Skip to content

Einstein and God: It doesn’t take a genius

EinsteinOver the past few years I repeatedly run into to arguments between Theists and atheists over Einstein’s belief in God, as if it makes any difference to anyone but him. The atheist view is that Einstein’s use of the label “God” (as in “God does not play dice with the universe.”) simply referred to whatever mechanism originated the universe and/or holds it together.  A quote often cited is, “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings” (in response to Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein’s question about Einstein’s beliefs).

Einstein actually said a number of things about God, some of which seem to conflict others. It’s not that surprising, as we all have thoughts about things—even about God—that change over time.

A couple of things are pretty certain: He was never a Christian (he was Jewish by birth), and he was not an atheist. At times he referred to himself as agnostic, meaning that he didn’t claim to know. He did, however, at least believe at one point that there was an intelligence behind the universe:

I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist.

We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written these books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.

– Albert Einstein (Time Magazine Interview, cited in Einstein and Religion,
Max Jammer [Princeton: 1999] p. 48.)

Personally, I don’t think it takes a genius to come to this conclusion. Without God revealing himself in more specific ways (Heb. 1:1-2), this is about all we can know. But, as the writer of Hebrews states, we do have more specific revelation (thank God). It doesn’t take a genius to recognize this—but it does take wisdom (He who has ears to hear, let him hear).

(Thanks to The Poached Egg for this quote)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Print
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter

Written on 08 September 2011 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with No Comments

The Slavery Issue: Did Paul support slavery?

Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.  For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.  (1 Cor. 7:20-24 NIV)

While I have never met a Christian who taught or believed (to my knowledge, anyway) that the Bible supported slavery, this is a common point of contention for many anti-Christian folks who claim that Christianity is an evil religion for supporting slavery.

Certainly there are those Christians in the past who used this passage to justify slavery, such as in the American South. This is, of course, unfortunate, to say the least—especially since this seems to be based on a mistranslation of the Greek, combined with another of Augustine’s heresies.

I recently read a paper by S. Scott Bartchy of the UCLA Dept. of History that builds a pretty good case for the position that the Greek word translated as “situation” or “condition” had no such meaning until Martin Luther mistranslated it into German. According to Bartchy and others he mentions, the word’s only meaning is “calling,” in the context of being called by God.  Bartchy claims that Luther’s mistranslation was intentional, to defend against a popular notion that God’s call meant a call to become a monk or priest (which is how Luther ended up a monk—he was studying to e a lawyer). Luther wanted to reinforce that we can be called to serve in whatever our current occupation happens to be.

While the context certainly seems consistent with Luther’s alleged mistranslation, Paul clearly encourages slaves to become free if given the opportunity, consistent with “owe no many anything.” Bartchy believes that rather than supporting slavery, Paul is making the point that you don’t have to become anything else in order to accept God’s call. You don’t have to become free, although it’s a good thing if you can obtain your freedom in a non-rebellious manner. You can be a good Christian slave (consider the impact Joseph had in Egypt); so accept God’s call, even though your circumstances aren’t ideal:

24. To be sure, Paul along with almost all of his contemporaries apparently did not imagine that slavery as such could be eliminated from his world. Nevertheless, Paul did not want any enslaved persons who had become Christ-followers to think that their legal-social status could influence negatively their relationship to God or their warm welcome into the “body of Christ.” The key question was: who did they think they were? It is a question of their primary identity. For Paul, being “in Christ” trumps all other definers.

Bartchy also points out that while Paul didn’t support slavery, Augustine did:

26. Augustine explained that God instituted slavery as punishment for the offense of Adam‟s original sin. In sharp contrast, Paul never connected this institution either with the will of God as punishment for sin…or with the orders of creation.

Augustine’s thoughts on slavery are, again, unfortunate, as are the consequences of Luther’s translation error, especially since so few people think for themselves—including, it seems, Bible translators.

Of course, I am not an expert in NT Greek, and I haven’t researched this issue. Bartchy could be stark, raving mad, for all I know.  If he’s correct, that at least removes one more excuse for people to write off Christianity.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Print
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter

Written on 05 September 2011 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Theological Musings with 1 Comment

Adam, Eve, and original sin (Augustine’s heresy)

Most western Christians don’t realize that our understanding of man’s state of sinfulness — sometimes using terms like “total depravity” and “original sin” — is largely the invention of Augustine of Hippo, and that the majority of the Church at that time rejected his ideas.  The Eastern churches still do.

The doctrine of Original Sin, by the way, is more than just believing that man is born with a tendency toward sin. It is also that man inherited the guilt of Adam — something the Bible doesn’t teach. This is why some believe that babies are born guilty, so if they die before they are baptized, they won’t make it into Heaven.

Personally, I think it’s enough to be guilty of my own sin.

Those of you who have followed this blog for any period of time might recall that I have in the past discussed various issues with what is known as the Penal Theory of the Atonement, which also arises from Augustine’s thinking. I’ve never claimed to be an expert on the subject, and I haven’t come to any final conclusions, except that the concept of the Father taking his anger out on Jesus because he needed someone to punish seems quite out of character. Also, I’ve raised issues with the Augustinian / Calvinist notion of Total Depravity, which also seems contrary to Jesus’ attitudes toward people.

Other Issues

Augustinian theology causes other problems, too, as discussed in the following video by an Orthodox Priest out of Canada. He brings out a number of very interesting points that I think Protestants should at least consider, such as the impact on the Church’s response to science and how Augustinian theology relates to violence.   In fact, the Orthodox view seems to resolve a number of the issues often raised by atheists.

I think the video is worth 15 minutes of your time.

If you do watch it, I’d really be interested in your responses.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Print
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter

Written on 02 September 2011 by me under Exploring the Twain, Faith, Science & Doubt with 8 Comments

The “Jesus-plus” Gospel

I don’t know who Kevin DeYoung is, or why I’ve run across him so many times in recent weeks. He blogs at a place called “The Gospel Coalition,” and the masthead identifies him as “DeYoung, restless and reformed.” However, he appears to be preaching what the Apostle Paul referred to as “another gospel, which is no gospel at all” (Gal 1:6-7).

In his current post, “Gospel-driven effort,” he writes

Last week I wrote a piece about the role of effort in the Christian life. It was born out of concern that in our passion for glorying in the indicatives of the gospel (something I have gladly advocated many times) that we are in danger of giving short shrift to the necessity of obeying biblical imperatives. My worry is that we are afraid to exhort each other, as Scripture does, to strive, fight, mortify, vivify, and make every effort for godliness.

He goes on to explain that this post responds in part to that of Tullian Tchividjian, which I wrote about a couple of weeks ago.  His was a marvelous essay on the power of grace to transform us.

The Jesus-plus “gospel”

DeYoung, however, doesn’t seem to trust either grace or the Holy Spirit, at least not completely. He quotes Martin Lloyd-Jones:

The New Testament calls upon us to take action; it does not tell us that the work of sanctification is going to be done for us. . . .We are in the ‘good fight of faith’, and we have to do the fighting. But, thank God, we are enabled to do it; for the moment we believe, and are justified by faith, and are born again of the Spirit of God, we have the ability. So the New Testament method of sanctification is to remind us of that; and having reminded us of it, it says, ‘Now then, go and do it’. (178, emphasis mine)

Remember the gospel indicatives. Then give full throat to the gospel imperatives.

If we have any doubt as to what DeYoung is meaning, he concludes with,

We all need God’s grace to believe what is true and do what is right. We died to sin in the death of Christ. Now we must put to death the deeds of the flesh.

Notice how the emphasis shifts from being saved by grace (Jesus-plus-nothing) to  “now we must” (Jesus-plus-human effort).  As Paul said, “Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?” (Gal 3:3).

Much ado about something

Am I making too much of this?  Is a little bit of human effort added to the gospel not anything to worry about?

This “little bit of human effort” thing is insidious; pastors can still preach what seems to be grace, but as Paul indicates in Galatians, to add just a little bit of anything to the pure Gospel of Christ is to lose it completely. And, Paul was not talking about justification; no one in Galatia was questioning salvation by grace alone. Paul was specifically talking about the teaching that something must be added to grace in order to live the Christian life. Circumcision. Eating Kosher. Just a little bit of striving.

It’s all Jesus, or it’s nothing.

Piper, too.

