Creationism and the End of the Dinosaurs

Excellent book on divine simplicity

Here are the details of a new book on the doctrine of divine simplicity. It is excellent (I have read it twice and will almost certainly read it a third time).

All it lacks is a discussion of the Trinity and the author is currently writing on that issue.

Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God's Absoluteness
By James E. Dolezal

978-1-61097-658-9

Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011

The doctrine of divine simplicity has long played a crucial role in Western Christianity's understanding of God. It claimed that by denying that God is composed of parts Christians are able to account for his absolute self-sufficiency and his ultimate sufficiency as the absolute Creator of the world. If God were a composite being then something other than the Godhead itself would be required to explain or account for God. If this were the case then God would not be most absolute and would not be able to adequately know or account for himself without reference to something other than himself. This book develops these arguments by examining the implications of divine simplicity for God's existence, attributes, knowledge, and will. Along the way there is extensive interaction with older writers, such as Thomas Aquinas and the Reformed scholastics, as well as more recent philosophers and theologians. An attempt is made to answer some of the currently popular criticisms of divine simplicity and to reassert the vital importance of continuing to confess that God is without parts, even in the modern philosophical-theological milieu.

"Dr. James Dolezal's treatment of divine simplicity, which provides a defense of this doctrine in perhaps its strongest form, is a first-rate piece of work . . . [It] is the best full-length philosophical treatment of divine simplicity that I know."
-Paul Helm
Teaching Fellow
Regent College, Vancouver

"James E. Dolezal has authored a philosophically rigorous and theologically thorough defense of divine simplicity, and he has done so for positive reasons. For Dolezal, the whole rationale for defending the simplicity of God is to assure that we actually come to know, though not fully comprehend, God as he truly is—the God of reason and revelation, the God of the Christian philosophical and theological tradition. Dolezal has made a very admirable and extremely significant contribution to the discussion of God's simplicity."
-Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM, Cap.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Newsflash: God is timeless . . . I think

OK. This won't strike many of you as very exciting but it's exciting for me. Since about 1986 I have been dithering on the issue of whether God is timeless or everlasting (temporal but without beginning and end).

At first I was a convinced Open Theist (before that kind of terminology was being used by anyone). So I thought that God was everlasting but within time. I also thought that he did not know the future completely because it was not there to know.

I fairly quickly abandoned a full-blooded open theism and came to affirm total divine foreknowledge but was agnostic on the issue of divine timelessness and related doctrines.

Ever since then I have remained agnostic. I always had a soft spot for classical theism but . . . well, you know.

Anyway, after twenty-five years of pondering and being agnostic I think that I have finally come down on the timeless side of the discussion.

Worse than that — I am very sympathetic to that most neglected and despised of all classical Christian doctrines, divine simplicity. That is to say that God is not composed of parts but is an indivisible unity. His essence and his existence are one and the same (and are identical with his attributes). Still not quite convinced on this one (it is a notoriously difficult doctrine that many philosophers claim is incoherent) but the doctrine holds strong appeal.

In the end it came down to reading more and more patristic and medieval theology and finding the vision of God that dominated the tradition resonated.

Still unsure on matters of human freewill (compatibilism or libertarianism or . . . what?). I don't really mind which is true (I don't think that divine timelessness rules out libertarian views of freewill, though I am aware that some would disagree) but I would like to know what is right.

Not sure why I am bothering to blog this but classical theism sure is fun.

Conor Cunningham on "Did Darwin Kill God?" (BBC)

This is good.

Did Plato Reject the Material World?

I regularly read about the evils of "Platonic dualism" with its claimed rejection of materiality and particularity. But is this reading of Plato fair?

Arguably, for Plato the material world participates in the world of the Forms and the transcendant realm thus invests the particular with value and meaning.

