Dr. David Allen: A Review of Dr. Tom Nettles on William Dembski's Theodicy by Peter Lumpkins

In the most recent issue of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary’s Southern Baptist Journal of Theology (13.4 2009), Professor Tom Nettles reviews The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World. Let’s just say Professor Nettles was entirely unimpressed with Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's Research Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Cultural Engagement, Dr. William Dembski and his attempt to contribute an original theodicy from an old earth perspective.  Indeed one might conclude Nettles took off his gloves and punched Dembski right in the theological nose.

Swinging a right cross, Nettles concludes:

Dembski now has developed his own way of handling the apparent historical narrative of creation, Fall, pre-flood development, and Flood. The old earth demanded by the naturalistic assumptions of contemporary astrophysics and geology must be honored and the ancient text must give way. Even if hidden in the verbal haze of intentional-semantic logic, Genesis 1 simply did not happen; even though the Bible presents it as having happened, Dembski says that it did not. His theodicy is necessary only because he has created a massive theological and exegetical difficulty by denying that the creation was ever “very good” (Gen 1:31) in chronological time and squeezing millions, if not billions, of years of suffering and death into the world prior to the curse pronounced in Genesis 3. Whereas Paul sees the creation “subjected to futility” and concurrent with human bondage until the redemption of the body (Rom 8:20-23), Dembski sees the subjection to futility as an act of creation” (p.84 emphasis mine)

Ouch! I'd say denying biblical revelation while enthroning naturalism is a serious blow, wouldn't you?

Do not think, however, Dr. Nettles’ review goes without reply.  Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary’s Dean of Theology, Dr. David Allen takes Southern’s Professor to the gym and spars toe to toe.  In fact, when Allen gets through demonstrating how Nettles completely botched the assumptions behind Dembski’s theodicy, Dr. Nettles appears winded, rubber-kneed, and probably now wishes he could take his review back.

Read Allen’s review (link below).  If for no other reason, read Allen’s review to see an example of how learned, skilled theologians--even theologians as skilled as Nettles--are, at times, susceptible to flawed interpretations and/or unwarranted conclusions concerning the writings of others. 

With that, I am…

Peter

READ DAVID ALLEN’S REVIEW @ BAPTISTTHEOLOGY,ORG 

 

Comments

[joe white]

Peter,

I am not sure how I feel about "speculative theology" in general. And, while a "retroactive" view of the fall is an interesting thought... I seem to side with Nettles in finding this view somewhat troubling.

Anyways, thanks for pointing me towards these reviews.

[peter]

Joe,

Thanks. I hear you and know even though I concede a role to 'speculative theology' it remains and must remain a cautious role.

The unstated assumptions operating in Dembski but lost in Nettles, Allen zeros in on like a careful scoping of a bullseye--Dembski's old-earth creationist model and Nettles' unflinching commitment to young-earth creationism. Hence, of course, Nettles finds no use for Dembski. However, Dembski is arguing from old-earth creationism, and, for old-earth creationists, there is a philosophical-theological objection Dembski is addressing; namely, since in old-earth creationist models, animal suffering theoretically precedes the human fall, is such a theoretical objection fatal to old-earth creationism? Some seem to think so.

It is therefore in this line of thinking that Dembski pursues his proposal. Indeed Dembski is offering an apologetic, a theodicy, a possible account of how God is both loving and good in old-earth creationism.

Hence, while 'speculative theology' has a proper role, specifically in the discipline of apologetics, it cannot rise to an authoritative, absolute account of what is, but only what could have been, and thereby defeating a theoretical objection.

Of course, as Allen shows, Dembski no where succumbs to such skewed hopes for his proposal making the ancient text bow to modern science. Dembski is a committed inerrantist and bows his braininess, "his" science, to God's Word.

On another note, Nettles' own brand of 'speculative theology' finds its apex in his dogmatic supra/infralapsarianistic form of rigid Calvinism. There's not only no explicit exposition of decretalism in Scripture, there's no implicit exposition either!

Grace, Joe.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Luke]

Peter,

What a thought provoking find.
1. If you want to critique, at least ask the person if you have understood them correctly.