Justin Taylor (who also writes at The Gospel Coalition and who became famous by being the first to rip Rob Bell to shreds) quotes John Piper about being “more than conquerors:”

You must not be separated from the love of Jesus Christ. The aim of the attacker is to destroy you, and cut you off from Christ, and bring you to final ruin without God. You are a conqueror if you defeat this aim and remain in the love of Christ. God has promised that this will happen. Trusting this, we risk.

Notice the emphasis here. You must not.  If you defeat and remain. God has promised what? I think Piper needs to read Romans 8 again—Paul clearly states that we are more than conquerors through Christ, and that we can never be separated from the love of Christ. Not through our effort, but because of the unfailing love of Christ.

The Gospel Uncensored

There is an alternate gospel being preached, and it’s still quite popular. It’s also evil.  It’s robbing people of grace and freedom as they are conned into striving for something that has already been given them.

Do we have to strive?  As Jesus said, “The work of God is to believe in the one he has sent” (John 6:29). And as Tullian Tchividjian said,

Christian growth does not happen by working hard to get something you don’t have. Rather, Christian growth happens by working hard to daily swim in the reality of what you do have. Believing again and again the gospel of God’s free, justifying grace everyday is the hard work we’re called to.

I strive, not to become holy or sanctified, but to proclaim the good news that is the gospel. This is why Ken and I wrote The Gospel Uncensored. In the book, I quoted from Martin Luther’s introduction to his Galatians Commentary:

The devil, our adversary, who continually seeks to devour us, is not dead; likewise our flesh and old man is yet alive. Besides this, all kinds of temptations vex and oppress us on every side. So this doctrine can never be taught, urged, and repeated enough. If this doctrine is lost, then is also the whole knowledge of the truth, life and salvation lost. If this doctrine flourishes, then all good things flourish.

I have nothing against Piper, Taylor, or DeYoung personally; I’m sure they are nice folks, and sincere. However, I think they are sincerely wrong about what they are teaching. As I mentioned above, it seems that the root of this teaching is a lack of faith in the power of Christ to transform lives; that grace and the Holy Spirit aren’t quite up to the job.

I think they are.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Print
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter

Written on 14 June 2011 by me under Good News, The Gospel Uncensored with 8 Comments

Bart Ehrman on the certainty of Jesus

I have picked on Bart Ehrman, the atheist’s favorite Bible scholar, a few times on this blog (and even more elsewhere). If you aren’t familiar with him, he has written a handful of books in the last few years talking about all of the errors in the New Testament and claiming some of the books are forgeries.

However, it turns out that Ehrman actually does believe a few things. I ran across an interesting post today discussing a book by Mike Licona, in he what he calls the “historical bedrock”—three facts about Jesus and early Christianity which are accepted by virtually all liberal and conservative scholars alike.

As it turns out, Ehrman believes these things too.

They are:

1. Jesus’ death by crucifixion

2. Very Shortly after Jesus’ death, the disciples had experiences that led them to believe and proclaim that Jesus had been resurrected and had appeared to them.

3. Within a few years after Jesus death, Paul converted after a personal experience that he interpreted as a post resurrection appearance of Jesus to him.

The article goes on to give supporting quotes from Ehrman on these three points.

These aren’t a bad start—he could turn into a preacher yet.

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Print
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter

Written on 08 June 2011 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 1 Comment

Whatever became of sin?

In 1973 Dr. Karl Menninger wrote a little book with the provocative title, Whatever Became of Sin?, in which he questioned the disappearance of right and wrong from psychiatry. It was a good question in 1973, and it’s a good question today.

Coincidentally, after I had begun to write this post, I ran across this from Michael Hyatt:

In recent years, I have noticed an increasing tendency for people to admit to mistakes rather than sins. It happens at every level, whether someone is caught cheating on their spouse, filing false insurance claims, or shoplifting from a clothing store.

Today, also coincidentally, we have Rep. Anthony Weiner’s confession of mistakes. I won’t go into details, Weiner already being the butt of too many weiner jokes. The point is, he didn’t confess to anything really sinful; he merely made a mistake.

The problem with mistakes

Mistakes are unfortunate situations, like forgetting to wear pants when you take a picture of yourself, or accidentally tweeting the photo to some girl who is not the one you are married to. Oops!