As Catherine Pickstock notes,

As well as demonstrating that Plato did not wish to drive a wedge between form and appearance, the strongly positive view of methexis (participation) in Phaedrus frees him from the charge of otherworldliness and total withdrawal from physicality, for the philosophic ascent does not result in a “loss” of love for particular beautiful things, since the particular participates in Beauty itself. Thus the philosopher is synonymous with the lover of beauty, as also with one of a musical or loving nature (248d). Although, as Socrates acknowledges, the philosopher separates himself from human interests, turning his attention toward the divine, and is often thought to be insane, it is precisely within the physical world that he recognizes a likeness to the realities, and then is “stricken with amazement and cannot control himself” (241a).

Catherine Pickstock, After Writing, 14.

Perhaps we need a revival of Christian Platonism.

Divine action and quantum theory

Similarly, we should avoid the idea of quantum indeterminacy being the privileged place for divine intervention. This idea fails to correctly distinguish between physical and theological categories, and so is unsatisfying as much for the scientist as it is for the believer. Trying to fit divine action into the gaps in the scientific description clearly shows a confusion of primary and secondary causes: God is not an additional causal factor alongside the entities that populate the world. His action is therefore not in competition with the established natural order; it is manifested just as much in his providential sustaining as it is by a miracle, should one occur. Looking for "gaps" in the picture which science gives us, and invoking God to explain them, is more deistic than theistic: a solid understanding of creation allows us to reject any kind of idea of a “God of the gaps.”

Lydia Jaeger, What the Heavens Declare: Science in the Light of Creation (Eugene, OR: Cascade, forthcoming)

This is an extract from a forthcoming book by a very gifted scholar (a theologian, philosopher, and scientist fluent in several languages) called Lydia Jaeger. It is a very thought provoking set of reflections on the idea of laws of nature in connection with the theological concept of creation. Well worth a read, whatever you think of her basic thesis.

The quote above is more of an aside than the centre of a discussion but it does address a proposal from some (e.g., Keith Ward) that we can locate divine action at the quantum level.

Puritan Thought for the Day

"Is it thus, O my soul? hath the Lord Christ indeed discovered his will, to thee for his Spouse? What, he that is so holy, to marry such an impure wretch as thou art? O how should this but melt-thee into a flame of love?. . . O my soul, henceforth cling to thy Savior, go out of thy self, and creep to him, and affect not onely union, but very unity with him; bathe thy self hereafter again and again, many and many a time in those delicious intimacies of thy Spiritual marriage."

—Isaac Ambrose (1657)

Jesus v. Religion

Here is the original video that got everyone talking:


Here is a response:


It all hangs on how we use the word "religion." For the first guy "religion" = mere concern with outward appearance and not about relationship with God or heart-motivated holy living.

Of course, if that is what "religion" means then obviously Jesus hates it. On that definition then the first guy is right.

And he does make a lot of good points about the importance of inward religion and how Jesus hates hypocrisy.

But I am worried.

The first guy turns Jesus' critique of hypocrisy and double-standard religion into a general critique of "religion."

Jesus was not against institutional religion any more than the prophets in ancient Israel were. Criticizing abuses from within is not the same as rejecting everything. Do remember that Jesus was a torah-obedient Jew (albeit at the liberal end of the interpretation of the torah)! He celebrated religious festivals, took part in religious rituals, and followed religious laws.

The problem is that guy 1 defines "religion" as "mere appearance" (making the word into a negative word) and then simply applies that negative definition to anything that has seen itself as "religion" (i.e., against the institutional church).

Jesus is against hypocritical religion; he is against mere outward religion; and he is against heart-less religion.

He is not, however, against religion nor even against outward behaviour and religious rituals. He is for godly religion.

The church will ever need its prophets to offer critique from within (so I value a lot of what guy 1 says) but this critique has moved beyond its limits as a reasonable and valid critique into a over-fast dismissal of institutional Christianity based on a caricature of it.

Nevertheless, rather than rejecting it as mere rhetoric I think we can filter it and reappropriate it as a helpful critique from a Christian of some problems within churches.

