Faithful and true? The paradoxical state of Christian colleges

She's bright, homeschooled, and devout. She is definitely college material. So her parents, having read about the relativism and debauchery of the nation's secular universities, send her to a Christian college.

After her parents finish hauling boxes into her dorm and drive away, she is thrilled at the chance to study with so many others who share her faith. By the first week of class, she already has made many Christian friends and has joined a good Bible study. Her classes, though, are confusing.

In her Introduction to Bible class, her professor explains that the Bible was written by many different authors over many centuries and so cannot be taken literally. The professor in her psych class, who calls herself a feminist, teaches that "homophobia," not homosexuality, is a mental illness. In English, she has to read a modern novel filled with profanity and graphic sex scenes. Her biology class teaches Darwinian evolution and makes fun of "creationists" who believe in Intelligent Design.

When she asks her professors about the disconnect between what is going on in the classroom and the college's professed Christian identity, they tell her, "We are just trying to open your mind. That's what a college education is all about. Yes, we are Christians, but we have to challenge our incoming students' narrow fundamentalism in order to broaden their perspectives and make them well-educated." She marvels that these teachers don't seem to recognize that the ideologies they are so impressed with are far narrower than what the Bible teaches. After four years, she graduates, with an education that is little different from that of her friends who went to secular schools.

This scenario plays out over and over again, to the consternation of many students and their parents. As John Mark Reynolds, a professor and director of the honors program at Biola University, observes, "Many profs view their mission as helping poor, right-wing Christian children outgrow their parents' faith."

But not all professors and Christian colleges are like that. In a time when the postmodernist academy is jettisoning truth, reason, and the Western tradition, Christians—with a worldview well suited for education—have a dramatic opportunity to exert intellectual and cultural leadership. In many cases, Christian colleges do give their students a first-rate education, even as they contribute positively to the student's spiritual formation.

Certainly, the demand for what Christian colleges can offer is booming. Between 1990 and 2002, enrollment in the 100 evangelical schools that make up the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities rose by 60 percent.

So to kick off the new academic year, WORLD brought together a panel of distinguished veterans of Christian education: John H. White, president-emeritus of Geneva College; Samuel T. Logan, former president and now chancellor of Westminster Theological Seminary; and Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. As a Christian college English professor for just under 20 years, I also participated in the discussions. What follows represents our common general assessment of the state of Christian colleges.

Conservative Christians tend to value the colleges that were founded by their church bodies or that exist to transmit their particular intellectual and theological heritage. But sometimes those colleges promote theological ideas that undermine that heritage: "the openness of God" movement that denies God's omniscience and omnipotence, "new perspectives on Paul" that deny justification by faith, and feminist theology pushing for the ordination of women.

In The Dying of the Light: The Disengagement of Colleges and Universities from Their Christian Churches (1998), Catholic scholar James Burtchaell studies the history of religiously founded schools, documenting how time and again colleges founded in a specific theological tradition shift to generic Christianity, then to being "church-related," then to holding Christian "values" if not belief, until finally they are as secularized as any public university.

This process is already complete in most institutions founded by mainline Protestants—from Southern Methodist University to Princeton. Catholics held out a little longer, but a study by Patrick Reilly, president of the Cardinal Newman Society, in The Catholic World Report found that Catholic universities now make their students less Catholic. He found that 45 percent of incoming freshmen at the major Catholic universities believe that abortion should be legal; by the time they are seniors, 57 percent believe in abortion, contrary to church teaching. Fifty-five percent of freshmen believe in homosexual marriage; by the time they graduate, 71 percent do. Only 30 percent of freshmen approve of casual sex, but by the time they are seniors, 50 percent do.

Evangelical colleges tend to resist the tide, but not always. In 1988, sociologist James Davison Hunter, in his book Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation, found a similar phenomenon in evangelical institutions. In a survey of students from nine members of the Christian College Consortium (Wheaton, Gordon, Westmont, Bethel, Houghton, Seattle-Pacific, George Fox, Taylor, and Messiah), he found that while 56 percent of incoming students scored high on his "religious orthodoxy" index, that number declined to 42 percent when the students were seniors.

Those holding traditional views of the family plummeted from 45 percent to 30 percent for men, and 34 percent to 14 percent for women. "Contemporary Christian higher education," Mr. Hunter concludes, "produces individual Christians who are either less certain of their attachments to the traditions of their faith or altogether disaffected from them."

