First of all there is no before or after in God. One of the implications of this is that even though God willed the universe “always” (a chronological word that helps us understand these things even though there is no time in God), the effect of its existence was not always a reality. In other words, within the scope of God’s will there falls both the existence of something and the time of its existence.

Second, God brought into existence both the universe and time together. Additionally, the universe exists in a particular place. However, we need to keep in mind that with God and His heaven, there is no time and place. God has access to all times and places in the temporal universe.

Third, because there is no time or place before God created the universe, it is not a proper question to ask why the universe was produced “now” and not “before.” This is the wrong question to ask because there can be no “before” in relationship to the universe coming into existence. Remember time and space came into existence with the universe. The proper question to ask is why it was not always produced or why was it brought into existence after not existing.

A fourth thing to consider is that God does nothing out of necessity. If God does anything it is only done voluntarily—meaning that He willfully decides to do something out of His free choice. Nor can anyone claim that God does anything to improve His situation or make Himself better. God is perfectly fulfilled, content and happy within Himself. He is the happiest being that exists. Therefore, if God does anything it is because He does it freely for His own sake.

Finally, to answer the question why was the universe not always produced we can say a few things. One is that the universe coming into existence shows us that God is completely and utterly transcendent over all of His creation. Because the creation and creatures have not always existed shows our amazing dependence upon God. It also reinforces the fact that God is not chained to His creation in a cause and effect relationship. He did not have to cause anything. Thirdly, it shows that God willfully chose to create the universe, to create you and to create me. That’s awesome! It, therefore, proves that God must have a will and must be intelligent. See, even the creation declares His “eternal power and divine nature” (Romans 1:20).

The Apostle Paul makes the claim in Romans 2:15 that the “requirements of the law (of God) are written on (our) hearts” and our consciences. Basically I think Paul was contending that the essential truths of God’s law are actually inscribed on our nature; are based in the reality of the way things are; are the same for all humans; and is a means by which humans can guide themselves to live lives that are good for them, good for their relationships and actually please God. The term for these inscribed requirements is the Natural Law.

If this is true, what are those things that all humans have inscribed on their nature and how do we come to know these things?

The Precepts of the Natural Law

A number of very wise people have thought long and hard about the essential precepts of the natural law and chief among them is my good buddy, Thomas Aquinas. However, I would like to recommend two excellent modern books written for the average person. One is J. Budziszewski’s “What We Can’t Not Know”, Spence Publishing Company, Dallas, 2003. Dr. Budziszewski is the head of the philosophy department at the University of Texas, Austin. He is also a dedicated Christian. The second book is “Legislating Morality : Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible?” by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. Dr. Geisler is a noted Christian theologian, author and apologist.

When reflecting on the first requirement of the natural law, Thomas Aquinas stated:

“Consequently the first principle of practical reason is one founded on the notion of good, viz. that ‘good is that which all things seek after.’ Hence this is the first precept of law, that ‘good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.’ All other precepts of the natural law are based upon this…” (Summa I-II, Q. 94, Art. 2)

What Aquinas is saying here is that all things in nature seek their own good. A flower seeks the sunlight; your dog seeks food, water and to be petted; and humans seek to stay alive and maximize their lifestyle (live as well as possible). Based on this natural desire to seek one’s good; Aquinas states that the first requirement of the natural law is that every person should both do good and also pursue what is good and then avoid evil. The simplest way to state this is, “Do good and avoid evil.” All the other precepts of the natural law flow from this basic requirement.

The requirement to do good and avoid evil gives rise to the other primary precepts of the natural law. These are stated by Aquinas to be:

“…there is in man an inclination to good, according to the nature of his reason, which nature is proper to him: thus man has a natural inclination to know the truth about God, and to live in society: and in this respect, whatever pertains to this inclination belongs to the natural law; for instance, to shun ignorance, to avoid offending those among whom one has to live, and other such things regarding the above inclination.” (Summa I-II, Q. 94, Art. 2)

If we were to summarize this statement it might look like this:

● To know the truth about God.
● To live in society and…
◊Shun ignorance.
◊To avoid offending those we live with.
◊To avoid doing other things that damage society.

A subset of the last precept about damaging society includes the education of children, and the stability of family life, and the demands of hospitality. In short, Aquinas and other wise people have made the case that all men everywhere have these things inscribed on our nature because they describe what it means for humans to live well.

How We Know the Precepts of Natural Law?