Mistakes could even be your fault—but mistakes don’t make you a sinner, they only make you a mistaker. Which is fine, until you find that you need forgiveness.

Jesus didn’t come to take away the mistakes of the world.

 

I couldn’t resist.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Print
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter

Written on 06 June 2011 by me under Politics/Current Events, Spiritual stuff with No Comments

Cross theology (vs everything else)

Martin Luther wrote about what he saw were the two predominant theologies that existed, the theology of glory and the theology of the cross. At the risk of over-simplification, the theology of glory includes the belief that our own works contribute to either our salvation (as in our determination to repent) or our sanctification; that we can work our way “from glory to glory.”

The theology of the Cross keeps people coming back to the finished work of Christ for everything.

There’s an interesting group of folks who call themselves “Resurgence,” who are dedicating to bringing the gospel back into evangelicalism. Most of them seem to be Calvinists, but they are really into Martin Luther. (I think some of them like to think Luther was really a Calvinist, but he wasn’t.)  They have an interesting website, if you can get past the extra-large print and graphics they use. I don’t really know what they are thinking… but that’s beside the point.

In looking at Luther’s 1518 Disputation, Matt Johnson writes a nice little post entitled Why your failures are a blessing.  It’s worth reading. Of note is the following quote from another interesting blog called Mockingbird:

“Theologians of the Cross take great comfort in the thought that, when they are suffering, encountering difficulties of every kind, it is not a sign of God’s abandonment or displeasure, but is, in fact, a mark of His presence and work in our lives…Of course, the problem is, none of us actually believes this…” – via R-J HEIJMEN at Mockingbird

In case you don’t go read the whole post, here’s Matt’s conclusion:

The cross shows us that we are powerless in our ideas of self-salvation. The cross also reminds us that God’s purposes are accomplished even amidst suffering. And sometimes, especially in suffering. Knowing this may not help us feel better when things are going poorly or always give us clarity when bad things happen. But what we do know is this: God deals with sin once and for all at the cross.

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Print
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter

Written on 04 June 2011 by me under Good News with 1 Comment

Abba does not mean “daddy,” okay?

Justified cringing

Being raised in a formal, liturgical church, I’ve always been uncomfortable with the current fad of calling God “Daddy.” In fact, I cringe every time I hear it.

I used to think this was my own issue, but as it turns out, I have been right to cringe because “abba” does not mean “daddy!” I cringed because I always cringe when adults talk baby-talk.

The abba-daddy myth

As Steve Caruso explains, the abba-daddy myth began in the early 1900′s when one guy you’ve never heard of suggested the “daddy” meaning. He didn’t base his thinking on real scholarship, but based on a hunch about how children learn language (which was wrong, incidentally). He (Joachim Jeremias) also admitted that “abba” was an Aramaic term of respect for older, wise men.

Somehow, someone who thought this analysis fit their own privatized, experiential version of Christianity started spreading the myth around, and now it’s believed by millions of people who are led to believe they must share this gushy kind of sentimentality or be emotionally challenged.

It’s okay to refer to God as “Our Father.” As Paul wrote, “When I was a child, I spoke like a child…” (1 Cor 13:11).

I don’t know how long I can go on cringing—the next time I hear someone refer to God as “daddy,” I may scream.  Just so you know.

 


Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Print
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter

Written on 03 June 2011 by me under My Own Personal Religion, Random Thoughts with 7 Comments

Tullian Tchividjian rethinks spiritual growth

Rethinking spiritual growth

Tullian Tchividjian is Billy Graham’s grandson, and pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (founded by the late James Kennedy). A couple of years ago, he discovered that the Gospel is not just for justification. In his article (reprinted from his own blog) Rethinking Spiritual Growth, he discusses “what it means to ‘work out our salvation with fear and trembling.’” He writes,

In his 2008 movie The Happening, writer, producer, and director M. Night Shyamalan unfolds a freaky plot about a mysterious, invisible toxin that causes anyone exposed to it to commit suicide. One of the first signs that the unaware victim has breathed in this self-destructing toxin is that they begin walking backwards—signaling that every natural instinct to go on living and to fight for survival has been reversed. The victim’s default survival mechanism is turned upside down.