But that was in 1988. In her book God on the Quad: How Religious Colleges and the Missionary Generation Are Changing America, Jewish researcher Naomi Schaefer Riley cites Mr. Hunter's research, but reports that recent evidence shows Christian college graduates to be more conservative morally and theologically.

"I believe the tide is moving the other way rather than a watering down," said panelist Mr. White. He sees "an openness and hunger on the part of young faculty" to relate their faith to their discipline. "When I began teaching a biblical worldview course 30 years ago," he said, "other than [theologian Francis] Schaeffer and some obscure Dutch work in the Kuyper tradition, there were no books for college students. Now there are many that are well-written."

Though a veteran of many battles to keep his institution faithful to its biblical heritage, Mr. White finds the climate much improved. "After a year of returning to the classroom I find many students and faculty eager to embrace and understand orthodox Christianity and the holism of the Lordship of Christ."

This points to an important shift in the relationship between faith and learning. Historian Douglas Sloan of Columbia University has shown that a "two realms" model dominated Christian scholarship through most of the 20th century. Objective knowledge of the outside world was considered the realm of science. Inner feelings, values, and commitments to meaning were the realm of faith.

In practice, this distinction meant that faith and learning were not integrated at all; faith was not allowed to trespass onto the territory of science, knowledge, and facts. This was a disaster theologically, as faith was turned into an interior set of emotions, with no connection to external truth.

In today's climate, the fact/value distinction—and the exaltation of scientific rationalism—has been shot down, even for secularist scholars. Christian thinkers from Herman Dooyeweerd to Francis Schaeffer have critiqued that dualism. Nancy Pearcey, researcher with the Discovery Institute, in her book Total Truth has exploded the "two realms" model.

Instead, today's Christian scholars tend to approach issues of faith and learning in terms of "worldview." This allows them to see and build upon the distinct biblical assumptions about God and His creation—such as the complexity of human beings having been made in God's image and yet fallen into sin—while still dealing accurately with the various secularist ideologies, each of which can be seen as an alternative worldview.

So if contemporary Christian scholarship has found a way to effectively relate faith and learning, why are so many Christian colleges still struggling to keep their identity? As WORLD's panel of college presidents made clear, the strongest tides faithful schools have to swim against are institutional and cultural.

Financial pressures can change the direction of a school. Presidents, who now have to focus on fundraising, must cultivate wealthy donors. "Once an institution becomes dependent upon a donor base that no longer holds Christian conviction as the central defining mark of the school, a process of liberalization or secularization inevitably follows," said Mr. Mohler. In some institutions, he said, "a loss of Christian conviction and character can be traced to just one major donor who insisted on a more liberal, less church-directed identity. "

Mr. Logan told of donors who offered gifts of a million dollars plus, if Westminster would change its position on apologetics or give a woman an endowed chair. Not that donor requests are necessarily a bad thing, observed Mr. Logan, but they can have unintended consequences. "Suppose, for example, the Lilly Endowment offered a funding initiative in support of multiculturalism in theological education. It is possible that the conditions set by Lilly would not require subtle alterations in institutional identity. But it is also possible that those conditions would require such alterations. It takes great corporate wisdom to make the right decision and it could take extraordinary courage to do what is right (especially if that meant turning away from a lot of Lilly money)."

Mr. Mohler cited another temptation: "Mission creep can quickly pull an institution away from its more clearly articulated Christian identity. As a rule, the broader the scope of the institution, the greater the danger of loosening church and confessional commitments." He gave the example of a college wanting to attract more students and asking, Why not a pharmacy school? The school may not be able to attract evangelical faculty members qualified to teach pharmacy. As a result, hiring practices get loosened. Non-Christian students uninterested in the college's Christian identity come to study pharmacy. Resources get shifted to the pharmacy program and away from the school's original mission.

Faculty hiring is another issue. Mr. Mohler cited the problem of "catalog envy," in which schools hire a new professor with a Ph.D. from a prestigious Ivy League institution over someone from a lesser-known school who might be a better fit with the school's Christian identity. Also, in the postmodernist climate in which words can have different meanings according to each person, it becomes more difficult to ascertain whether a professor subscribes to a particular statement of faith, or what he means when he says he does.