2. Dembski proposes some interesting speculative thoughts that warrant more careful thought.

In particular, I think Dembski's work may have value when applied towards the concept of election. But I need to think on it more.

Never-the-less, young earther here who has benefited from reading the work of an old earther.

[peter]

Luke,

Thanks brother.

This exchange is highly interesting. Note Dr. Patterson wrote a preface to Dr. Allen's review piece whereby Patterson himself agrees with Nettles' young-earth creationism. Moreover, Allen is a young-earth creationist too. They are with Nettles so far as their working creationist model is concerned. For them, the objection Dembski addresses doesn't apply to young-earth creationists!

What both Patterson & Allen appear to observe from Nettles is, his thorough-going a priori dismissal toward a view non-consistent with his own presuppositions. In this sense, Allen points out Nettles' unfair reading of Dembski.

For me, two very significant lessons may be observed:

a) the most obvious is, if Nettles is so quick to read into the literary productions of others views they do not hold, what does that say about the way Nettles may read into Baptist history--even Christian history--his Calvinistic presuppositions? Indeed what does it say about the way he reads classic biblical texts? Does his Calvinistic presuppositions color the biblical revelation always the same decretal color?

b) what this exchange may say about SWBTS and Paige Patterson. Bloggers like Wade Burleson have for the last several years milked the absolute conformity cow dry, insisting anybody who does not agree with Paige Patterson in even the smallest detail is marked. However, Dr. Dembski is an old-earth creationist and Dr. Patterson is a young-earth creationist, with Dembski's present monograph demonstrating just how far apart the two positions are. Yet, in spite of the diversity, we see some very explicit unity portrayed here.

With that, I am...
Peter

[chadwick]

Crawford Toy's Theological meanderings (becoming too comfortable in his science/metaphysical jacket) caused him to embrace "Speculative Theology" as definite, and Definite Theology as speculative.

Is Dembski the ""Crawford Toy" of the 21st Century?

--chadwick

[peter]

CW

Hardly think so. Dembski rejects higher criticism's assault on the integrity of Scripture. Dembski rejects flat out evolutionary science in "macro" form as empirically demonstrable; Dembski explicitly affirms biblical authority under-girded by inspirational inerrancy.

Therefore, why the connection with Toy is as mysterious as Nettles' associating Dembski with Tillichian metaphysics.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Luke]

Peter,

And here I thought you were just posting this to help us understand the age of the earth. ;0

[peter]

Well, I was! But you know me. I'm as non-Calvinistic as they are Calvinistic! Call me a hyper-non-Calvinist ;^)

With that, I am...
Peter

[chadwick]

Peter:

For Dembski to hold to an 'old earth' view (millions of years old), mustn't he hold to evolution to some degree?

Also, do you not think that the idea that "the effects of the fall happened before the fall itself"is a bizarre one?

--chadwick

[chadwick]

Peter:

Also, Dembski's "Clarification" statement about his denial of a universal flood reminds me of John Kerry's infamous statement about the War: "Before I was against it, I was for it." Or in Dembski's case: "Before I believed the Scriptural Account of the Flood, I denied it!" . . . or "I had to believe in the universal flood so that Paige would let me keep my job!" :O

Dembski's vernacular shares the same tone as Elliot & Toy.

Dembski, is at best, a Theological version of John Kerry . . . just call him SWBTS's Flip-Flopper!

Cordially,
--chadwick

[peter]

CW

Fair questions for sure.

To the first I would have to say no, not necessarily. For example some biblical theologians have posited the so-called 'gap theory' through which they retain an 'old-earth' creation model (please note I'm not so sure the 'gap theory' is a viable proposition; instead, I'm simply suggesting old-earth creationism has advocates not wed to the evolutionary hypothesis).

Toward this trajectory, apparently Nettles has no use whatsoever. In fact, Allen charges Nettles comes across as if he's convinced only one creation model is possible--the young-earth creation model to which Nettles adheres and nothing else.

As for whether the idea is 'bizarre' I suppose it depends on the nuance you're giving to 'bizarre'. The word can mean all the way from freaky and foolish to unusual or original. If it is the former, I can't imagine why when we're speaking of metaphysics.

