in premise 2: Every finite distance is capable of being divided into an infinite number of parts. A ruler can be halved to 6 inches, then 3 inches, then 1.5 inches and so on.

Answer to objection 2 to support 1 in premise 2: This confuses a potential infinite with an actual infinite. The ruler could be divided infinitely, that is possible. But it could not actually be divided infinitely. By definition, you would never cease to divide the ruler.

Support 2 for premise 2: The second argument is that it is impossible to form an actual infinite by successive addition.
1. The temporal series of physical events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of physical events cannot be an actual infinite.
This argument does not assume that an actual infinite cannot exist. Essentially it argues that you cannot traverse an infinite. If the universe is eternal, it has an infinite set of physical events, i.e. days. Before we got to this day, we had to traverse yesterday. Before yesterday, we had to traverse the day before yesterday and so on. So, how did we get to today? No day could ever really arrive, since before it could, one more day would always have to elapse.

Objection 1 to support 2 in premise 2: Zeno's paradoxes of motion. Before Achilles could cross the stadium, he would have to cross halfway; before halfway, a quarter of the way, and so on. Achilles can't move and motion isn't possible.

Answer to objection 1 to support 2 in premise 2: Zeno's units are potential and unequal while an infinite past's units would be actual and equal. We have already seen in the previous objection the difference between potential and actual infinity. Zeno's units, being unequal, add up to a finite distance whereas the universe's days would add up to an infinite time period, which is impossible because you could always add one more day.

Objection 2 to support 2 in premise 2: You are assuming an infinitely distant starting point and we can pick a point finitely distant from today and traverse it.

Answer to objection 2 to support 2 in premise 2: No one is arguing for an infinitely distant starting point. They are saying that if the universe is eternal, there is no starting point. The second portion of this is just nonsense. The inference is supposed to be that if we can traverse this finite portion, then we can just add up these finite portions to get the infinite. Like the dividing the ruler example, we would never stop adding by definition. This argument is seriously fallacious.

Support 3 for premise 2: Now we turn to the science. Argument three is about the expansion of the universe. Einstein's general theory of relativity (GTR) showed theoretically that the universe's space-time complex was expanding. What this means is that if correct, the universe began as an impossibly small singularity that has been expanding ever since. In 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered the red-shift of light from distant galaxies. This red-shift indicates the recession of light in every direction in space and was the first piece of confirmational evidence for Einstein's GTR and an expanding universe. About a decade earlier, two scientists, Alexander Friedman and Georges Lemaitre predicted this expanding universe. But, this does not mean space is expanding into emptiness. It means that space itself is expanding while the planets, etc. are at rest. Their model came to be known as the standard or big bang model. In it, all space-time, matter and energy came into being ex nihilo or out of nothing. Another piece of confirmational evidence for the big bang model came in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. It is the cosmic microwave background radiation which are tiny temperature fluctuations in the universe that indicate leftover radiation from the expansion of the universe. These fluctuations fit mathematically with the Friedman/Lemaitre standard model.

Objection to support 3 for premise 2: Really, this is many objections in one. They are different models of the universe that try to avoid a beginning which I have linked to descriptions for you to read. Oscillating (expands and recontracts forever), chaotic inflationary (spawns new universes infinitely into the future), vacuum fluctuation (eternal vacuum that produced universe), quantum gravity (gravity at the subatomic level caused the universe), cyclic ekpyrotic (similar to oscillating).

Answer to objection to support 3 for premise 2:
Oscillating: finite past
Chaotic inflationary: finite past
Vacuum fluctuation: cannot explain why universe is not infinitely old in observation
Quantum gravity: proposes a boundary, not a singularity, but still has an origin
Cyclic ekpyrotic: finite past 

