Thursday, September 18
Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty has enunciated more than his dislike of homosexuals. He has also made known his disapproval of fat kids, city dwellers, men that like cats, and females not married by the age of 15. In one episode, his wife insinuated that it is inappropriate for unmarried couples to hold hands. Wonder if they will make similarly doctrinaire statements regarding their granddaughter shaking her backside in a skimpy outfit on national TV. Or, as “Christian leaders”, do they get the customary exemption from the standards we non-celebrities are expected to adhere to.
Wednesday, September 17
Tuesday, September 16
Southern Baptist Missions President Applauds Family Neglect In God's Name
As an example, Pastor Platt praised John Bunyan who was tossed into prison for refusing to stop preaching when ordered to by Anglican authorities despite the hardship endured by his family in general and his blind child in particular.
The Christian should not deny Christ.
However, Bunyan was initially imprisoned for preaching without a license.
Whether we agree with that or not is a secondary matter.
Often in a fallen world, the situations are so bad that the individual is forced to prioritize from a list of less than ideal options.
From the Wikipedia entry on John Bunyan, one gets the impression authorities were not initially inclined to imprison Bunyan until he blurted out that he'd be out preaching again the next day.
That causes one to ponder was it necessarily Christ that Bunyan was infatuated with or the adrenaline rush one can get from a good fight.
I Timothy 5:8 admonishes that those that do not take care of their own family are worse than an infidel.
The same ones praising John Bunyan for in their minds putting Christ in a proper place above the needs of his family would turn around and heap condemnation upon others for not taking care of the Bunyan urchins.
However, shouldn't taking care of the spiritual and physical needs of these children have been the foremost life's mission of the Bunyan parents?
Why couldn't have Bunyan been as an upstanding Christian example ministering to the needs of his ailing child and instead return to spreading the Gospel to others behind the back of authorities at a later time?
Jesus did indeed counsel that the believer's love of family should look like hate in comparison to that for Him.
However, the most profound expression of devotion to Christ may be in loving our family members in those times we feel like loving them the least or get distracted by a cause we deem much more exciting than the mundane duties of this world.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, September 15
Halloween Sermon Exposes Minister's Desire For Religious Dictatorship
Rather he argued against it from the standpoint of the Reformed belief against the impropriety of man authorizing holy days not found in Scripture.
In this homily, he seemed to praise and certainly did not criticize Scottish authorities at the time of the Reformation that forbade under penalty of law those celebrating such commemorations after Presbyterianism became that nation's established church.
However, if man does not have the authority to compel extra-biblical holy days, on what grounds does one then forbid an individual from incorporating these practices as part of their individual devotion after they have been informed that observation of the day is not necessarily a requirement?
For does not Romans 14:5-6 seem to indicate that these sorts of matters are more in the realm of individual conscience?
In a sermon against Halloween, Presbyterian Brian Schwertly described a prank he use to engage in during that particular time of year where he would light a bag of, in his words, “poop” on fire and leave it on someone's porch.
Instead of remorsefully recounting this story in a tone of repentance, he actually laughed about it.
If Halloween really is as evil as the hardline Fundamentalists make it out to be, wouldn't that be the equivalent of fondly recalling before the congregation how Buffy down at the gentleman's club would twirl as she was giving him a lap dance?
Wouldn't an ultalegalist such as himself consider a person exhibiting such glee in the House of God sufficiently contrite?
Yes, he should be classified as an ultralegalist as he insinuated at another point in the sermon series that Roman Catholics and Arminians should be denied citizenship in the idealized Christian Reconstructionist regime.
In the sermon “Halloween: A Biblical Critique Of James Jordin & American Vision, Part 2”, Brian Schwertly examined the argument that Christian participation in Halloween is valid and legitimate as a way of ridiculing the power of Satan.
Schwertly contends that such a perspective is inappropriate in light of Jude 1:9 in which it is suggested that even the mightiest of angels are cautious about underestimating the Old Deluder.
However, it has been suggested that often conceptualizing of evil in a literary or narrative form similar to a fairy tale can assist the young in placing these kinds of fears and terrors in a proper perspective.
Why can't the symbology of Halloween play a similar kind of role?
But more importantly, perhaps the argument about justifying Halloween as a way of minimizing Satan's influence through good old fashioned ridicule came about as a result of the need in some of the more rigorous wings of Evangelicalism to always find itself in an “on position” in terms of some grand outreach effort or engaged in some never-ending confrontation.
Can't a kid just go out for a night dressed in costume to collect some candy without it being as if the Apocalypse was looming or the fate of the world hanging in the balance?
By Frederick Meekins
Southern Baptists Oddly Silent On How Whorish Behavior Also Undermines Respect For Women
And the point being of “Jesus was never involved with politics”? There were plenty of things Jesus was never involved with. He likely never used toilet paper as we know it nor ever road in an automobile. Does that mean we shouldn't partake of those either. When I pointed out that Jesus never used Facebook either, I get the typical reply that I am the one that doesn't know what they are talking about.
Radical Homeschooler Calls For The Elimination Of Retirement & The Return Of Child Labor
It is often requested during opening prayers at many churches that those gathered in the House of God be there solely for God alone rather than out of a sense of tradition or because of friends. But is it really an either/or proposition? For the most part, is it not good or at least a potential good that these days that the person is there at all? Why can't those things such as tradition or friendship which God created for good be used to draw someone to the Lord?
In an exposition on the verses from Romans 14 teaching that two Christians can hold differing convictions on a matter and still each be within the will of God, it was insisted that it is still the prerogative of the pastor to expound their particular interpretation given the nature of the homiletical act. And it is the prerogative of the average believer if they feel so called to use social media to analyze and critique such oratorical pronouncements.
Thursday, September 11
The National Council Of Churches on 8/18/2014 issued a statement regarding the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The statement read in part, “These killings, as well as those of hundreds of Americans...at the hands of increasingly militarized police forces is a great and growing concern. A peaceful, healthy society requires trust...between citizens and law enforcement.” One must stop and ask if the National Council Of Churches was a morally reflective and critical of Communists and Socialists when the organization was snuggling up to these kinds of regimes, movements, and revolutions during the Cold War years.
Wednesday, September 10
Tuesday, September 9
Monday, September 8
A pastor enunciated from behind the pulpit that Communism was not inherently in opposition with Christianity. Rather, only that ideology’s anti-religious accretions were evil, not necessarily the systemic imposed material equality. But doesn’t that violate the dictum of “Thou shalt not steal”? And what about the Biblical truism of a workman being worthy of his hirer? Furthermore, if everyone was to be given the exact same allotment, why should anyone break their backside or put forth anything beyond minimal effort?
Isn’t griping about people’s griping itself a form of griping? Interesting when a pewfiller makes a negative observation the verbalization is condemned as “complaining”, “bickering”, or “murmuring.” However, when such pronouncements are enunciated from behind a pulpit, they are categorized as the “sharing of a concern” or “admonition”. Average Christians are told to keep their innermost thoughts and concerns to themselves unless they are confirmation about how peachy-keen everything is. They are then reamed a new one if they fail to articulate sufficiently incriminating confessions during the intelligence gathering exercise known as the taking of prayer requests.
Homeschool activist Kevin Swanson condemned as “traitors to the cause of freedom” World Magazine for publishing a story drawing attention to a number of homeschool students believing they were not served well by that pedagogical modality. Swanson is correct that those with a Christian worldview ought to expose the deficiencies and abuses of the secularist system. However, if one's loyalty is to God's truth and just not those claiming to be on your side, aren't those that were possibly mistreated in the name of religion also allowed to verbalize their concerns so as to better protect the movement from falling into Satan's snares? If entire ministries can be established to expose the dangers of the public system, what is wrong with someone doing the same regarding the underside of private and home education? True freedom must remain vigilant to protect against both the overly and areligious.
In a sermon on the purpose of the church, an Orthodox Presbyterian pastor remarked that the believer does not have the right to determine their own mission. It depends what is meant by that. One is not free to pursue a lifestyle in violation of the parameters of the “Thou shalt nots” of Scripture. However, within those boundaries one is free to “work out one's own salvation in fear and trembling”. If you zigged into one legitimate career instead of zagging into another, on what grounds can Jesus get ticked off at you unless He deliberately tells you what to do in the areas marked by considerable individual choice and preference?
Friday, September 5
Contrary to a suggestion of what might be done to reform America, literal 24 hour around the clock prayer vigils are not required. Aren't such gestures more the worship of prayer rather than the One that prayer is supposed to be directed towards? Is God such an egomaniac that He is going to refuse to grant national revival or restoration unless he is constantly spoken to during those hours He has designed most to be sleeping through? Are around the clock prayer vigils so much about the God of Heaven or the finite human beings organizing such spectacles?
Homeschool activist Kevin Swanson in a 9/2014 broadcast suggested that Christian civilization might stand a better chance after America's collapse. But by that does he mean a generalized Christianity that respects economic liberty, private property, and individual theological conscience? Because often in environments characterized by profound social upheaval it is the most doctrinally strident expressions of a faith or creed that ends up imposing its peculiarities not through reasoned persuasion but rather through the force of violence.
Thursday, September 4
Is Chief Southern Baptist Missionary More Eager To Bash America Than Convert The Heathen?
The pastor is also author of “Radical: Taking Back Your Faith From The American Dream”.
A description of the tome at Amazon.com reads, “It's easy for the American Christian to forget how Jesus said how his followers would actually live...They would, he [Jesus] said , leave behind security, money, even family for him.”
Here we go with yet another attempt to use missions not so much as a methodology to bring those in other lands to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ but rather as a pretext to bash the American way of life.
For how are those things listed above: security, money, convenience, and family any different than what the inhabitants of nearly every other country on earth desire?
If one does not consider security all that important, perhaps one should be willing to exchange places with the persecuted and slaughtered Christian populations of Iraq and Syria.
Without money and security, it is doubtful that Rev. Platt would have wiggled his way into a megachurch pastorate nor American's rich enough to purchase his reflectively narcissistic manifestos.
God has indeed blessed America with an abundance of these things that have enabled Pastor Platt to become something of a celebrity in Evangelical Christian circles but which he begrudges the remainder of his fellow countrymen and coreligionists.
Is there a reason why we must flagellate ourselves in shame because of what God has given us?
For example, on the list it is insinuated that loyalty to family even when they are not tempting you towards things forbidden by God is not so much a strength but rather a weakness.
Yet the very same leftwing religionists that applaud the renunciation of bourgeoisie values insist that we must embrace nearly every illegal that pours across the border because these new arrivals are such family oriented people (even though the relationship arrangement being admired is not so much pro-child as it is the mother being afraid to cut off carnal access whenever daddy comes home sauced three sheets to the wind).
Interestingly, most of the migrants pour here for the same things we are supposed to be wracked with guilt over like Phil Donahue for possessing.
In his acceptance of the presidency of the Southern Baptist International Missions Board (a body found nowhere in Scripture if one is going to argue how we as Christians could lead more spiritually meritorious lives if we were more willing to embrace penury and destitution), “We talk all the time at Brook Hill [the church Platt pastors] about laying down a blank check with out lives, with no strings attached, willing to go wherever He leads, give whatever He asks, and do whatever He commands in order to make His glory known among the nations.”
And that is absolutely correct.
However, that blank check is to be written out to God, not so much the prelates and functionaries operating in His name through the organized church.
As Ann Coulter quipped, how come no one can serve God in America anymore?
It is about time religious leaders stop bashing those in America leading the perfectly ordinary lives that keep the mundane operations of a complex society functioning so robustly that there exists sufficient leisure time for a particular class to arise that enjoys nothing more than to wallow in this kind of existential criticism.
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, September 3
Cardinal Dolan Lifts His Skirt In Support Of Gays Marching In St. Patrick Day's Parade
Tuesday, September 2
A somewhat prominent homeschool ministry is suggesting that churches should assume a more direct role in the care of the elderly. So what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that the disbursement of these provisions won’t be manipulated in a form of doctrinal coercion? For example, would a church refuse to provide granny with her heart medication unless she agrees to no longer wear slacks or toss out the Jesus painting hanging in her room if she belongs to a particularly legalistic congregation? Likewise, in such a world, what is to prevent the elderly from joining a church not because it is a reflection of their theology but rather because it is more generous and lenient in terms of its charitable goodies?
A Facebook meme depicts predestination as a railway track one rides along. The advocate of free will and choice is pictured as riding along in a coal car, mistakenly holding a map detailing the numerous paths which the individual can decide to follow. If that is the illustration one desires to believe in and promote, what one is saying is that God alone is at fault for what ultimately becomes of the individual that has no control over anything whatsoever. For example, using the train track as the paradigm, should this coal car over which the individual can exert no influence whatsoever derails with the passenger being profoundly injured, what the proponents of the illustration are saying is that the passenger is at fault rather than the one that laid the track and sent the car careening towards the destination. Likewise, if the individual cannot do anything whatsoever to alter the destination at the end of the track, there really is no reason after all to tell them beforehand where it is that they are headed.