Driscoll on Hell and a Manly God

Here is a part of Mark Driscoll's now infamous interview with Justin Brierly on Premier Radio. They were in the process of discussing women in church leadership.

The whole final section of the interview was not Mark Driscoll's finest hour. Most of the online discussion since has been on his macho view of men and women and his insight into modern British preachers (i.e., there are no courageous young preachers in Britain — they are all cowards: girly men not manly men). I won't comment on those issues (though I could!)

The following little comment did surprise me a little:

Driscoll: Do you believe in a conscious literal eternal torment of hell?

Brierley: What has that got to do with the issue of women in leadership, if you don’t mind me asking?

Driscoll: It does. It depends on your view of God. Is God like a mom who just embraces everyone? Or is he like a father who also protects, and defends, and disciplines? If you won’t answer the question, I think I know the answer.

Mark Driscoll has a manly God not a girly God. Apparently, if one thinks of God in "masculine" ways (as opposed to pink and girly ways) then you must believe in eternal, conscious torment.

I beg your pardon!

If tormenting people forever and ever is a "masculine" way to behave then I am very concerned for what Driscoll thinks it is for "men to be men." It sounds like being masculine is about being a violent brute!

But perhaps that's not fair. Driscoll goes on to explain that the reason why a manly God torments sinners forever is that he is a "father who also protects, and defends, and disciplines." Now I am much more sympathetic to "masculine" understood in these ways.

Oh . . . hold on . . . now I'm confused.

God torments sinners in hell because he is protecting them? eh?
Defending them? huh?
Disciplining them? urm? Disciplining them . . . forever . . . with no chance to improve? How is this discipline?

I think — I hope — that Mark Driscoll has not thought this through clearly and that it was simply an offhand remark; that he put the phone down and thought, "Man! Why did I say that dumb stuff!"

As a theological argument it is vacuous. If Mark would prefer that in more manly terms: it's utter bollocks!

Defending Constantine

I love subversive, revisionist histories so I am very excited to read Peter Leithart's book Defending Constantine. I have always been inclined towards the view that Contantine's "conversion" was a bad move for Christianity. It seems to be pretty much standard that modern Christians have to reject Constantine and his effect on the church. The story is usually told as a Fall narrative — where everything went wrong. So, I followed the crowd because life is short and I don't have time to research the history myself.

However, I have also felt that I am very much working with caricatures of history and that the truth is a lot more murkey. So I was very excited to see a book coming out and taking the opposite view. I picked up a copy and am reading it at the moment.

I am also currently reading Leithart's book on Athanasias and that is excellent. The guy knows what he is talking about. So I am looking to have my caricatures about Constantine challenged and for a bit more grey and a bit less black and white. Not sure where I'll end up on this one but I'm looking forward to the adventure.

Naming the Trinity (Soulen's big idea)

I am currently reading Kendall Soulen's new book The Divine Name(s) and the Holy Trinity. It is, in my view, a very important theological book that will be much discussed for some years to come.

The whole book focuses on a single issue and proposes an answer by means of a single, simple idea.

The issue is this: how should we name God, the Holy Trinity?

Soulen proposes that there is not one but three "most appropriate" patterns for naming the Trinity; and each of those patterns of naming correspond to one of the three persons of the Trinity.

Pattern 1: the theological pattern. This is associated with the first person of the Trinity. It focuses on the divine name of God — YHWH. Soulen does a magnificent job of putting the divine name YHWH back at the centre of Christian theology. He convincingly shows that it is not only the OT revelation of God but also the NT revelation that is dominated by this name.

The first person is the mysterious one whose name this is. He is also the one who bestows this "name above every name" upon the second person. The third person brings about the recognition of and glorification of this name.