Support 4 for premise 2: The fourth and final argument deals with the second law of thermodynamics. This law states that energy in a closed system will always tend toward a state of equilibrium. William Lane Craig explains:
"On the other hand if, as is more likely, the universe will expand forever, then its death will be cold, as the galaxies turn their gas into stars, and the stars burn out. At 10^30 years the universe will consist of 90% dead stars, 9% supermassive black holes formed by the collapse of galaxies, and 1% atomic matter, mainly hydrogen. Elementary particle physics suggest that thereafter protons will decay into electrons and positrons so that space will be filled with a rarefied gas so thin that the distance between an electron and positron will be about the size of the present galaxy. Eventually all black holes will completely evaporate and all the matter in the ever-expanding universe will be reduced to a thin gas of elementary particles and radiation. Equilibrium will prevail throughout, and the entire universe will be in its final state, from which no change will occur." (5)
A heat death is also possible if the universe is bound to recontract, but there is no evidence that it is going to recontract. This all indicates that if the universe is eternal, why hasn't heat death occurred? Why hasn't the universe expanded over this infinite period of time until energy is at equilibrium and the above cold death scenario has happened? If it is eternal, there is no reason why either of those scenarios haven't happened. But they haven't, so it seems that the universe had a beginning.

Objection to support 4 for premise 2: The oscillating model of the universe allows expansions to happen due to energy exchange during the recontraction phases.

Answer to objection to support 4 for premise 2: Thermodynamics still imply a beginning to the universe on this model. On this model, entropy increases from cycle to cycle and in turn, the oscillations get bigger and bigger. If you extrapolate backwards, you would get smaller and smaller oscillations until you reach a first oscillation.

Conclusion
Now that we have supported both of the premises in the argument, it follows logically:
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
What kind of cause do we end up with? The cause must be transcendent, that is beyond space and time. Timelessness implies changelessness. Changelessness implies immateriality. It also must be beginningless and uncaused or else it would fall prey to the first premise of our argument. It must also be very powerful to have created the universe out of nothing and it must be personal. A list is in order:
Atemporal: time had a beginning, so the cause is outside of time
Nonspatial: space had a beginning, so the cause is not made of space
Changeless: implied by timelessness
Immateriality: implied by changelessness because material changes
Beginningless: always has existed
Uncaused: stops the infinite regress of causes that would arise if caused
Powerful: created the universe
The last attribute of this cause is personal for three reasons. The first is that scientific explanations cannot account for the universe since there was nothing before the universe. We have discussed this concept above. Second, timelessness and immateriality entities could be either minds or abstract objects, and the latter do not stand in causal relations with any objects. An example would be the number 144, not the digits I just typed, but the actual concept of the number 144. 144 cannot cause anything. The third reason the cause of the universe is personal is because if it is impersonal, its effect would necessarily exist with its cause. The impersonal entity wouldn't be able to stop its effect, it would just happen. Think of freezing temperatures and water. If the temperature is at the freezing point, the water will freeze. The temperature can't just say, "Nope, I'm not gonna freeze that water right now." In like manner, an impersonal cause of the universe would timelessly cause its effect. A personal free agent however, would be able to produce a temporal effect (the universe) from a timeless cause (God). If you know your Bible, that sounds an awful lot like YHWH! (Exodus 3:14; John 4:24). In the next post, we will discuss the second cosmological argument; Liebniz's contingency cosmological argument.

Notes:
1. Lawrence M. Krauss, "A Universe from Nothing." AAI lecture, 2009.
2. Stephen Hawking, "The Grand Design."
3. J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview." pg. 469.
4. ibid, pg. 470-6.
5. ibid, pg. 478.

12 Steps to Christian Theism: Steps 1&2, Part 2

In Norman Geisler and Frank Turek's book I Don't Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist, they lay out a 12 step argument that will lead from the reality of truth to the reliability of the Bible and Godhood of Jesus. Using their framework, I intend to have a series of posts about each of the 12 steps. However, I would like to take a deeper look at many of the issues they cover. This is not to say that the coverage in the book is lacking; it's just to say that my own studies have taken me deeper than, I presume, space allowed in the book. The first two posts in the series will cover the first 2 steps, which are:
1. Truth about reality is knowable.
2. The opposite of true is false.

In part 1 of steps 1&2 we talked about the 3 major theories of truth. They are: correspondence, coherence, and pragmatism. The correspondence theory is the only theory of truth that is actually connected to reality and reflects actual objects or events in the world. In this part we are going to discuss the major obstructions to thinking that propositions don't have to correspond to reality. These are postmodernism and relativism. Essentially what is being said is that there is no such thing as objective truth that corresponds to reality. Things can be true for one individual but not for another individual in different circumstances. Let's dig in.