A somewhat prominent homeschool ministry is suggesting that the children of the elderly ought to be the ones responsible financially for their ageing parents and required to plan accordingly. They can do so by setting aside a significant portion of their tithe dollar that would have otherwise gone to institutionalized churches or the foreign mission field. Why not? Throughout this podcast discussion, one of the Biblical texts emphasized was James 1:27, admonishing that true and pure religion is that which cares for widows and orphans in their distress. Nowhere does the passage say anything about these funds having to be funneled through denominational middlemen that claim their cut for services rendered. Why can’t assisting your own elderly be some of that overlooked serving God in America asked about by Ann Coulter? Why does it only count for God when the helping hand is extended beyond your own family and especially into the slums of the Third World?
A pastor assured that a difference of opinion is not necessarily wrong. Does that include when there is a difference of opinion over matters that are not clearly discussed in the Scriptures but over which the pastor not only hands down pronouncements as if they were but stops just short of calling down divine retribution upon those questioning these opinions?
Friday, August 29
What Is Eastern Orthodoxy?
Thursday, August 28
Pastor Would Make Church Membership More Like Prison Sentence
But what if an individual can find a church of comparable teaching that is a better subjective or existential fit?
Why should someone in the name of an outdated understanding of ecclesiastical identity renounce other components of overall well being that could increase one's comprehensive quality of life such as companionship and opportunity?
Many of these rinkydink congregations rank among the same ones that would bash an individual for going to another church for “selfish” reasons and then turn around and slug even harder with the other rhetorical fist these same souls not married by the age of 25 despite there being no one appealing in the congregation or if the person does nothing more than fill a pew in a church where there is only one Sunday school class that the pastor sits in on to shout down anyone that might raise a sincere question or differing perspective still within the parameters of Biblical acceptability.
In this sermon on church membership and separation, Pastor Dykstra insisted that the Christian is obligated to hold formalized membership in a local congregation.
He then proceeded to argue that church membership should be viewed like marriage.
However, nowhere in Scripture is one obligated to be yoked to a human spouse.
If anything, the Bible lists both the glories and downfalls of both the single and married states, allowing the individual to select for themselves the path that they believe will minimize the inevitable miseries of this life while attempting to maximize its fleeting pleasures.
In continuing the marriage analogy, Rev. Dykstra suggested that the ability to pick up and leave a church is a moral outrage comparable to no fault divorce.
Would pastors holding to such an ecclesiology prefer the dissatisfied and disenchanted just remain in the congregation and drag the whole vibe down?
Even more disturbing is the insinuation that one cannot leave without deliberate or explicit fault being assigned.
So if these ecclesiastical potentates had their way, would they smear you with some kind of mark akin to Hawthorne's scarlet letter where no other church would ever take you in?
So be it.
What is to prevent the clerically dispossessed from banding together to establish their own churches?
And what if these loose associations began bearing spiritual fruit?
In the idealized theocracy or theonomy, would establishmentarian denominations use the weight of law and the use of force commonly referred to as violence inherent to the enforcement of such to destroy these fellowships?
If so, what makes those holding to such a position any better than the worst of the Medieval papalists that those of the extreme Reformist perspective spend an inordinate amount of time railing against?
In the sermon, Pastor Dykstra mentioned a sect from the time of the Reformation known as the Nicodemites, a reference to the influential Pharisee that came to Jesus who, though sincerely curious, came to Jesus in the middle of the night so as not to endanger his status and position as a member of the Sanhedrin.
This label was used to describe those drawn to the claims of the Reformed message but who were reluctant to embrace this interpretation of the Gospel for fear of leaving behind the modalities of worship and religious expression they had known their entire lives.
The term was intended to be applied condescendingly.
However, as conveyed in the Gospel of John, chapter 3, one does not get the impression that Jesus was irritated with Nicodemus for coming to Him secretively indicating potential ambivalence to the implications embracing the Messianic claims would have in the life of such a foremost Jewish voice.
Rev. Dykstra claims the label accurately describes those that waffle as to what congregation it is that they actually want to be a part of.
He goes on to assert that, when one leaves a particular church, what you are saying is that you no longer want to fellowship with the saints there.
It says nothing of the sort.
What about those that stay in the church and get their rearends so high up on their shoulders that they will no longer have anything to do with those that could have their spiritual needs better fulfilled elsewhere?
You don't need the pastor's permission to remain someone's friend.
If you are afraid that remaining friends with someone that has left the church but otherwise still walking in the faith will set minister off, other than a cordial but distance greeting each Sunday, DON'T TELL THE MINISTER THAT YOU ARE STILL THEIR FRIEND.
The world is in a profound state of turmoil and decline.
Instead of complaining about how often a particular visitor is or is not there and whether or not they have agreed to a commitment sufficiently arduous to placate the rigors of the professional religionist, perhaps it might be more prudent to convey the basics of salvation and moral living in the brief time that any particular soul might be brought into contact with a specific congregation.
By Frederick Meekins
In a sermon titled “The Gospel Demands Sacrifice” posted on Youtube, the President of the Southern Baptist International Missions Board criticized Christians that understand our eternal reward as Heaven rather than the fullness of Christ. This condemnation was enunciated because of this exegete’s aversion to OTHER people possessing what he dismisses as stuff (in other words the property imperative). However, we are beings created to occupy space and in constant need of a plethora of things to keep that embodied existence ongoing. It is further reinforced that if we do not reach Heaven as our destination in the Afterlife, that our eternity will be one of unending agony in the most painful ways in which we can possible conceive. If that is how we have been deliberately designed by our Creator and what He has decided to reveal to us regarding the comprehensive metaphysical reality, is this response really something we should be chastised over? Perhaps this pastor’s underlying issue is that we retain a sense of individuality once this life is completed rather than an existential obliteration in a Nirvana-like state he terms “the fullness of Christ”.
Note something will you. Pastors are often fond of the text that our love for Christ should be so intense that our love for family should look like hate in comparison. But never in this exposition do they have backbone to preach that our devotion to Christ should be so singular that our love for the organized church in comparison to that of her Christ should also look like hate.
Wednesday, August 27
Southern Baptist Chief Missionary Views Goldfish Crackers As Heathen Indulgence
Tuesday, August 26
Should Churches Purge Members That Minister Beyond Denominational Limitations?
Now would that be a punishment or a reward to be forced off this sinking denominational ship?
The bishop justifies such a hardline position because, “It is an affront to those who have worked hard, studying many years in seminary, spending much money, making many personal sacrifices when others, maybe unknowingly, seek ordinations in an easy, anonymous way.”
One will note that no where in the explanation is God or Christ even mentioned.
That is because, other than the basic criteria listed in Scripture, He leaves it up to the individual to follow the path that is best suited to their own particular calling.
The United Methodist Church is only one expression of the broader Bride of Christ.
Those employed by a United Methodist Church or seeking a career in such might have to abide by the rules that the denomination establishes to determine who it allows to minister as part of its brand.
However, their exists a Christan world beyond this one principality within the larger kingdom.
So long as someone holding one of these alternative ordinations does not try to seize control of a United Methodist Church, they should use the credential to minister in any way possible that is open to them.
The average member is only in church between one and maybe three hours per week.
If someone in the remaining hours of the week wants to fill that time going about their Father's work and they for the most part profess the same basic theological and philosophical worldview as you do, it is the epitome of arrogance for you to punish them simply because they don't hold a certificate with your seal of approval emblazoned upon it.
Any church that seeks to control those not on the official payroll or those that have not agreed to the parameters of ministry within a specific denomination has come dangerously close to elevating the organizational structure above the Christ that it claims to worship.
About the best thing that could possibly happen to someone that looses their membership over such a petty and minuscule offense for simply feeling a call to ministry that ecclesiastical elites fail to recognize is to set up some kind of Methodist or Wesleyan-style church of their own.
It might not be what they have been accustomed to, however, given that these are generic theological labels or categories, should you decide to apply them along with a few distinct modifiers to create a somewhat unique variation on the given theme, there really isn't much that religious power brokers can do to stop you
By Frederick Meekins
Cause For Celebration: An Examination Of The Cosmological Argument
Though the term “cosmological argument” sounds intimidating and the concept it strives to convey seems profound, this series of propositions endeavors to express a most elementary idea in a highly rational form. The thrust of the cosmological argument seeks to prove that the universe must have a cause and that only God can serve as an adequate explanation for the existence of the universe. Norman Geisler in Introduction To Christian Philosophy states the basic argument in the following manner: “(1) Finite changing things exist. (2) Every finite, changing thing must be caused by another. (3) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. (4) Therefore, there must be a first uncaused cause of every finite changing thing that exists (page 267).” From here, Aquinas proceeds to argue that only God is powerful enough to serve as an explanation behind this uncaused cause.
