One of the most influential theologians in the latter half of the 20th century, Wolfhart Pannenberg, has died. I sat down with Pannenberg a decade or so ago to talk about his life and thought. For the first time in print, here's my full-length interview with him.

We live in a world characterized by a degree of randomness. Scientists speculate that randomness occurs at the quantum, genetic, and environmental levels of existence. But I’ve been wondering lately, What does this mean for theology?

Theologians and philosophers are especially interested in the fundamental nature of law-like regularity in our world. I’ve been thinking lately about how we might best think of God’s relationship to these so-called “laws of nature.”

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.

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.

In my previous essay, I argued that the Bible supports the notion that God initially creates from something. It doesn't support creatio ex nihilo. Now I want to address two poor reasons some Christians have affirmed creatio ex nihilo.