Postmodernism could come in many different forms depending on the individual postmodernist you happen to be conversing with. However, there are 3 main tenets of this theory that inform the postmodernist's worldview. They are: the deconstruction of texts, the assertion that reality is a social construction built on language, and that there are no metanarratives. These all boil down to a rejection of the correspondence theory of truth and thus truth is what the individual or a society makes it.

The postmodernist rejects "authorial meaning in texts along with the existence of stable verbal meanings and universally valid linguistic definitions" (1). What this means in practice is that everyone interprets a text. There isn't one meaning for a given text. With regard to Christianity, this means, for instance, that the resurrection of Christ could be whatever the reader wants it to be; bodily, spiritual, vision, hallucination, conspiracy, etc. They get to this idea by declaring that language is merely a social construct among a linguistic group. A linguistic group could be defined in a number of different ways. A family could be one, a neighborhood, or a small town. Rarely, larger groups such as country regions or nations could be linguistic groups. Groups that get to large could pose problems for the postmodernist language theory due to the fact that if several hundred million people (the US for example) share a language construct this deflates the idea that texts cannot communicate even semi-universal truth. Furthermore, postmodernists assert that all reality is determined by language as shared by linguistic groups. What this amounts to is that Americans and Chinese nationals cannot communicate with each other, even if one or the other group can speak Chinese or English respectively. In fact, they tend to take this even further by saying that someone from Boone cannot converse, whether in speech or in text, with someone from Greensboro because they do not share a language construct. I think you can see how ridiculous this theory is, but I will save the critique for a little later. Finally, a metanarrative is simply, a worldview. Postmodernists hold that there are no metanarratives and thus no way to decide if a worldview is true. In practice this means that if Buddhism, Atheism, or Christianity works for someone, then it is subjectively true for that person or group of persons and no one else.

There are many problems with these views of postmodernity. First of all, there is only one meaning to a text; that of the author's. Paul had a certain idea or argument in mind when he wrote each of his epistles. We should be trying to get to that meaning by placing the text in its appropriate historical and cultural context and being careful to understand the words as they were used in Paul's time. In reality, postmodernists are not postmodernists in everyday life. When they read a label on a poison, they do not claim that the text is whatever they interpret it to be. They rightly do not ingest the poison because the label asserts a universal truth. Namely, humans who eat the poison will die. The postmodernist would deny this in theory, but not in practice. Another problem with postmodernism's thoughts on language is that no one would be able to communicate with one another. If we keep splicing out what people share with each other in terms of life experience, we would discover that even very similar people have not shared every life experience and thus, cannot communicate with each other because their language, while the same words, doesn't mean the same thing. You could imagine two kids who are born in the same town, in the same year. They go to the same grade schools, graduate the same year and sign up for the Marines. They attend boot camp together in the same platoon and graduate the same day. They go to infantry school together and their first active battalion together. They go to Afghanistan together and Iraq twice together in the same company. They both separate from the Marines on the same day. They attend college together in the same degree program, graduate the same day and both get jobs with the same company. And we could go on. On postmodernist theory, these two people could not communicate with each other due to the difference in life experience: i.e. the two people viewed the same things differently. This is clearly absurd and self-defeating. Furthermore, how can the postmodernist think that they can write effectively about their theories of postmodernism? No one can understand the words in their articles because they are interpreting the writing within their own language construct. A similar notion to some aspects of postmodernism is relativism, which some postmodernists adopt as well.

Relativism is a type of subjectivism. Subjectivism means that everything is just a matter of opinion, such as, "I like ice cream." Relativism mainly applies that to morality and ethics. There are 3 kinds of relativism (2). They are: society does relativism, society says relativism, and I say relativism. Society does relativism could also be called cultural relativism. This is a purely descriptive relativism that simply describes, without judgment, what another society does concerning morality. For instance, in India they do not eat cows because they are considered sacred. The inference that is supposed to be drawn is that Americans and Indians have different morals. This is false though. In America, we bury grandma when she dies; in India, the cow might be grandma. Thus, the moral is not to eat (kill) grandma and is the same between countries. Society says relativism dictates that an individual should act in accordance with his own society's code. There are 3 problems with this view. There would be no immoral societies, no immoral laws, and no moral reformation. If a society can just dictate what is right and wrong, then no society could be immoral or make immoral laws. If a society doesn't make immoral laws, a moral reformer, who is trying to change his societies' laws is just a troublemaker. We can put this in a syllogism to see it more clearly.

1. If no society is immoral, then no societies' laws are immoral.
2. If no societies' laws are immoral, then no one should try to change the laws.
3. Relativists believe what society says is moral.
4. Martin Luther King, Jr. tried to change the laws of American society.
5. Therefore, in relativist America, Martin Luther King, Jr. was wrong to try to change the laws of American society.

This is obviously false. Dr. King was right in his championing of equal rights for African-Americans. But, on a relativistic society says view, Dr. King should have just shut-up and sat down. The final view is called I say relativism. This view says only individual preferences are guidelines to behavior. This view fails because nothing could ever be right or wrong. If I determine what is right, no one could say I was wrong or vice-versa. We would have people running all over the place doing whatever made them feel good. In summary, relativism has 7 fatal flaws (3):

Relativists can't...
1. accuse others of wrongdoing
2. complain about the problem of evil
3. place blame or accept praise
4. make charges of unfairness or injustice
5. improve their morality
6. hold meaningful moral discussions
7. promote the obligation of tolerance

Relativism presents a view of reality in which there is no objective moral standard (God) and seeks to reject the fact that true is the opposite of false by declaring that everyone's position is true.

In conclusion for steps 1&2, we can assess whether something is true or not. The correspondence theory of truth shows us how to do that. We check to see if what we think or say corresponds to reality. If it doesn't, then it isn't true. If we can determine what is true, then we know what is false because they are opposites. In the next several posts we are going to look at step 3: It is true that the theistic God exists. A number of arguments will be offered to reasonably demonstrate this fact.

Notes:
1. J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview. pg. 145.
2. Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl. Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted In Mid-Air. pgs. 36-9.
3. ibid, pgs. 61-9.

12 Steps to Christian Theism: Steps 1&2, Part 1

Reading time: 10 minutes

In Norman Geisler and Frank Turek's book I Don't Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist, they lay out a 12 step argument that will lead from the reality of truth to the reliability of the Bible and Godhood of Jesus. Using their framework, I intend to have a series of posts about each of the 12 steps. However, I would like to take a deeper look at many of the issues they cover. This is not to say that the coverage in the book is lacking; it's just to say that my own studies have taken me deeper than, I presume, space allowed in the book. The first post in the series will cover the first 2 steps, which are:
1. Truth about reality is knowable.
2. The opposite of true is false.

These steps are obviously related. Geisler and Turek offer the correspondence theory of truth as the reason they know step 1. Step 2 follows from step 1. What I would like to do is to discuss the correspondence theory of truth as well as 2 alternate theories of truth. I hope to demonstrate that we should all accept the correspondence theory and reject the other two theories. From there, in part 2, I am going to discuss the 2 biggest hurdles for the correspondence theory: postmodernism and relativism, which are interrelated.

The correspondence theory of truth can be defined as such: "a proposition (statement, belief) is true just in case it corresponds to reality, when what it asserts to be the case is the case" (1). In practical terms, this means that if I say, "The oven is on at my house", that is only true if it corresponds to reality. In this case it would be true if the oven is actually on at my house. The key here is not that I believe the oven to be on or I assert the oven to be on, it is only true if the oven is actually on. In terms of the steps above, step 1 would be verified by someone going to my house and checking to see if the oven is on. Whether the oven is on or off, we just discovered a truth about reality. Step 2 comes in when we consider my statement about the oven. If the oven actually is on, what I said is true. If the oven is off, what I said is false, the opposite of true. The actual instance of external reality is what makes a proposition true or false. More technically, the correspondence theory of truth could be defined when "truth obtains when a truth-bearer stands in an appropriate correspondence relation to a truth-maker" (2). There are 3 parts to this definition that need to be siphoned out: truth-bearer, correspondence relation, and truth-maker. Let's take a look.