Presidents have to be especially attentive. "I am personally involved in every faculty hire," Mr. Mohler said. "I interview all candidates, read their published material, and check out everything from their resumés to their church responsibilities and their marriage/family commitments. The president must be a scholar who is intellectually engaged, if this is to be effective."

Secularist accrediting agencies can also pressure a school away from its Christian identity. Mr. Mohler told about his institution's social work program. "The Council on Social Work Education is adamantly pro-homosexual and committed to 'non-judgmentalism.' That led to an impasse here, the closing of the school.

"We spent years working to convince our regional accreditation agency that confessionalism allows an authentic academic experience," Mr. Mohler said. "It was so foreign to the visiting committee (in the main) that they were simply at a loss." And yet, eventually, his school did get the accreditation. As did Westminster, said Mr. Logan, after a tough battle.

Thanks in part to the church institutions that stood their ground, most accreditors have switched their approach. Today, said Mr. Logan, "they are generally more likely now to allow Christian schools to define their own missions and to evaluate those schools on the degree to which the schools can demonstrate that they are accomplishing those missions." Mr. White agreed: "My experience is that accreditation is almost always helpful."

So despite the continuing problems, it may be easier now than before, given resolute leadership, constituent support, and faculty committed to the school's Christian mission and identity, to resist the secularizing tide.

Please forgive my late response, jimmyray, I wanted to read your biblical references and look up a couple of my own.

You were a good person..

Define Christian. How does one get to heaven? Can I be good enough, as you assert? Suggested reading, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:23 & 6:23, as well as Romans 10:9-10. Also John 3:16, 20:31, and Especially John 14:6-7.

Fair point. Point taken. I am familiar with most of the references (they are indeed some of the more well-known). My language was imprecise. I apologize. Still, my original point I do not believe is diluted, which, in summary, is that one method of worship / glorification is to use the intelligence that God gave us to examine is beautiful and magnificent creation. If we don't, I argue, we miss a lot.

Now to your specific questions:

State your assumptions:

1. Universe started as big bang (thimbleful of matter, or less)

Well, actually the universe did not start with a thimblefull of matter. It started with all of the matter it has now, it was just terribly compressed. Moreover, that is not an assumption. It is the result of an extraordinary amount of disparate observation which is entirely consistent with this one perspective. For example, we can observe the universe and note that it is moving away from us (and every other point) and that the velocity of expansion is proportional to the distance (as exactly you would expect from an explosion). We can also observe distant galaxies and note that the light took time to get here. Therefore, the light originated in the past. Further out we look spatially, further back in time we observe. Now, starting with the Big Bang, and using quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, General Relativity, plasma physics, and atomic physics, we can work out the development of the universe from its Big Bang origin. Namely, it started out as a quark-gluon soup and then precipitated out the various nuclear and then atomic particles. Then gasses formed. Then the gasses coalesced. Then stars formed.... etc. Well, all that physics is entirely consistent with what we observe looking back in time. Finally, and most convincingly, we observe the cosmic microwave background. This is the signal given off by the big bang universe at the instant that the Universe became optically thin, and light was no longer in thermodynamic equilibrium with the matter. The universe stretched and this light was stretched to longer wavelenths and is now in the microwave spectrum. And again, it is entirely consistent with Planck black body radiation, plasma physics, quantum mechanics, and statistical mechanics. So, you need all that physics, all of which has been demonstrated elsewhere in the laboratory, in order to demonstrate the cosmic microwave background.

So, the Big Bang is not an "assumption". It is the result of observation and an extraordinarily large body of physics, which has been developed and proven elsewhere.

2. Elements produced by BB were? Where did all of the other ones come from?

Elements were not "produced" by the Big Bang. The big bang was a quark-gluon soup. The elements precipitated out as this sub nuclear plasma expanded and cooled. However, the elements that did precipitate out were essentially hydrogen, with trace amounts of helium. (Again, not an assumption. This is based on nuclear physics and quantum mechanics and can and has been reproduced in accelerators). The other elements were produced in super novae explosions. Moreover, this is not an assumption, it is a measurement. We can observe supernovae and can use spectroscopy to observe the new elements produced. That is why the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 15 billion years old. We needed a few supernovae to make these elements first.

3. Big Bang has no center, although it started with one.

Actually, the big bang has no center and it never had one. It did NOT start with one. A common misconception, though, is that the big bang exploded into space. I.e. space already existed and the explosion moved through it. This is not how it worked. (We know this from General Relativity). The big bang exploded the matter and the space. Space itself expanded. So, all of space fit into your thimble, indeed, it fit into a much smaller "size". Since space itself is expanding, terms like "size" really don't mean a whole lot. But anyway, there was no "center." Or, perhaps, since the entire universe, all of the matter and all of the space, existed as a point, then the entire universe was the "center".

A popular analogy is baking a loaf of raisin bread. The raisons are galaxies and the bread is space. The bread itself expands carrying the raisons with it. The raisons do not move through the dough.

4. Universe exploded away from the non center at incredible speed, what was light doing?

I am not sure I understand the question. At the point of initial explosion, light essentially did not exist. Light could not exist until the universe had cooled enough for the electromagnetic forces to be significant. If your question is about special relativity, that is a different issue. Special relativity, which asserts that the speed of light is an absolute upper limit, applies to a fixed, spatial frame of reference. It does not apply to accelerating frames of reference. It also does not apply when space itself is expanding. We already know that the true size of the universe is beyond the limits of what we can see, which is limited by special relativity. Namely, there are galaxies in the universe that are "moving" away from each other with velocities greater than c. However, the reason is that space itself is expanding.

5. Why don't all galaxies spin in same direction (impart rotation direction on offsprung bodies)

No reason to expect that they would. The galactic spin is a consequence of the conservation of angular momentum. The original angular momentum is (ultimately) a consequence of quantum mechanical fluctuations in the early universe. These random fluctuations caused mass flow and density fluctuations, which ultimately became matter flows with angular momentum. These should not be uniform, but should be distributed randomly. Which they are.

6. Why don't our planets spin in the same direction.

Largely, the same answer as 5. No reason to expect that they should.

Why do you believe you are a Christian? Do you have a Biblical reason?

That requires a much longer and more detailed answer, and is somewhat more personal. However, I can state that my personal faith includes the Bible but is not exclusive to it. My faith is closer to the Catholic religion in that respect; I see other indicators of the presence of a Creator other than the Bible.

Indeed, the physics I have described suggests to me a Creator in a very profound way. (However, I note that the science and the faith must be kept separate. Ultimately, it is my faith that translates the physics into a belief in an ultimate Creator.)

As for the Bible, well, quite honestly, I believe the new testament is much more accurate than the old. There were more witnesses. It is much better supported by historical information. Frankly, the people involved were a lot more civilized.

The further back you go in the Bible (i.e. earlier), the less litteral I believe it to be. Moreover, I don't find this inconsistent with Christianity. Indeed, Jesus spoke in parables to explain difficult concepts to people who would have difficulty with the direct abstraction. Genesis could easily fall into that rubric, and indeed, the people of Genesis were far more primitive than those of Jesus' time. Consider, if you will Exodus 21, 22, 23, which is the story of the 10 commandments (and the associated "ordinances" Ex 21:1). Some pretty earthy stuff there, jimmyray. The kinds of "ordinances" needed by very primitive people. My "favorite" is Ex 21:22 "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so theat there is a miscarriage..." Pretty rough stuff. Indicative of the kind of people that were being instructed. I just don't think they were ready for the idea of a 2nd rank tensor in 4 dimensions to explain the basis of gravitational space-time. I think it spoke in parables because that is what they could understand. You are not going to explain General Relativity to people who need to be instructed on what to do when an ox gores a man or a woman to death (Ex 21:28).

Thank you so much for the ping to your engaging post and your testimony!!! And thank you for the invitation to comment! As always, I have much to say (LOL!)

First, my comments on the points raised concerning Faith:

jimmyray, you truly said ” According to the Bible (not Jimmyray) man cannot get to heaven by being good enough.” and provided a number of Scriptures. That’s great, and here is one which confirms your point specifically:

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. – Galatians 2:21

2ndreconmarine, you truly said ”… one method of worship / glorification is to use the intelligence that God gave us to examine is beautiful and magnificent creation. If we don't, I argue, we miss a lot. “. That’s great, and here is a Scripture which confirms that we will be held accountable if we don’t look and see:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: - Romans 1:20

I agree very strongly with you, 2ndreconmarine, that the Scriptures reveal God truly but not fully. Creation itself could not hold the information (John 21:25). And there are things the Father has concealed from us (Daniel 12:4, Revelation 10:4) and indeed from the angels and even from His only begotten Son (Mark 13:32).

God reveals Himself in different ways. I assert that revealing Himself was the reason for a beginning, for this heaven and earth (Genesis 1) and the revelation will be complete in the new heaven and earth (Revelation 21) when all the family has been informed and suited for timeless communion with Him.

The first revelation in everything (Colossians 1) of course is Jesus Christ who is the express image of the Father’s person, the brightness of His glory (Hebrews 1:3). So when we look at Jesus we are seeing the Father.

Likewise He reveals Himself personally and intimately through the indwelling Spirit, leading us into Truth (John 14–17, Romans 8, I Corinthians 2). When we listen to the Spirit, we are hearing Jesus and the Father — for they are One. (John)

Some things are revealed only indirectly through parables and metaphors so that only the ones who have “ears to hear” can understand (Matthew 13, John 10).

And as you say, God also reveals Himself in the Creation (Psalms 19) — and we shall be held accountable if we don’t notice that (Romans 1:20).

Finally, I strongly assert that it is error to insist that all Christians have the same understanding in every detail.

For evidence, I point to Christ chosing twelve disciples with very different personalities. John was not like Peter who was not like James who was not like Thomas. Whereas they agreed on the big issues of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit they had a few disagreements now and again, as they did with Paul over what, if any, Jewish traditions and laws should be applied to the Gentile believers. (Acts 15) He could have chosen only apostles with the personality of Peter or John or Paul or Thomas, etc.

Likewise in Revelation, Christ names and accepts — with commendations and rebukes — seven very different churches. Each church had a different circumstance, a different temptation, a different point of view. (Revelation 2 and 3) He did not insist that the church of Ephesus join with the church of Philadelphia or copy everything about that church – rather, He emphasized what was good and bad in each of them.

As another example, Paul speaks at length about the body of Christ, about how we can’t all be like the other guy, that each of us has gifts from the Spirit to perform certain functions in the body (I Corinthians 12).

And as Ray Stedman observed in “Adventuring through the Bible”, the Gospels themselves are all different — whereas they all declare Christ, they do so from different viewpoints. In the Gospel of Matthew, Christ is revealed as the King whereas in the Gospel of Mark, He is revealed as the servant. In the Gospel of Luke, Christ is revealed as the man whereas in the Gospel of John, He is revealed as God. All of these views are Truth.

I have often used, and assert again, the metaphor of a diamond with seven facets. What we see depends on which facet we are facing at the moment, and thus we have some differences of opinion — one emphasizing this, another that — sometimes vigorously, sometimes in anger (sadly) — but it is still the same diamond and the same Light.

I also envision it like a great artist making a masterpiece. His palette has many colors which he uses to create contrasts, depth, and beauty to communicate a meaning beyond mere words. He wouldn’t mix all the colors on the palette into a single color — what could then be said?

We are not a pile of cookie cutter human beings. We are a masterpiece of His making. Thus, whereas I am sure there is only one true interpretation of Scripture with regard to Creation (and everything else) — our different views will all work together for His good purpose.

2ndreconmarine: As for the Bible, well, quite honestly, I believe the new testament is much more accurate than the old. There were more witnesses. It is much better supported by historical information. Frankly, the people involved were a lot more civilized.

I submit that even for the secular world, the faithfulness and antiquity of the Old Testament is evidenced by the carbon dating and verification of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I also submit that we cannot use modern “civility” standards to understand the Old Testament. God's anger burned against idolaters and primitive people (then and now) are earthy, simple-minded, brutal, self-serving and stiff-necked, looking for 'quick fixes'. Therefore, commands to love God absolutely and our neighbor unconditionally (upon which all the law and prophets “hang” – Matt 22) - fell on deaf ears. And yet we can see that message has been consistent – such as in the Ten Commandments and even such subtleties as the warning three times to never boil (seethe) a baby goat in its mothers milk.

As with the theme (Matthew 22) of loving God absolutely and our neighbor unconditionally, each segment of Scripture also has a theme which cannot be discerned by mortal diligence – only the Spirit can lead us into Truth (John 14-17, Romans 8, I Cor 2). In this we know that the Scriptures are authored by God – because as we read them, the words come alive within us.

The theme of Genesis 1 is that God brought order out of chaos.

Which brings me to my comments on the Science… Rather than take each item point by point (since I have gone on so long already LOL!) – I’d like to “sum up” my comments as follows:

Of the various ways to categorize cosmologies, the most relevant from a Spiritual point of view is the attitude of a particular theory with regard to a beginning.

Few cosmologies these days allow for an infinite past in our universe simply because the measurement of the CMB back in the 1960’s indicates the universe (space/time) is expanding and therefore it had a ‘real’ beginning. Einstein’s theory of relativity along with observations in astronomy suggested that the universe is expanding much to his chagrin. His belief in an infinite universe became a prejudice to his own thinking and thus Einstein proposed a ‘cosmological constant’ to avoid the consequences of his own theories. He later called his kluging of the numbers his greatest mistake.

Many other scientists were disturbed by the implication of a beginning and did some kluging of their own. In 1927, Georges Lemaître suggested that the expansion had stalled and resumed at various points due to gravity. At the time, Arthur Eddington was past his peak and already formulating ideas which seemed “kluged” to fit his own concept of the way things ought to be. For instance, he sought to unify quantum mechanics with relativity and gravity by what seemed to be a numerological analysis of fundamental constants. Also around the same time he disputed Subrahmanyan Chandrasehar’s model of gravitational collapse of stars/black holes suggesting that the collapse would be stopped. Of course, Chandrasehar was proven right and won a Nobel prize for this work.

And concerning cosmology, Eddington likewise resisted a beginning by stretching Lemaître’s theory to infinity. Both theories were disproven in the 1970’s by Vahe Petrosian who showed that a hesitating universe would confine galaxies and quasars to certain spatial limits which observations show have been exceeded. Moreover, further analysis shows that quasi-static periods over a trillion years would guarantee the formation of galaxies followed by a near immediate collapse of the universe to its original singularity.

Thus the past eternal models for a unique universe died. But the theological implications were not lost – because a beginning requires an uncaused cause, i.e. God.

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York, W.W. Norton, p. 116.

Even today, cosmologists struggle to propose theories which do not have a beginning. But to do this they turn to the possibility of multiverses and geometry (space/time) which must also be physically pre-existing and thus must also have a beginning. There are two basic types: chaotic inflation (Andre Linde) and ekpyrotic or cyclic universes (Steinhardt, Turok, Ovrut, et al).

Linde famously concludes that a universe can be created in a laboratory (chaotic inflation) with a hundred-thousandth of a gram of matter which would create a small chunk of vacuum (negative energy of the gravitational field) which would blow up to the galaxies we observe. It would however usually not be noticeable since the new universe would curve into itself making it about the size of an elementary particle. [Holt, Jim “The Big Lab Experiment” Slate May 19, 2004]

In sum, the Linde theory proposes that the Planck size region which expanded (quantum fluctuation) to our universe was merely a part of some larger pre-existing region of space/time. The presumption is that there would be no beginning of this process and no end thus allowing for an infinite past.

But of a truth the multiverse only moves the goalpost by regression to an undetermined beginning – not infinity - because the model requires the pre-existence of space/time itself which was likewise made. Physical causality is a fatal flaw to theories which rely on pre-existing geometries.

The ekpyrotic model suggests that this universe came about from the collision of 2 pre-existing three-dimensional branes in a space with an extra (fourth) hidden spatial dimension. Again, the snag is that the dimensions (geometry) must be pre-existing. There is also the presumption of pre-existing physical laws including causality itself.

The ekpyrotic model led to the cyclic universe model which suggests the universe (space) will expand and then crunch back and expand again but time marches on. It is considered a ‘weakness’ in the theory that there had to be a beginning of time.

The issue of a beginning is theology and philosophy as well as science since it leaves one wondering why there is something rather than nothing and how anything can emerge from nothing at all. Those questions remain regardless of cosmology.

In the theological sense, one may also wonder how God could exist in nothingness – timelessness and spacelessness. Here we can turn to mathematics to grasp a concept that might help: the number zero v null.

One could meditate about a line of all possible numbers. Zero would be at the center. Negative numbers would proceed in one direction –1, -2, -3 on to infinity. Positive numbers would proceed in the other direction 1, 2, 3 on to infinity. But if one were to reverse direction by decimal extensions counting from 1 and –1 towards zero, reducing by half (or any percentage less than 100) each time - the number would continually be smaller but the process would never arrive at zero.