This, in a sense, is what needs to happen to us when it comes to the way we think about progress in the Christian life. When breathed in, the radical, unconditional, free grace of God reverses every natural instinct regarding what it means to spiritually “survive and thrive.” Only the “toxin” of God’s grace can reverse the way we typically think about Christian growth.

The counter-intuitive, external Gospel

As I’ve said before, we need to be constantly evangelizing each other, to counter our natural inclinations to be performance-driven. The Gospel is counter-intuitive, which is one reason why we can rely on it. It is so counter-intuitive that men were not likely to have invented it. It does not arise naturally from within us; it needs to come at us externally.

Humans are created to work; it’s one way we gain our self-esteem. However, it is not how we get saved, healed, better, free, or more holy. At least, not by work in the sense we usually think of it.

Tchividjian continues,

Christian growth does not happen by working hard to get something you don’t have. Rather, Christian growth happens by working hard to daily swim in the reality of what you do have. Believing again and again the gospel of God’s free, justifying grace everyday is the hard work we’re called to.

In John chapter 6, the disciples asked Jesus about the work that he talked about. Here’s the exchange:

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” (NIV)

The hard work of Christianity is to contend for the Gospel—to continuously preach to ourselves and to each other the counter-intuitive truth that, to quote myself, “only grace leads to freedom.” Any other work leads to bondage.

Shameless plug

This is a great place to tell you about my book, co-authored with Dr. Ken Blue (Healing Spiritual Abuse). The Gospel Uncensored: How Only Grace Leads to Freedom, which has been described as “a primer on grace.” We examine grace not only as it applies to salvation/justification, but how it is also the key to living the Christian life. Buy it today—you’ll be glad you did. Seriously.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Print
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter

Written on 02 June 2011 by me under Good News, The Gospel Uncensored with No Comments

The Importance of the External Word

Steve Martin (not the banjo-playing comedian) published a thought-provoking blog post today, discussing how important the external Word of God is to faith, as opposed to placing our faith in our own emotions and thoughts. An excerpt:

Lot’s of Christians speak of the grace of God. “He is our all in all.” He has done it all.” “There is nothing we can add.” That is a good thing.  But there is nothing for many of these Christians to grab hold of. Their beliefs inhabit the nebulous territories of heart and mind. Yes, we believe them. But now what? How can we be SURE that they are true, and real, IN OUR LIVES, at this moment?

It seems that because of the kind of creature that we are, a tactile, tangible, experiential being, our faith must land somewhere. The rubber must meet the road,  somewhere, somehow.

If there’s nothing to grab a hold of that is tangible, that comes to us from outside of ourselves, then we will internalize this desire for solid proof. We will rely on our emotions, our deeds, our thoughts, our knowledge, even our own faith. Welcome to ‘religion’ in the 21st century. Look familiar? It ought to. It’s no different than the religion that humans have practiced for as long as they have been around. It hides behind the pious words and works of those who have no assurance of their salvation, other than what they are able to muster up of their own volition. Then you end up with holiness churches where people are movin’ on up.

But the external Word, which includes the Sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion, are different. They do not eminate from inside of ourselves and are not dependent on anything that comes from our side of the equation. They are real events that happen in real places with real earthly elements in real time. And the action in these events is not our action, but God’s. His Word is attached to them. Otherwise they just remain earthly elements. And these actions of God are apprehended by the very gift of faith that God also gives to us, in these Sacraments and in the hearing of His Word.

Now we have something that we can HOLD onto. Something that has been given to us with NO strings attached. Something that is REAL…and NOT subject to the winds that blow in and out of our often weak frames, hearts and minds.

We often forget that Christianity is an incarnational faith; that is, it relies on the belief that the “word became flesh” and that Jesus turned real water into real wine and used real mud to heal real eyes. He was baptized with real water, told the disciples to remember him through drinking real wine and eating real bread, and had his real body executed and resurrected.

With regard to his teaching, he said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear,” not “look into your heart to find the truth.” And, yet we want to spiritualize our faith today, making it dependent upon our own understanding and feelings. No wonder so many fall into doubt and despair.

As Proverbs 3:5 says, “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.”

How positively archaic.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Print
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter

Written on 01 June 2011 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 1 Comment