Latest Blog Entries

My friend, Ian Barbour, died recently. He was 90 years old. Widely considered a groundbreaking giant in the science-and-religion dialogue, Ian was especially kind to me. I consider him the godfather of contemporary science and religion scholarship.

In Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace, Keith Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall elucidate Arminius’s theological perspectives.  I commend them for this much-needed explanation of Arminius’s own theology. But the book left me unsatisfied.

Although some Christians have heard of the great Dutch theologian, Jacob Arminius, few know much about him. Two new books aim to change this.

Recently, the Church of the Nazarene reexamined its view of the Bible. A study committee recommended that the denomination retain its current doctrine of scripture and reject strict inerrancy.

For the past decade or more, I have been thinking about the love, science, and theology interface. The questions about how these three major domains relate to one another are complex. And they require complex but understandable answers.

I just finished a wonderfully accessible and clear book on God's activity in the world. It was written from an advocate of Thomas Aquinas's theology, and it addresses recent scientific theory and scholarship. I'll be recommending that serious scholars of science and theology read this book... even though I strongly disagree with its proposals!

A recent survey indicates that pastors are beginning to change their views on evolution and creation. And I think that’s a good thing!

Alvin Plantinga is an excellent philosopher and someone I admire greatly. His new book, Where the Conflict Really Lies, offers great arguments and insights. But when it comes to the relationship between science, God’s action, and creaturely freedom, Plantinga’s proposals disappoint.

In previous blog essays, I’ve offered reasons why Christians should reject the idea God creates from nothing. I’ve also hinted at an alternative doctrine of creation that embraces the positive elements of creatio ex nihilo but is not susceptible to the negative elements. It’s finally time to offer the basics of my alternative: creatio ex creation en amore (God always creates out of creation in love).

In previous blogs, I’ve argued that the Bible doesn’t support creation out of nothing. I’ve shown that Gnostics originally proffered this view, because they thought the world was inherently evil. And I’ve argued that the view of God’s power implied in creatio ex nihilo makes the problem of evil unsolvable. Despite all this, some people still affirm creatio ex nihilo, and they’ve got some pretty good reasons for doing so.