Three types of truth-bearers have been offered by correspondence theorists: sentences and statements, thoughts and beliefs, and propositions (3). Sentences and statements are problematic because of the existence of meaningless sentences and/or statements such as "Hey!". That statement is neither true nor false. Proponents of this view may say that it is the content or what is being asserted that is true or false, but that comes very near propositions. Thoughts and beliefs as truth-bearers are also problematic for the same reason that sentences/statements are. It is not the thought/belief itself that bears the truth or falsehood about reality, it is the content, which, once again, leads us to propositions as the appropriate truth-bearers.

Truth-makers deal with what makes something true. So, what makes something true? Propositions are "true just in case a specific state of affairs... actually obtains" (4). This means that the content of declarative sentences/statements or thoughts/beliefs corresponds to reality through intentionality. Propositions are directed at an object which can then be examined to see whether or not the content obtains. Is the oven on or not at my house? If it is, the content of my earlier proposition, which was directed at the oven at my house, obtains and is true.

The final part of correspondence theory is the correspondence relation which is "a two-placed relation between a proposition and the state of affairs that is its intentional object" (5). When we consider my oven again, we can see that the proposition, "The oven is on at my house", is either true or false based on the state of affairs at my house (i.e. the oven is on or off). The oven is the intentional object. I did not intend the porch light in my proposition, but the oven. In summary, the correspondence theory of truth proclaims that something is true if the relation between the truth-bearer (proposition) obtains according to the truth-maker (intentionality or directedness at an object). If not, it is false, which is the opposite of true. When we consider the logical law of non-contradiction we see that step 2 is correct. "The oven is on at my house" cannot be true and false in the same sense at the same time. Also, the logical law of excluded middle says that propositions are either true or false, there is no other option. The oven can't be anything but on or off.

The other 2 theories of truth will be covered more briefly. The first of these is the coherence theory. This theory proposes that "a belief (statement, proposition, etc.) is true if and only if it coheres well with the entire set of one's beliefs, assuming that the set is itself a strongly coherent one" (6). The major problem with this theory is that the truth of a belief doesn't have to have anything to do with reality. As long as it "coheres" with other beliefs it is true. This is problematic. If "Bob" tells me his name is "John", according to this theory, it is true even though it is actually false. His having the name John coheres with all my other beliefs and therefore, is true. In fact, this is what most skeptics accuse Christians of doing. We believe that Jesus rose from the dead, it coheres with our other beliefs (by ignoring things that disprove it), so it's true. No reality check needed. I don't know about you, but that is not what I think about Jesus' resurrection. I think it corresponds to reality and we can check it in history to see if it's true. The final theory of truth is called pragmatism or the pragmatic theory of truth. This theory says "a belief P is true if and only if P works or is useful to have" (7). Again, there is no relation to external reality and, in general, pragmatists tend to be anti-realists concerning the external world (they don't think it's real). Another issue with pragmatism is that anybody gets to define what works or is useful to have. An example would be Muslim terrorists. They think killing infidels works or is a useful belief to have because it gets them to heaven and in the good graces of Allah. This means that the belief is true whether or not external reality demonstrates it to be true or not. There is good reason to think Islam is false and thus the belief that killing infidels gets you to heaven is false, but according to the pragmatic theory of truth this belief would be true.

The correspondence theory of truth is what you use in every day life. It is the common-sense view of truth about reality. The oven isn't on at my house right now, therefore, my earlier statement is false. It doesn't matter if the oven being on coheres with my other beliefs or if it works for me; the external reality is that the oven is off so my proposition is false. Our courts use this theory as well when examining evidence at a trial. If you are a Christian, the Bible seems to ascribe to this theory as well (Isa 45:19; Pro 8:7; Jer 9:5; John 8:44-5; 17:17; 10:35). It just seems to make sense that when we say or think something, we can then check that in the world and see if it is true or false.

In part 2 of steps 1&2 we'll talk about the 2 biggest challenges to the correspondence theory of truth: postmodernism and relativism.

Notes:
1. J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview, 2003. pg 135.
2. ibid, pg 135.
3. ibid, pg 135.
4. ibid, pg 136.
5. ibid, pg 139.
6. ibid, pg 142.
7. ibid, pg 144.