A Reply to Gregory Bock James S. Spiegel Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Taylor University I want to thank Gregory Bock for his critical response to my JBTS article “‘It’s the Wrath of God’: Reflections on Inferring Divine Punishment.”[1] In my article I pose the question whether it is ever reasonable to infer that a particular contemporary state of affairs is a case of divine wrath. In addressing this question I review several cases of divine wrath reported by the biblical writers, including the worldwide flood (Gen. 6), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19), the Egyptian plagues (Exod. 12), the Korah rebellion (Num. 16), and Ananias and Sapphira (Acts. 5). In light of such cases, I discuss potential criteria for inferring the occurrence of divine wrath. The conditions I propose include: (1) the occurrence of a miracle in conjunction with the event in question, (2) extraordinary coincidences associated with the event, and (3) the association of the event with a fulfilled bold prediction. Read the full article: A Reply to Gregory Bock [1] James S. Spiegel, “‘It’s the Wrath of God’: Reflections on Inferring Divine Punishment,” Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies 4:2 (2019): 301-16. Share this on:…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

The Trouble with Inferring Divine Punishment: A Response to James S. Spiegel Gregory L. Bock Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Religion The University of Texas at Tyler In a recent JBTS article, “‘It’s the Wrath of God’: Reflections on Inferring Divine Punishment,” James S. Spiegel considers whether we can be justified in believing that events in our lives and the lives of others are instances of divine punishment.[1] His stated aim is to answer the skeptical thesis – “the view that all assertions of divine wrath since biblical times are speculative at best and perhaps even irresponsible.”[2] In other words, he argues that an event’s being in the Bible is not a necessary condition for concluding that it is an instance of divine punishment. He proposes three sufficient conditions that justify ascriptions of divine wrath. The conditions are as follows: the occurrence of a miracle; extraordinary coincidence; or fulfilled bold prediction.[3] He admits that applying these conditions will not produce the same level of confidence we have in identifying cases of divine punishment in Scripture, and he stresses that we must be cautious lest we slander God by ascribing to him intentions he does not have. I interpret Spiegel’s emphasis…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

JBTS 6.2 Herman Bavinck (1854-1921): A Centenary Celebration The Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies (hereafter, JBTS) is a broadly evangelical, interdenominational journal committed to publishing current scholarship across biblical and theological disciplines. Biblical and theological themes have been the focus of every issue to date. Within biblical studies, examples include the Israelite Monarchy and Pauline Studies, and within theological studies, examples include Christianity and the Philosophy of Science and the Catholicity of the Church. This iteration, JBTS 6.2, marks the first volume dedicated exclusively to a Christian theologian and scholar. This shift in focus prompts at least two questions: why dedicate a volume to a singular figure, and why focus upon Herman Bavinck? To find out read JBTS 6.2: JBTS 6.2 Herman Bavinck (1854-1921): A Centenary Celebration (Full Issue) Introduction to Herman Bavinck (1854-1921): A Centenary Celebration by N. Gray Sutanto and Justin McLendon Herman Bavinck on Antirevolutionary Politics by George Harinck Planting Tulips in the Rainforest: Herman and Johan Bavinck on Christianity in East and West by James Eglinton Encyclopedia Bavinck: The Case of the History of the Theological Encyclopedia by Greg Parker Jesus the Law Restorer: Law and the Imitation of Christ in Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Ethics by Jess Joustra Bavinck’s Doctrine of God: Absolute, Divine Personality by Gayle Doornbos Dogmatics: A Progressive…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

“It’s the Wrath of God”: Reflections on Inferring Divine Punishment James S. Spiegel James S. Spiegel is Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Taylor University Abstract: If God still exercises wrath today, is it possible to identify instances of this? If so, then what sorts of criteria might one use to assess whether a particular event is a case of divine wrath? In addressing these questions, I distinguish between direct and indirect divine wrath as well as between special and natural divine wrath. I propose three potential corroborating factors for inferring the occurrence of special divine wrath: (1) the occurrence of a miracle in conjunction with the event in question, (2) extraordinary coincidences associated with the event, and (3) the event occurrence constituting the fulfillment of a bold prediction. Along the way, I use numerous biblical cases of divine wrath to guide the discussion and provide standards for elucidating the distinctions and corroborating criteria I propose. Key Words: Divine wrath, miracle, redemption, revelation, skepticism Share this on: FacebookTwitterLinkedin

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

The Final Word: Prisoners of Our Own Device Steve Donaldson Steve Donaldson, Ph.D., is Professor of Computer Science and Senior Fellow in the Center for Science and Religion at Samford University. Abstract: Over-confidence in a set of beliefs is frequently buttressed by a binary mentality and, strangely for Christians, a microscopic view of God. Such misplaced assurance can quickly lead to a fixed outlook that assumes an aura of irrefutable permanence. That humans gravitate toward rigid ways of thinking is unremarkable, but it is especially surprising how many educated individuals seem trapped in a perpetually decaying orbit about their pet theories and theologies. For scientists, theologians, and philosophers purportedly engaged in a search for truth, this is a particularly troubling state of affairs and is the root of much unnecessary conflict at the interface of the disciplines. Key Words: binary fallacy, size of God, interdisciplinarity, freedom, constraint, philosophy of science, Christianity Share this on: FacebookTwitterLinkedin