This assertion is buttressed by Aquinas’ notion of contingency and the need for a necessary being. A contingent being, according to Ronald Nash in Faith & Reason: Searching For A Rational Faith, is one whose existence depends upon another and whose nonexistence is possible; likewise, a necessary being is one that must exist, does not depend on another being for its existence, and whose nonexistence is an impossibility (128). The necessary being ultimately serves as the sufficient reason for all contingent beings.
Despite the power of the cosmological argument, it has not escaped its share of scrutiny throughout the course of its distinguished existence. For while the conclusions of the cosmological argument seem to flow naturally within the framework of traditional Judeo-Christian theism, they are not quite as obvious to adherents of other philosophies and systems of thought or to those seeking to undermine them through a process of intense rationalistic analysis. Skeptics and opponents of the Judeo-Christian assumptions that the cosmological argument seeks to prove can call upon a number of criticisms and counterclaims in support of their contrarian position.
The first brand of criticism stems from those advocating worldviews hostile to Christian presuppositions that possess a considerable stake in finding an explanation for the origins of the universe through causes other than an instant of divine creation. Foremost among the systems opposing the premises of the cosmological argument stand the various strands of naturalism.
According to James Sire in The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog, the naturalist says matter is all there is and God does not exist (54). Or as Carl Sagan use to say, “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” Corliss Lamont, the 1977 Humanist of the Year, writes, “Humanism...believes in a naturalistic cosmology...that rules out all forms of the supernatural ... that regards nature as the totality of being and as a constantly changing system of events existing independently of any mind or consciousness (Understanding The Times, 117).”
Thus, as David Nobel of Summit Ministries responds in Understanding The Times, “For the Humanist, no personal First Cause exists; only the cosmos... There was no beginning and there can be no end. Of course, there is no need for a God to explain a beginning that did not happen (120).” Naturalists, therefore, find their explanation for the universe elsewhere
Whereas theists such as Thomas Aquinas posit the answer to this important question with God, naturalists find it in a complex interaction of matter, physical laws, and a healthy sprinkling of chance.
David Nobel writes of the naturalist perspective, “Nature...cannot create but she can eternally transform (120). “ Naturalists attempt to abolish the so-called Thomist arguments for a creator denying the very concept of creation itself.
While it is not too difficult to confront the opponents of theism over those points where such glaring differences exist, the criticism couched in the careful formulations of sophisticated philosophical analysis can be somewhat more difficult to counter. For example, John Gerstner writes in Reasons For Faith that objections could be raised that the cosmological argument hinges upon the conclusion drawn from our own observation that all things have a cause (53).
The thrust of the cosmological argument hinges upon the conclusion drawn from our observations that all things have a cause. This proposition is put forward to prove the need for a so-called first “uncaused cause”. As the nitpicky skeptic might point out, if it is deduced through observation that all things have causes, is it not unreasonable to call upon an uncaused first cause? After all, would not something have to have caused it also. Such a deadlock leads to one of Kant’s antimonies of reason where debaters of equal rationality come to two semmingly reasonable conclusions: namely either the need of an uncaused first cause or the validity of an infinitely regressing eternal series of causes and effects.
Despite this apparent loggerheads between proponents and detractors of the cosmological proof, additional lines of argumentation and evidence exist tipping the scales in favor of justifiable theism. From the time of the Enlightenment onward, practitioners of what Francis Schaeffer referred to as “modern modern science" have endeavored to establish a conceptual framework for explaining the operations of the universe capable of standing without the need for an appeal to divine support. When asked by Napoleon where God fit into his system of celestial mechanics, Laplace is said to have responded, “I have no need for that hypothesis (Barbour, 42).” But ironically, the very system of airtight physical laws many scientists approach with an almost religious devotion ultimately point to and must at least be jumpstarted if not actively maintained by the very Creator these lab-coated agnostics are scurrying to get away from.
Despite possible variations in their extraneous details, there are only a limited number of cosmologies accounting for the existence of the universe, each with its own advantages and shortcomings depending upon where one lines up in the debate regarding this theistic argument. Astrophysicist and Professor of New Testament Robert Newman describes each of these possibilities in the article “The Evidence Of Cosmology” appearing in the anthology Evidence For Faith: these systems are the Steady-State Universe, the Oscillating Cosmology, and the so-called “Big Bang” (Newman, 83-85).
The Steady-State model added a scientific veneer to the philosophical assumptions of naturalism by hypothesizing a universe eternally existing in a dynamic state of equilibrium whereby the density and energy levels of the cosmos remain constant as new matter is added as the boundaries of the system expand. Oscillating Cosmology pictures an ongoing cycle of universal birth, death, and rebirth as the universe continually expands outward in a burst of energy only to contract under the forces of its own gravity only to explode outward once again in an unending repetitive cosmic rhythm. The so-called “Big Bang”, at its most basic, postulates a singular specific moment when the universe expanded outward from a particular point at a definite moment in time.
These theories may all be well and good in terms of allowing the curious to speculate until their heart’s content. Yet ultimately they must correspond to actual reality if they are to be of any value beyond mere academic amusement.
It is against the cold hard wall of truth that these systems are forced to measure up against. These unavoidable truths eliminate the faulty explanations for the origins of the universe and point us back to the conclusions of the cosmological argument.
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the sum total of matter and energy in the universe can neither be created nor destroyed; it remains constant. This is appended by the Second Law of Thermodynamics stating that the amount of energy available for useful work constantly decreases and the amount of entropy or disorder increases.
Any theory of origins seeking to undermine the need for a Creator by positing an everlasting cosmos is by definition scientifically impossible as one deduces from these physical laws. For every system that possesses a finite amount of useful energy must have a definite startup point.
If the universe is infinitely old as speculated by steady-state cosmologists, the universe would have wound down already. As D. James Kennedy notes in How I Know There Is A God, “...everything is running down; ... everything is wearing out; everything is growing old. So if the universe were eternal, it would have already wound down (6).”
Like it or not, the mechanics of the universe, as they exist as unvarnished facts, point to a theoretically specifiable beginning and cannot be compelled to testify against their designer. Dr. Kennedy further notes, “There was a time when there were men who believed that it [the universe] was [eternal] but with modern scientific discoveries it is no longer possible to believe that... For the last 150 years, scientists have been scurrying around trying to avoid the implications of the laws they have discovered (5).”
Despite harkening unto the exhortations of science when it is believed this manner of inquiry might prove a valuable ally in the ongoing struggle to dethrone the God of all space and time, this epistemological method is conveniently overlooked when it points in the direction of conclusions standing in opposition to cherished preconceived assumptions. Astronomer Fred Hoyle, a developer of the Steady -State Model, himself admitted that his affinity for this particular system was not so much born out of pure science but rather because this particular variety of cosmology was more philosophically satisfying than those characterized with a beginning (Newman, 83). Thus, the unvarnished facts may have little initial impact upon those holding such a viewpoint who feel seemingly remote matters such as the origins of the universe have little bearing upon their average workaday lives.
The Christian thinker must proceed by showing how one’s position regarding the data pointing to the divine origins of the universe impacts one’s relation to the remaining branches of knowledge and how one cannot ignore the issue without felling the entire noetic tree. The laws of objective physical science clearly teach that the universe came into existence at a particular point in time.
This leaves the cogitator with two possible explanations: either the universe came into existence of its own accord or was brought into existence by some entity greater and more complete in and of itself. Diehard agnostics will continue to insist upon the alternative excluding the influence of deity, which means they would select the alternative suggesting the universe came into existence on its own. Yet reason dictates that only nothing can come from nothing.
As an experiment, take a first-full of nothing and plant it in a flowerpot and see how long it takes to grow a plant from it. Now how much longer will it take for an entire developed universe with complex organisms and sophisticated civilizations to sprout from it? John Frame in Apologetics "To The Glory Of God: An Introduction", argues that those refusing to assent to the theistic conclusions in light of such compelling logic and evidence must concede to the madness of irrationalism since it flies in the face of common sense to hold that everything in the physical universe requires a cause but the finite contingent universe itself (111).
While advocates of the cosmological argument will spend much of their time trying to convince their nontheistic counterparts as to its validity, they might be surprised to learn significant suspicion of it lurks within certain corners of the Christian camp. Ronald Nash examines a number of these Christian criticisms and concerns in his analysis of the cosmological argument as detailed in "Faith & Reason: Searching For A Rational Faith".
Foremost among the cautions raised by Christians skeptical as to the value of the cosmological argument ranks the realization that the God attested to by this renowned theistic proof could very well fall short of the Lord boldly proclaimed in the pages of the Bible and could very easily resemble something more akin to deism (Nash, 122-124). For example, the purpose of the cosmological argument is to postulate a God that gets the proverbial ball rolling. However, on its own it does not initially provide enough argumentative steam to establish argumentively a God who actively sustains the universe, to say nothing of one that loves and cares for that part of the creation molded in his own image.
Furthermore, since the world and the universe are a composite of a number of complex interactive systems, one could argue that each was set in motion by its own unique first cause. According to Norman Geisler in Introduction To Philosophjy: A Christian Perspective, Aristotle himself believed in between forty-seven and fifty-five of these entities, each responsible for a particular sphere of the heavens (172). At best, such an arrangement would give one a situation something akin to polytheism where one god ruled the sky and another the sea. And in bringing the Greek and other ancient pantheons into the mix, Ronald Nash points out that the cosmological argument fails to address the moral and redemptive natures of God so central to the message of Scripture that sets the Christian message apart from other world religions. One could very well maneuver the most vile reprobates into acknowledging the existence of such a God without having it make the slightest impact on such a libertine lifestyle.
Of the cosmological argument, Ronald Nash writes, “...if we reject special revelation and attempt to reason our way from what we know about the world to the existence of a supposed First Cause, the most we can establish still leaves us a long way from...(the) God of the Bible (124).” Thus the Christian following in the footsteps of Aquinas comes to a very important fork in the road. On the one hand, the intellectually engaged believer finds that the given of the universe needing a creator is not quite universally assumed as they originally thought it to be; on the other, there are those within the Christian’s own camp who insightfully warn as to the potential dangers and shortcomings of this hallowed argument. What is the Christian to do?
The good news is that the cosmological argument does not need to be tossed aside with the rest of the philosophical rubbish. Just as an army cannot rely on any one weapon system if it hopes to carry out a successful military campaign, if they are going to utilize the cosmological argument as part of their apologetic arsenal, they must incorporate it into the framework of a comprehensive strategy of evangelization. It might be best to look at the cosmological argument not so much as some epiphanial revelation silencing all opposition from then on out but rather as a tool to extract knowledge already buried in the deep recesses of the soul.
Romans 2:14-15 reads, “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law...since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them (NIV).” Likewise, Psalms 14:1 reads, “The fool says in his hear, ‘There is no God.’.” Thus, whether they choose to admit it or not, a primordial knowledge of God exists somewhere within the human soul. The trick is getting the individual to assent to this as they are being guided down along the path to belief in Christ. The problem is that man has gone out of his way in the attempt to shake free from the truth of God’s existence that weighs down the sin-laden conscience.
Romans 1:20-21 says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities...have been clearly seen, being understood for what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened (NIV).” The task of the Christian becomes to show the unbeliever how it is untenable to live in a theistic Christian world with non-Christian, atheistic assumptions.
In Van Tillian terminology, this is the point of contact (Frame, 82-83). The cosmological argument is best used as one of these conversation starters rather than as the be-all and end-all of the discussion. In essence, the cosmological argument is more a defense of already held belief rather than a foundation upon which belief in the true God is built upon.
Ronald Nash writes, “Suppose...that we regard it [natural theology] as an inquiry into whether the Christian world-view fits what we know about the outer and inner worlds (Nash, 96).” Nash continues, “...instead of seeking coercive proofs for conclusions that all right-minded and open-minded persons would accept, we view our task as the more modest one of seeing if the Christian worldview does what we expect any worldview to do (97).”
The cosmological argument has enjoyed a robust history throughout the course of Western intellectual and ecclesiastical history. It has sparked considerable discussion and debate as its advocates herald it as a tool through which to apprehend a slice of the infinite while its detractors dismiss it as the leftover mental baggage of a less rational era. But regardless of where one lines up along this ongoing debate, one cannot help but admit that the discussion will continue until the Lord Himself decides to intervene and settle the issue on His own once and for all before then.
by Frederick Meekins