On the other hand, if it's unusual or original, I think that is Dembski's point: few old-earth creationists address straight-forward, the formidable theo-philosophical objection to their position. Dembski apparently desires to offer an original contribution to this pre-evangelism question (apologetics). At least that's how I understand what's going on here.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

CW,

I concede a scholar of Dembski's depth should have known better than to put in scholarly print an interpretation of a biblical passage not in the scope of his concern, without first thrashing out the textual grain.

Yet, there was a time when humility was a virtue. Why it must be that we assign the darkest politic, self-interested motives to a person who admits without qualification his or her blaring oversight may say more about us than them.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Bart Barber]

Peter,

I see in your 11:35 am comment that you and I made the same observation about how Dr. Patterson's role in this review puts the lie to those silly statements that he requires absolute conformity to his views in order to gain his support (or even to avoid his ire!). Great minds think alike, and apparently so do ours. ;-)

I do not yet know what I think of Dembski's book, having not yet read it. Both of the reviews mentioned in your post will, of course, be in the back of my mind as I finish reading the original that sparked this discussion.

One interesting thing comes to mind for me: The concept of the retroactive Fall, which I don't see myself embracing anytime soon, would seem to be much more palatable from a theological vantage point of secret decrees made in the mind of God before the foundation of the earth by which God foreordained a Fall than it would be in other systems of theology.

In any event, Dembski has done something rare in theological studies—he has given us something of a genuinely new set of ideas to consider. So many theologies we can quickly recognize as old heresies gussied up in new clothing and set aside. Dembski's book is going to require careful thought.

[Rick]

Peter,

Nettles' misreading stems from his unwillingness to yield to the argument's assumption of an old earth. Dembski: "Assuming a green sky, rainbows would look like this..." Nettles: "You idiot, the sky's not green..."

Regarding non-calvinism, I wish we could identify a strong, positive term to define this position so we were not always semantically on the defensive. We not only oppose some ideas. We favor others. Let's make them describe their "non-lumpkinsism."

[peter]

Bart,

Be careful, my brother. To even suggest one's self thinks as do I could be the kiss of death to one's fortune and fame in the blogging community...;^)

Rick,

No sir: your green/blue sky Dembski-is-an-idiot illustration does not work...

As for finding a new term for non-Calvinism, be my guest.

Personally, it's pretty doggone humorous to me as I observe rigid Calvinists lecture non-Calvinists on holding to a theological label which inherently communicates what their position is *not* rather than what their position *is*.

Why? Ever read a book on Calvinism by Calvinists which begins with the assumption everybody knows what Calvinism *is*?...No?... Well, you probably won't either. All the Big Boy Reformed start their books by telling their readers what Calvinism doesn't mean.

Given such a world of confusion, non-Calvinists will always remain a step ahead of Calvinists!

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tim B]

It is interesting that Dembski's instinct was to deny the flood. Just capitulating to an old age of the earth and then creating a theological system to synthesize that position with scripture won't satisfy the demands of secular science. While the concept of retroactive effects of the fall is an interesting concept, it fails to explain the "evidence" any better than the gap theory did. Both still leave huge problems in that secular science laughs at the concept of a global flood, and particularly a relatively recent flood event. Consequently, anyone seeking a synthesis between modern science and the Bible will find themselves on a slippery slope that leads to the denial of Genesis 1-11. That is apparently a slope that Dembski has nearly slipped on.

Tim B

[peter]

Tim,

Dembski definitively did not deny the flood; rather he prematurely questioned the extent of the flood which is a question entirely different from whether the earth is thousands or billions of years old.

Further, it is unfair to Dembski to accuse him of "creating" a theological system built on secular scientific theory. And, if I may offer some advice, I'd hold off on implicating him in such until you demonstrate you've grasped his book.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Jonathon]

After reading all things involved.....

"Dembski is down....."

"Nettles by T.K.O

Sorry...just having some fun.

I find it funny how the issue of Calvinism always comes up.

[Bart Barber]

Peter,

I must not have been present when the fortune was being distributed, and so far as "fame" goes, I suppose that I only qualify if we are defining that term so broadly as to include "infamy."