Geisler and Turek make a very insightful argument in their book “Legislating Morality” about how we can be sure that humans actually know these things. Before I mention it, I should also bring to our attention that humans are masters of rationalization. In fact, there are whole systems of philosophy based on the idea that it is impossible for anyone to know anything for certain. There are relativists and postmodernists, and deconstructionists, and certain materialists that all deny that the natural law exists. So, how do we know for sure that these “inscribed” precepts actually exist? Well, Geisler and Turek make the case that it is not our rationalizations and not our actions that declare that we are aware of God’s innately implanted requirements. Humans can talk a good game. Rather, according to Geisler and Turek it is our reactions that betray our knowledge of the natural law. One can easily see this on any play yard in America. What you’ll see are kids happily taking toys from other kids or joyfully smashing the playthings of others to pieces. This is common faire. However, the second some bigger kid takes the offending child’s toys away from him/her, what will you hear—yes, you’ll hear the time honored cry, “That’s not fair!” Of course, it was completely fair for the first child to steal and smash the toys of others (their actions). It only became unfair when his/her toys got taken, and then they cried bloody murder (their reaction). Have you ever heard of jailhouse justice? It has been noted by criminologists that hardened criminals have an extremely fine-tuned sense of right and wrong—that is, any right not given to them or wrong done to them. They feel free to rip off others, but, boy you had better not cross them. Oh, and by the way, you have the same finely-tuned sense of YOUR rights and when people do YOU wrong. That’s the natural law. The key is to extend those requirements you demand from others to them.

The Apostle Paul says some pretty interesting things in his powerful work the Epistle to the Romans. For instance he states:

[18] The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, [19] since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. [20] for since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)

It is clear that Paul recognized that man can offer no excuses to God about His existence nor can man deny what God is like because nature tells us these things very plainly. Then Paul takes this a step further when he writes in the second chapter:

[14] (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even thought they do not have the law, [15] since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, there consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts no accusing now even defending them.) (Romans 2: 14-15)

Paul makes the case that men have God’s law written on their very hearts and consciences; consequently, they cannot excuse themselves and say that they do not know God’s law or that they don’t believe in such a thing as moral absolutes. Okay, you say, how is God’s law “written on” the heart? Well, one possible answer is that God’s law describes the way man was designed to work. God’s law is like an “owner’s manual” for an automobile—it designates the specifications and standards for the car so that it says in top running order. If one fails to follow the owner’s manual, the auto tends to fall into disrepair and can eventually have serious, if not disastrous, problems. Let’s take a look at an example.

Jesus indicated that the second most important commandment of God’s law is to love others as one loves oneself—mutual love. How is this written on our nature? How is this like a specification for the proper functioning of the human species? Here is how.

● Man is the most social of all earthly creatures. Aristotle said “man is naturally a social animal” (Politics, I, 2 [1253a 2]). We can see this from how vulnerable a human is as a baby up to its teen years and by the fact that man is exceptionally frail compared to other brute and carnivorous animals. However, because of man’s extremely social nature, in a group, humans become the most dominate of species.
● Because men need other humans to aid them in order to live—imagine how long humans would last if they never associated in groups or families—it is obvious that human nature intends for men to help each other.
● Mutual aid is best given and received in an atmosphere of mutual love—watch Survivor and then watch The Biggest Loser.
● Despite all of the Hollywood portrayals of dog-eat-dog survivalist “The Day After” scenarios, in real crisis situations humans tend to be incredibly helpful and even self-sacrificing (Flight 93). In these situations it is “as if every man were naturally the familiar and friend of every man” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, VIII, 1).

For all of these reasons we can see that mutual love is prescribed for men by the divine law of God and it is written on our hearts. However, this does not mean that men live up to this divine law that is inscribed on our nature. It just means that it is inescapably embedded in our flesh.

Obviously there are many differences between Christianity and Islam including such fundamental things as their different views of the Godhead, Holy Scriptures, religious practice and the status of women. However, there are two hidden issues that cause Islam and Christianity to be nearly like oil and water and these issues go back to antiquity. These two issues do much to explain why the two societies that these great religions have spawned are so vastly different.

Faith and Reason

Few Christians, Muslims or Jews, unless they are medieval historians know that for a period of about 100 years the three great monotheistic religions were intellectually and philosophically interdependent. The three greatest philosophers of these three religions lived nearly contemporaneously in the medieval era and shared ideas and insights. They were Averroes for Islam, Maimonedes for Judaism, and Thomas Aquinas for Christianity. All three wrestled mightily with how to deal with Aristotle’s powerful philosophical insights. The deepest issue was how to come to grips with the application of human reason in relationship to faith. The story is much more detailed than what I am about to write; however, in very simple terms, the work of Averroes was ultimately forcefully rejected, Maimonedes was initially rejected then later venerated, and Aquinas was made a saint for helping Christendom cherish its faith while allowing a place for human reason. These simple facts go a long way to explain the rise of science, universal education, medicine and technology in the West while Islam has virtually rejected these things in favor of religion at odds with human reason. Objective historians note that there is a clear intellectual line leading directly from Aquinas to the flowering of Western scientific, political and technological advancement. Because of Aquinas, it is possible to be a dedicated Christian, scientist and consumer of all kinds of technological goods.

Separation of Church and State

Jesus stood before an audience of Jews that included Zealots and announced, with a coin in hand, that one can “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s.” This was the beginning of the first real trans-national world religion. No longer did a religion need to be united to the political body of a country. Certainly, it took centuries for this concept to be worked out in the crucible of history but we know it today as the separation of church and state. In fact, most modern Christians strongly oppose the idea of a state church because they know that Christianity thrives best free from the politics and financial support of a government. However, this is definitely not true in Islam. In fact, Islam cannot be separated from the politics of a country without doing violence to its fundamental objective which is to bring all aspects of human existence (including how one uses the toilet) under Islamic law (Sharia). Dr. Ja`far Sheikh Idris explains this in his article “Separation Of Church And State” on Islam.com.

“Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides us through every detail of running the state and our lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the law of Allah.”

Opinion

In my opinion, Islam’s inability to balance faith and reason and its demand that every secular state come under the control of Sharia law explains why Islamic countries are so desperately poor and so restrictive of human freedom. On the other hand, Christianity’s validation of both faith and reason coupled with its willingness to disengage itself from the political state has helped to create a dynamically prosperous and unusually free culture. Of course, this prosperity and freedom are often abused and morphed into crass materialism and licentiousness. However, it is in these two stark differences—reason and Sharia-- that we find the cause of so much tension between Islam and Christianity.

For those of you who are not aware of this, you need to know that there are two states called California. One is a blue state (the Bay Area and Los Angeles) and the other is a red state (the rest of the California). I live in the heart of red state California and we have “attitude.” We are traditionalist, suburban, multi-racial, religious, conservative and highly competitive with the blue state California—particularly in sports. We want to dominate the fancy-pants Southern California and Bay Area mega-sports machines; and, surprisingly we often do. We also have an attitude about our intellectual status which is characterized by the LA Times and SF Chronicle as backwater and bumpkin. One of our rising stars is Victor Davis Hanson out of lowly Selma, California. Dr. Hanson is now a Fellow with the Hoover Institute at Stanford, University, but he was professor of classics at California State University, Fresno for a number of years. Hanson also writes a nationally syndicated column and appears frequently in National Review. C-SPAN recently devoted a full three-hour segment to Dr. Hanson exploring the broad range of his ideas and insights. What I am leading to is the clash between Islam and Christianity. Dr. Hanson writes frequently on this issue.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union a number of books were published postulating reasons for why the West (Western Civilization) had won the titanic struggle of the Cold War. Some of us are old enough to remember that during the Cold War most of the cultural and intellectual elite had predicted the West would crumble and disappear because the winds of time were at the back of the Communist system. What a shock, it turned out to be exactly the opposite. Well, these books can be broadly categorized into three groups. One group promulgates the idea the West won because of environmental reasons (it cannot be because of any superior quality or values in our culture). This, of course, is the favorite of the cultural elite and is spearheaded by the much celebrated Jared Diamond out of UCLA (look for his PBS special). A second category that is extremely unpopular and reviled is a group of authors that contend that genetics are the reason the West won. Michael Levin of City University of New York is a leading proponent of this school. Needless to say he is not invited to speak on many university campuses. The third group are those authors that contend that cultural reasons are at the center of the West’s superiority. In this third group is where we find Dr. Hanson and others like the brilliant black economist Thomas Sowell and Samuel Huntington of Harvard University. It is in this final group that you find those who say that Christianity is formative for both the development and continuation of Western Civilization. It is also this group that can be found sounding the alarm regarding the mighty clash between Islam and Christianity.

Back in the mid-90s Samuel Huntington in his benchmark book “Clash of Civilizations”, drew our attention to how a 1,400 year old clash between the two great proselytizing religions of Islam and Christianity was resurfacing with a vengeance. He also predicted that this clash would not go away and it might provide the side-benefit of reawakening Europe to its Christianity. If you have not read this book, whether you agree with Dr. Huntington or not, it is a “must-read” for anyone who claims to be informed.

As an anecdote, I have relatives in the Netherlands that are very worried about the lack of assimilation of the huge numbers of Muslims that have immigrated to the land of the windmill. Interestingly, my first cousin in the Netherlands who shares my name as gotten much more involved in his church in the last ten years.

What am I saying? I am drawing your attention to the big picture. The biblical God is the God of history (Acts 17:24-28). It has been said that you cannot understand history without God, nor can you understand God without history. God is doing something big in relationship to Islam and Christianity. As Bob Dylan used to sing, the times they are a changin’. Look for Europe to re-embrace Christianity or go the way of the Dodo bird. Look for the cultural elite to carp and complain and roadblock every step of the way into a very dangerous future. Look for Christians in the United States to gradually awaken from their somnambular state of lukewarm belief. Yes, the times they are a changin’.