The same may be said of decimal extensions in other scenarios (such as the extension of 1/3) but zero is unique because it serves as a placemarker, e.g. 201 means there are no tens. Not that “tens” don’t exist, but for this particular number there are no tens.

But null is much more than a placemarker – it is more like the zero we can identify but not approach. To use the 201 example, if we were to state 2_1 we would be saying that tens do not exist at all.

With regard to physical reality, null is infinite non-existence – empty, void. This is the context of a beginning, of Creation – not merely zero spatial and/or temporal dimensions but null itself – no physical laws, no physical constants, no causality, no energy/matter, no physical object or event. Consequently, no phenomenon, no mathematics, no logic, no reason, no qualia, no autonomy, no language, no universals.

Again, I emphasize that there is no physical causality in the void!!!

When everything else is removed, at null, “all that there is” is God Himself – thus the beginning and existence is an act of His will.

Jewish mystics use a Hebrew term for this state to describe God as creator: Ayn Sof. The term basically means “no-thing” - One without end from which all being emerges and into which all being dissolves.

In Athens, Paul used their own Greek philosophy/poetry to convey the meaning for Christians:

That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. – Acts 17:27-28

The void is not merely time without boundaries (infinity) - it is timelessness itself (eternity).

Rudiger Vaas in “Time before Time” put it this way:

Because we are able to assign a symbol to represent ‘infinity’ and manipulate such a symbol according to specific rules, one might assume that corresponding infinite entities (e.g. particles or universes) exist. But the actual (i.e. realized in contrast to potential or conceptual) physical (in contrast to mathematical) infinite has been criticized vehemently being not constructible, implying contradictions, etc. (cf. Hilbert 1964, p. 136-151, Spitzer 2000, Ellis & Kirchner 2004, ch 5). If this were correct it should also apply to an infinite past.

We can observe supernovae and can use spectroscopy to observe the new elements produced.

Cool. Explosions "create". Maybe the elements were present in the star that exploded, or in the adjecent planets, or...The only reason to believe that a inanimate supernova creates anything is to fit in with "proven" physical principals.

A popular analogy is baking a loaf of raisin bread. The raisons are galaxies and the bread is space. The bread itself expands carrying the raisons with it. The raisons do not move through the dough.

as bad as the ballon analogy. Both have a center, and some raisins are moving away from others at higher rate, because there is a moment to the bread, and a center.

Why do you believe you are a Christian? Do you have a Biblical reason?That requires a much longer and more detailed answer, and is somewhat more personal.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God

Romans 6:23 The wages of sin is death...

Hebrews 9:27 ...it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this, the judgement.

Revelation 20:14-15 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the SECOND death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

So what, may I ask, is Sin. First it is breaking the 10 commandments given to Moses. Ignore everything else, and we all have broken most if not all of those 10. Also, consider 2 Peter 3:3-6.

What can man do to avoid the second death? How does he get his name written the 'book of life'?

The further back you go in the Bible (i.e. earlier), the less litteral I believe it to be...The kinds of "ordinances" needed by very primitive people. My "favorite" is Ex 21:22 "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so theat there is a miscarriage..." Pretty rough stuff.No more rough than today! Consider the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (link http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/23/unborn.rights.ap/)

Why would one believe ancient man was stupid, and ae have gradually gotten smarter as a species? (Hint:evolutionary thought) Consider the pyramids, built before Moses came out of Egypt by most chronologies. Ignorant, indeed!

A Christian is one who believes in the substitutionary atonement of the death of Christ, and his subsequent resurrection. It is a human who has been 'born again', one who has their name 'written in heaven'. Belief in God is NOT enough. The 9/11 terrorist believed in God - they refused his Son! James declared "Thou believest their is one God, thou doest well. the devils also believe, and tremble."

All this is to say, either the Bible is completely correct, or it is worthless! If it missed the creation and flood accounts, it misses the original sin, the condition of man, the judgement to come, the deity of Christ, and so forth.

Seriously question where you fall. I did once 19 years ago, and found I was believing in a lie - EVOLUTION! My entire thinking was blurred by it as a premise. God's greatest gift is not intelligence, it is Salvation through his Son, Jesus Christ, recuing us from the penalty of our own sin and rebellion. I also believe free will trumps intelligence. Having existence/life probably beats it, too.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.