Pattern 2: the christological pattern. This is the pattern of naming that most people are most familiar with. This pattern is primarily associated with the second person of the Trinity and the focus is on divine presence. The key pattern of naming is that of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Pattern 3: The pneumatological pattern: This pattern is most associated with the third person of the Trinity and is associated with the theme of divine blessing. Here a vast multiplicity of names flow, even those not found in Scripture. For instance, Augustine's famous "Lover, Beloved, Spirit of Love" pattern for naming the Trinity is, according to Soulen, legitimate following the third pattern of naming.

Soulen maintains that all three patterns of naming the persons are equally important and "most appropriate" — Christians need to keep all three in balance in their theology and spirituality.

There is a lot to say about this book — and I need to ponder it for a while before I draw firm conclusions — but I simply wanted to flag up its key point. I think that Soulen is one of the more interesting theologians working today and this book reinforces my regard for him.

I have to say that part 1 of the book, which offers a historical journey through naming the Trinity in Christian theology, is absolutely fascinating. His analysis is very thought provoking.

Vol. 2 will consider how this new paradigm allows some contemporary trinitarian debates to be navigated (e.g., debates on the use of masculine language for God) and also the issue of its relevance to discussions about the immanent Trinity (vol. 1 is focused on the economic Trinity). I can't wait for it!

Barth on prayer and theology

“The first and basic act of theological work is prayer . . . But theological work does not merely begin with prayer and is not merely accompanied by it; in its totality it is peculiar and characteristic of theology that it can be performed only in the act of prayer.”

Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology, 160.

Second Edition of "The Evangelical Universalist" (2012)

I have been asked to prepare a second edition of The Evangelical Universalist. It'll be out in late 2012.

For those of you interested in what I am thinking of adding, here you go:

1. A new (and quite long) preface explaining some of the stuff that I could not explain in the first edition because of my anonymity. Also talking about some of the developments in my thinking since I wrote the book.

2. A study guide (at the publisher's request)

3. An appendix with my take on Rob Bell's book (at the publisher's request)

4. An appendix (fairly long) with my responses to the best criticisms I have found to the first edition

5. A Scripture index

(6. Perhaps something on the Trinity and universalism)

I do have quite strict limits on how much I am allowed to add so I can't do everything.

If I have missed something obvious please do let me know.

A question for Jonathan Edwards

I am currently reading Jonathan Edwards' sermons on the parable of the sower (currently unpublished but forthcoming from Cascade). They are mostly very good — very challenging!

However, there are aspects of the sermons that I am not comfortable with.

For instance,

Thorns are an useless growth of the earth; so are carnal affections and cares the useless produce of the heart. They bring forth no fruit, either to the glory of God or to their own benefit. Those that are under the power of a worldly spirit, are an useless kind of persons; they are barren trees in God’s vineyard, mere cumberers of the ground; they live to no purpose; they don’t answer the end of their creation. God can have his glory of such persons no other way but in their destruction. (Italics mine.)

Really? No other way? How about redemption?

Interesting that JE says that they "don't answer the end of their creation." In other words, they are not fulfilling the purpose for which God created human beings. So why not enable them to fulfill those purposes. God can do that, right? Answer: Yes.

New Getty Christmas CD

It's really good. I've got it. Recommended.

Beautiful and Subtle Animation

Reading the Bible Again . . . for the First Time

Here is Matthew 25:14–30 put into a more modern setting by Brian Logan of The Church of the Servant King in Eugene. He adds that this is in a pretty rough state and he's happy to receive any suggestions for improvement. But I think it is very interesting. It certainly made me think.

A Transposition:

25:14 "For it is as if a mafia boss, going back to the old country,
summoned his henchmen and entrusted his crime syndicate to them;

25:15 to Joey, he gave the meth, heroin, and prostitution businesses,
to Anton the extortion & protection racket, to Pauli his loan shark
business, to each according to his ability. Then he went off to Italy.

25:16 Joey, the one who had received the meth, heroin, and
prostitution businesses sent off at once his dealers and pimps, and
made 1.5 million dollars.

25:17 In the same way, Anton, the one who had the extortion &
protection rackets made a half mil.

25:18 But Pauli, the one who had received the loan shark business was
afraid to break any legs and so, loaned out no money and holed up with
his brother, Louie.

25:19 After a nice, long vacation in Sicily, the mob boss came to
settle up with his henchmen.

25:20 Then Joey, the one who had received the meth, heroin, and
prostitution businesses came forward, bringing two suitcases full of
dough, saying, 'Tony, you handed over to me the meth, heroin, and
prostitution businesses; see, I have made you 1500 grand and some
change.'

25:21 The mob boss said to him, 'you've done well, good and
trustworthy paisan; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will
make you my right hand man; Come with me to Atlantic City for some
wine, women and song.'

25:22 And Anton, the one with the extortion and protection rackets
also came forward, saying, 'Boss, you handed over to me these two
businesses; see, I have made you 500 grand.'

25:23 The mob boss said to him, 'You've done good, as well. You have
been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of the
lower Eastside; And you, come with me to Atlantic City, as well

25:24 Then Pauli, the one who was given the loan shark business also
came forward, saying, 'Boss, I knew that you were a harsh man,
breaking legs and busting chops;

25:25 so I was afraid, and I went to my brother, Louie's, with the
cash and didn't spend a dime. Here's your 250 grand in full.'

25:26 But mob boss replied, 'You stupid idiot! You knew, did you, that
I bust chops and break legs?

25:27 Then you ought to have invested my money in an annuity with a
guaranteed return for these five years while I've been in Sicily, and
on my return I wouldn't only be holding these 250 g's, but 100 grand
in interest.

25:28 So take this loan shark business from him, and give it to Joey,
the one with the meth, heroin, and prostitution businesses.

25:29 For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will
have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they
have will be taken away.

25:30 As for this worthless idiot, he's not one of us; break his legs,
bust his chops and throw him into the river to drown.

Of course, you need to get the accent right. I can hear it in my head but I cannot get it to come out of my mouth.

Anyway, Brian's point is that first century readers would have seen the characters in Jesus' parable as unsavory types who exploit the vulnerable peasants rather than as positive characters. He is aiming to recapture that sense for us.

I have not looked into this parable myself so I am not committing myself to this take on it but it is certainly thought-provoking.

I wonder what you think.

Universalism in the USA

I have just been in the USA (West Coast) for a couple of weeks. I was in the Wipf and Stock offices in Eugene and then at ETS and AAR/SBL in San Francisco. It was exhausting but brilliant.

A few people have asked about some universalism stuff wot I was doing in the USA so here are my quick thoughts:

What struck me on this visit was how open (or, at least, non-hostile) many theologians appear to be towards evangelical universalism. I was not expecting as much of that as I found. Indeed, my impression from various conversations was that there is a lot of sympathy with the view even if many do not feel that they can go there yet. Even some pretty conservative theologians expressed real interest and cautious openness. And those that were against it were not calling me a heretic but simply mistaken.

I did a couple of filmed interviews on universalism (one for a documentary called Hellbound, due out in Dec 2012, and one for an online mini-doc for Christian student types). I was also on a panel discussion on universalism at ETS for over three hours. The topic under discussion was evangelicals and universalism. Here is what struck me — not a single person was aggressive or hostile. The disucssion, though not well attended, was all very gracious and a genuine and open discussion. It was ETS that instigated the discussion and invited me to participate. I thought that was brave and generous of them. My fellow panelists were superb.

One of the great delights was to have Edward Fudge there. He is such a lovely man and though he defends a view quite different from my own (his book, The Fire that Consumes, is the best defence of annihilationism) we get on like brothers in arms. He is a longtime hero of mine.

And, inevitably in the countless conversations I had the topic was brought up regularly (not usually by me) — clearly many people are thinking about it.

Of course, there are many who would resist any kinds of universalism and I don't mind that. But my impression was that there are many more open to the possibility of Christian universalism than was the case even ten years back. And that is not because Christians have gone all liberal but because the case has clear Christian theological merits. The reason that it is hard to kill universalism for good is that it arises from theological reflection on the gospel itself and so even when it is killed off temporarily it so easily rises again.

Anyway, I was not in the USA to do universalist stuff so these are reflections on stuff that happened on the side while I was there. The vast bulk of the time I was discussing book proposals with potential authors and hanging out with my wonderful colleagues at Wipf and Stock.

Hermeneutics cartoon

Yeah—My new Lamentations book is out!!!

After years in the pipeline the Parry-Thomas collaboration has come to fruitition. It is a book about Jewish and Christian use of Lamentations as Sacred Scripture. Here is the table of contents:

Introduction—Robin A. Parry and Heath A. Thomas /

1. “Holy Scripture” and Hermeneutics: Lamentations in Critical and Theological Reflection—Heath A. Thomas /

2. Outrageous Demonstrations of Grace: The Theology of Lamentations—Paul R. House /


Soundings in Jewish Reception History
A. Lamentations in Isaiah 40–55—Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer /
B. The Character and Significance of LXX Lamentations—Kevin J. Youngblood /
C. Targum Lamentations—Christian M. M. Brady /
D. Lamentations Rabbati—Jacob Neusner /
E. Introduction to Rashi’s Commentary on Lamentations—Mayer I. Gruber /
F. Lamentations in Jewish Liturgy—Elsie R. Stern / 09
G. Lamentations in Modern Jewish Thought—Zachary Braiterman /

Soundings in Messianic Jewish Reception History
H. Holocaust Theology in the Light of Yeshua? Messianic Jewish Reception of Eikah—Richard Harvey /

Soundings in Christian Reception History
I. Lamentations in the Patristic Period—Heath A. Thomas /
J. Christian Interpretation of Lamentations in the Middle Ages—David S. Hogg /
K. John Calvin’s Interpretation of Lamentations—Pete Wilcox /
L. Lamentations for the Lord: Great and Holy Friday in the Greek Orthodox Church—Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou / 15
M. Lamentations and Christian Worship—Andrew Cameron-Mowat SJ /

Soundings in Artistic and Contemporary Reception
N. Musical Responses to Lamentations—F. Jane Schopf /
O. Lamentations in Rembrandt van Rijn: “Jeremiah Lamenting the Destruction of Jerusalem”—Heath A. Thomas /
P. Psychological Approaches to Lamentations—Paul M. Joyce /
Q. Feminist Interpretation(s) of Lamentations—Heath A. Thomas /

3. Wrestling with Lamentations in Christian Worship—Robin A. Parry /

4. Confession and Complaint: Christian Pastoral Reflections on Lamentations—Ian Stackhouse /

Appendix 1. A Translation of LXX Lamentations—Kevin J. Youngblood /
Appendix 2. A Translation of Targum Lamentations—Christian M. M. Brady /
Appendix 3. Lamentations Rabbati on Lamentations 3:1–21—Jacob Neusner /
Appendix 4. Rashi on Lamentations 3:1–21 /
Appendix 5. Calvin on Lamentations 3:1–23 /

“The question mark in this title points to the fact that sadness, loss, and grief are now the order of the day in Western culture. For that
reason the book of Lamentations now draws great attention and energy among us. This book, with its long historical sweep of interpretations
and its broad ecumenical reach in rereading Lamentations, is sure to become a point of reference for our continuing response to the question. The question of the title requires endless, continuing engagement among us. These pages provide guides and models for continuing answering.”
—Walter Brueggemann, Columbia Theological Seminary

“The essays in Great is Thy Faithfulness? focus upon one question: How is Lamentations a word of God? Responses are deep, rich, and
many. They draw from interpretations, contemporary and ancient, Jewish and Christian, and from the arts, pastoral care, and liturgical usage. They reveal how Lamentations has been and can be embraced by believers. For pastors and classrooms, this book promises to stir up conversation, questions, and faith.”
—Kathleen M. O’Connor, Columbia Theological Seminary