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

Paleoevil, Theodicy, and Models of Earth History Kurt P. Wise Kurt Wise earned a Ph.D. in paleontology and is Professor of Natural Science and Director of the Brady Center for Creation Research at Truett Mcconnel University in Cleveland, Georgia Abstract: The total amount of natural evil includes natural evil in the present world plus the natural evil of the past—including ‘paleoevil’, the natural evil inferred from the geologic record. ‘Baseline paleoevil’—paleoevil directly inferred from the geological record—is considerably greater than the natural evil observed in the present. Beyond phenomena of the present that cause suffering—such as disease, parasitism, carnivory, degenerative aging, accidental injury, death, extinction, floods, droughts, storms, tsunamis, mudflows, and avalanches—the geologic column also evidences giant meteorite impacts, supervolcanoes, and superquakes. Because the geologic column is an incomplete sample of earth history, the actual amount of paleoevil is an amplification of baseline paleoevil. How much the baseline paleoevil is amplified is dependent upon one’s view of earth history. A minimal amplification is necessary if the earth is young; an amplification by at least five orders of magnitude is required if the earth is old. Even greater amplification is required if organisms arose by biological evolution. Augustine’s theodicy dominated most…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

Divine Action and the World of Science: What Cosmology and Quantum Physics Teach Us about the Role of Providence in Nature Bruce L. Gordon Bruce L. Gordon is Associate Professor of the History and Philosophy of Science at Houston Baptist University and a Senior Fellow of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture Abstract: Modern science has revealed a world far more exotic and wonder-provoking than our wildest imaginings could have anticipated. It is the purpose of this essay to introduce the reader to the empirical discoveries and scientific concepts that limn our understanding of how reality is structured and interconnected—from the incomprehensibly large to the inconceivably small—and to draw out the metaphysical implications of this picture. What is unveiled is a universe in which Mind plays an indispensable role: from the uncanny life-giving precision inscribed in its initial conditions, mathematical regularities, and natural constants in the distant past, to its material insubstantiality and absolute dependence on transcendent causation for causal closure and phenomenological coherence in the present, the reality we inhabit is one in which divine action is before all things, in all things, and constitutes the very basis on which all things hold together (Colossians 1:17). Share this…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

Responding to Perceived Theological Implications of Evolutionary Creation J. B. Stump J. B. Stump is Senior Editor at BioLogos and Visiting Scholar at the University of Notre Dame Abstract: In this article I will respond to several common arguments against the position known increasingly as evolutionary creation. I consider an argument that evolution undermines the gospel itself, and other reductio ad absurdum arguments about human uniqueness, divine action, and the problem of evil. These are not technical arguments from academic literature as much as more popularly held views that I encounter regularly in churches and other places speaking to lay audiences about evolution and the Christian faith. Here I attempt to lay out the logic of these arguments (which is often more felt than articulated) and show where they can reasonably be opposed. Key Words: evolutionary creation, theistic evolution, evolution, sin, human uniqueness, divine action, miracles, problem of evil Share this on: FacebookTwitterLinkedin

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

The “Conflict Thesis” of Science and Religion: a Nexus of Philosophy of Science, Metaphysics, and Philosophy of Religion R. Clinton Ohlers R. Clinton Ohlers (PhD, University of Pennsylvania) is a Residential Fellow with the Creation Project at the Henry Center for Theological Understanding, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. This research was made possible by the Henry Resident Fellowship program, funded by the Templeton Religion Trust. Abstract: The idea of inevitable and perpetual conflict between science and religion is known among historians as the “conflict thesis.” It exploded in popularity in the late nineteenth century with the rise of the Victorian scientific naturalists to positions of leadership in prominent scientific institutions. A common misperception exists concerning the two authors most central to the widespread dissemination and lasting popularity of the conflict thesis: John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. This misperception assumes that because Draper and White pitted science and religion at odds, they were not themselves theologically engaged. On the contrary, Draper and White held very specific theological views and championed them in their written works. Like others at the time, they shaped their theology to conform to their vision of science, a vision articulated by scientific naturalism, with its commitments…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

Christian Theology of Creation and the Metaphysical Foundations of Science Joshua M. Moritz Joshua Moritz is an adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of San Francisco, Lecturer of Philosophical Theology and Natural Sciences at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, and Academic Editor of the journal Theology and Science. Abstract: Recent scholarship within the history and philosophy of science has shown that in both the past and the present, specifically Judeo-Christian theological assumptions about the value, the intelligibility, the regularity, and the character of the cosmos have provided foundational assumptions for certain key scientists and scientific discoveries. This article investigates the nature of the interaction between science and Christian theology by exploring the role that metaphysical presuppositions and theological concepts have played—and continue to play—within the scientific process. I will examine the role of Christian theological thought within both the general philosophical presuppositions that undergird the whole scientific enterprise and within particular presuppositions that were present during pivotal episodes of scientific discovery. I will show how Christian theology has both implicitly and explicitly influenced (and still influences) the ethical values, aesthetic principles, philosophical commitments, metaphysical presuppositions, and motivations underlying the modern scientific project. Because such non-empirical shaping principles are…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin