Evan Minton's Blog, page 42

Unless The Father Draws Them

Total Depravity teaches that all people are inherently sinful and that we have a sin nature that affects every single aspect of our being. Sin affects our emotions, our bodies, our intellect, and even our wills. With respect to that last part, the doctrine affirms that people are inherently unable to come to God of their own free will. Our wills are in bondage to sin. Humans, if left to our own devices, would never come to God, but we would always reject Him. As an Arminian, I strongly affirm the doctrine of Total Depravity.

If God left man to His own devices, no one would ever turn to God. We would all be in rebellion against Him. God solves the problem by sending His Holy Spirit to enable a person to choose to receive Christ in order to be born again, and thus, saved. God enables and draws a person to Himself. He frees his will so that He is able to make a choice to follow Him. Prevenient Grace is the work of the Spirit in peoples' hearts when they hear the gospel. Without grace of some kind working in the hearts of sinners, no one could or would respond to the gospel.

Pelagians, who deny Total Depravity (and ergo prevenient grace as a result), have tried to argue that John 6:44 and John 6:65 aren't saying that people can't come to Christ in the absence of an enabling grace, and that the "drawing" Jesus is talking about (also referenced in John 12:32) is simply the preaching of the gospel. The Pelagian argues that John 6:44 and John 6:65 are simply saying that if no one is presented with the gospel, then no one can come to Christ. It isn't saying that God must do an internal work of grace to enable us and persuade us to respond like we Arminians believe. They will appeal to Romans 10:14 to make this point stronger: "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" 

What are we who are Arminians and Calvinists to make of this passage? Does man really have an innate ability to turn to God? Is no grace needed to bring a man to faith? Does he just need to hear the gospel preached? First, I'd like to say that even if the Pelagians' exegesis of the two verses in John 6 is correct, that is no reason to think that the doctrines of total depravity and prevenient grace are undermined.

Lydia's Heart Had To "Be Opened"

In Acts 16, we read that Paul had come to Phillipi (a Roman colony and the leading city of that district). He stayed there for several days and during his stay, he preached the gospel. On one particular occasion, he was preaching to a group of women. Acts 16:14 says "One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message".  This verse suggests that Lydia didn't accept Christ simply because she heard the gospel, but because God did a work inside her at the moment she heard it. "The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message" This suggests that Lydia accepted Christ not simply because she heard Paul's preaching of the gospel, but because also The Lord performed an internal work in her which made her able to respond positively to Paul's preaching. If Lydia had an ability to turn to Christ innately, The Lord wouldn't have had to do anything to her heart. After all, on the Pelagian view, her heart was fine, it was perfectly capable of choosing God on its own. The fact that God had to do something to Lydia's heart to affect her response is more consistent with the doctrines of Total Depravity and Prevenient Grace than it is with Pelagianism.

Now, when I brought this verse up in a conversation with someone on Twitter, he pointed out that the sentence that came before this states that she was a worshiper of God. He said "She already was a believer lol. Much like Cornelius in Acts 10. There were Gentiles that already worshiped the God of the Jews, they just hadn't heard the gospel yet. That's all that's happening here. Lydia already knew God but hadn't heard about Christ yet." 

The problem with this response is that, while, yes, she "worshiped God", she still hadn't accepted Christ. As this person said, she was most likely a convert to Judaism like Cornelius. Nevertheless, she hadn't accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ prior to Paul presenting it to her. Perhaps without being enabled, she would have been like Caiaphas and many of the other unbelieving Jews (Romans 9-11), still believing in God, still being in Judaism, but not being saved because she would have rejected Christ. Paul mentions in Romans 10:1-4 how many of the Jews had a zeal for God, but that their zeal was without knowledge since they sought to establish their own righteousness rather than submit to God's righteousness.

Anyway, Lydia could have ended up like those Jews. She worshiped God before Paul came, but had she rejected the gospel of Christ, she would have been lost. The Bible says "No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also." (1 John 2:23).  Even though Lydia had the God The Father before she met Paul, she would no longer have had Him had she rejected God The Son. God performed a work on Lydia's heart to enable her to receive Christ so that that would not be the case.

So, what do you think it means when Acts 16:14 says "The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message"? It seems to me that the best inference is that God gave Lydia prevenient grace. Why? Because she would have been utterly unable to receive Christ otherwise.

The Rest Of Scripture Testifies To Man's Inability To Repent

Romans 3:10-11 says "as it is written: 'None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands;

no one seeks for God." (ESV) and Jesus, in John 8:34-36 says "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." The former explicitly says that no one is righteous nor seeks after God. The latter explicitly says that men are enslaved to sin and need The Son (i.e Jesus) to set them free. I don't know how you can deal with these passages if mankind has an innate ability to choose salvation. It seems clear to me from these scriptures that if God left man to his own devices, He'd never turn to Him. No one would understand Him. No one would seek Him (Romans 3:10-11). Everyone would remain a slave to sin (John 8:34). It would mean that had The Holy Spirit never worked on my heart, I would remain an unregenerate heathen to this very day. I would still be a slave to sin not seeking after God.

Romans 8:7-8 says "The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God." This passage explicitly says that the mind governed by the flesh (i.e the sinful nature) is in a state of hostility towards God. Paul says not only does it not submit to God's law, it is unable to do so. It's not just that the natural man chooses not to submit to God, the natural man doesn't have the ability to do so. "It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so." The NLT renders it this way: "For the sinful nature is always hostile to God. It never did obey God's laws, and it never will." The ESV renders it as "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot." The NASB renders it as "because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so," Romans 8:7 is extremely clear that sinful man is inherently unable to choose a relationship with God.

So, even if the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians are right in saying that John 6:44 and John 6:65 aren't speaking of God needing to enable us to repent by a supernatural work of grace, it doesn't matter, for the rest of The Bible affirms the inability of man to turn to God (without the help of The Holy Spirit). Whether you think God's grace is resistible or irresistible, we should all agree that grace of some kind is needed for man to repent.

"Free will is unable to begin or perfect any true and spiritual good, without grace." - Jacob Arminius

Burden Of Proof Issue

I agree that hearing the preaching of the gospel is a pre-requisite to accepting Christ. But I don't see any reason to think that that is what Jesus is talking about in John 6:44 and 6:65. Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that one needs to hear about Christ before they can receive Christ (Paul says so in Romans 10), but I would go one step further and say man's heart must be enabled to respond to the gospel preaching he hears, that without grace of some kind working in the hearts of sinners, no one could or would respond to the hearing of the gospel.

I think the burden of proof lies on the one claiming that John 6:44 and John 6:65 aren't saying we can't come to God apart from The Spirits working on our hearts. If the Pelagian wants to say that John 6:44 is merely saying the same thing as Romans 10:14, he needs to give some justification for thinking that. Otherwise, why should Arminians and Calvinists abandon our interpretation and accept that one?

I think the burden is even heavier given that so many other passages in Scripture attest to man's inability to repent apart from grace (see above). I think an inference can be made from these other scriptures that John 6 is probably talking about that too. If the natural man is unable to obey God's law (Romans 8:7), and does not seek God (Romans 3:10-11), and is a slave to sin (John 8:34), then perhaps it makes sense to say that Jesus is speaking of this in John 6:44 and 6:65 too.

Does John 6:45 Help The Pelagian's Interpretation?

When I pressed a Pelagian to meet the burden of proof, he appealed to John 6:45. He said that John 6:45 validates his interpretation of 6:44 (which is that Jesus saying no one can come to him unless they hear the gospel message preached). Because in verse 45, it says "It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me."


Appealing to verse 45 to support the Pelagian interpretation of verse 44 doesn't work. It leads to an absurd conclusion.  "It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me." If this means what he thought it meant, then that would logically entail that anyone who ever hears the gospel (i.e hears from the Father) will come to Christ. "Everyone who has heard from the Father and learned from Him comes to me." Well, we know that's not true. I've presented the gospel to many people who rejected it. So either The Bible is wrong, or the Pelagian's not interpreting this passage correctly. Not everyone who "hears from the Father" (i.e hears the gospel) comes to Christ.

Conclusion 

I don't believe man is inherently able to respond to the gospel without the aid of grace. I affirm that God draws all people by providing them sufficient grace to respond to the gospel (John 12:32), but this grace can be resisted (Acts 7:51). Man is totally depraved and unable to turn to God on His own. Man is able to turn to God only because God took the initiative and freeD man's will. The pelagian's attempt to get out of this conclusion by re-interpreting John 6:44 and 6:65 is weak.

A Possible Evolutionary Creation Model

Over the past couple of years, I've been studying material from The BioLogos Foundation. They've had a major impact on my thinking. I now consider Christianity and Darwinian Evolution to be 100% compatible, they convinced me to give up concordism in favor of accommodationism, and they made me go from "Evolution is so absurd! How could any sane person believe such a thing?" to "Yeah, I can see why so many people think it's true". As of the time of this writing, I am not totally convinced that Old Earth (special) Creationism is false, it's more like I'm on the fence about evolution and no longer take a stance one way or the other. I'm firmly convinced that the universe is 14 billion years old and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, but whether God miraculously and separately created each individual species over the Earth's 4 billion year history or whether He worked through an evolutionary process, I'm just not sure. I'm leaning towards EC, but I haven't clamped down on it.

In any case, if I do ever take that final step and go from "leaning" to adhering, this is the creation model I would adhere to.

1: God Creates The Universe Out Of Nothing At The Big Bang 

The Big Bang Theory is the scientific theory that says that 14 billion years ago, all matter, energy, space, and time came into being out of absolutely nothing. Plenty of evidence backs up The Big Bang Theory such as the expansion of the universe (as entailed by Albert Einstein's Theory Of General Relativity, Alexander Friedman's and George Lemaitre's Theoretical Models, and the empirically verified redshift of the light from the distant galaxies discovered in 1929 by the American Astronomer Edwin Hubble). The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation discovered in the 1960s also verifies that The Big Bang Happened.

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. (2) The universe began to exist. (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. The cause of the universe must transcend the universe. It must be spaceless because it brought space into existence (it cannot be inside of space if space didn't exist before this cause brought it into existence), it must be timeless because it's the cause of time (again, you can't be inside of something if you are the reason it exists), it must be immaterial because material objects occupy spacial dimensions and we've already established that the cause must be spaceless or non-spacial. Moreover, it must be uncaused because, for the universe's cause to have a cause that brought it into existence, before-and-after relationships would need to be possible, and they're not possible without time. The cause must be unimaginably powerful because it created the universe out of nothing. And it must be a personal agent. Why? Because the cause is immaterial. There are two things philosophers typically categorize as immaterial: abstract objects and unembodied minds. Abstract objects are causally impotent. That's part of what it means to be abstract. The number 7, for example, doesn't cause any effects. Since abstract objects are causally impotent, the cause of the universe cannot be an abstract object. The only other option, therefore, is that the cause of the universe is an unembodied mind. Minds belong to persons. Therefore, the cause of the universe is a person. Reason and logic show that The Big Bang was impossible without a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, uncaused, personal Creator.

God created the entire physical universe at The Big Bang approximately 14 billion years ago.

2: God Finely Tunes The Laws Of Physics Right At The Big Bang

[image error] In order for life to exist, the laws of physics such as The Strong Nuclear Force, The Weak Nuclear Force, The Force Of Gravity, The Force Of Electromagnetism, The Ratio Of The Number Of Electrons To Protons, The Expansion Rate Of The Universe, etc. had to fall into an extremely narrow range in order for life to exist. If any of them were off by even a hair's breadth, the balance would be destroyed and the universe would not be capable of containing life. There are only 3 potential explanations for why the universe is so precisely calibrated: physical necessity, chance, or design. Physical Necessity and Chance are extremely untenable. It follows that intelligent design is the best explanation of the fine tuning of physics.

3: God Finely Tunes Our Galaxy, Solar System, and Earth-Moon Planetary System 


Over 400 characteristics of our galaxy, solar system, and Earth-Moon planetary system has to come together in an extremely precise way in order to get 1 planet capable of harboring advanced life. If any of these were missing, life would not be able to evolve. God providentially ordered that the 400 just-right characteristics to come together in our galaxy, solar system, and Earth-Moon Planetary system.


4: God Miraculously Created The First Single-Celled Organism And Let Evolution Take Over From There.


DNA Contains Information and whenever we trace information, we always trace it back to an intelligent agent. Moreover, the cell is full of irreducibly complex systems like The Bacterial Flagellum. The Cell is an extremely complex factory. It is statistically impossible that it could have come together by chance, and I'm skeptical that God could have even created the first single-celled organism without directly intervening. Abiogenesis is impossible.

Abiogenesis and Macro Evolution (or universal common ancestry) are two separate issues. I find the latter plausible, but I find the former extremely unreasonable. In order for evolution to occur, you first have to have something there that can evolve!

5: By using His Middle Knowledge Of What Nature WOULD do under any given circumstance, God is able to orchestrate evolutionary processes in such a way that the kind of animals He wants to exist come into existence. By using His middle knowledge, God is intimately involved in the process of creation, and life is not a cosmic accident. 

As a Molinist, I find that if God did use evolution to create all of life, the best explanation for how He did this was through His middle knowledge. Molinism asserts that God has 3 types of knowledge: Natural, Middle, and Free. His natural knowledge is knowledge of all possibilities and necessary truths (i.e everything the could happen and must happen), His middle knowledge is knowledge of everything that would happen under certain circumstances. His free knowledge is knowledge of everything that will actually happen in the future. This third logical moment of knowledge is of God's own choosing, based on what He knows in His middle knowledge.

God can control what happens in the world by acting on His middle knowledge; His knowledge of what any creature would freely do in any circumstance. God knows "If Bob were in circumstance X, he would freely choose action A over action B". So, if God wants Bob to choose action A, God can get him to choose A by placing him in circumstance X. God places Bob in circumstance X, and lo and behold, Bob chooses A.

I believe this is how God orchestrated the crucifixion of Jesus. God knew that if Caiaphas was high priest in the first century, then he would freely condemn Jesus on grounds of blasphemy and take Him to Pilate for execution. He knew that if Pilate was prefect in the first century, then he would freely comply with the demands of the crowd. And He knew that if Judas was born in the time and place that he actually was, then he would become Jesus' disciple for a while and would freely choose to betray Jesus to the Sanhedrin. On Molinism, God providentially brought about the crucifixion by acting on His knowledge of how people would freely act if placed in these positions. Now, if these people would have chosen differently, God would have known that and could have placed different individuals in their shoes instead.

If God can control and orchestrate human history through the use of His middle knowledge, then He could direct evolutionary history in exactly the same way. God would know "If this species of animal were in this part of the world with these conditions in place, then this genetic mutation would occur, and natural selection would preserve it". Or God would know "If X happens, then this population would move to this part of the region where this genetic mutation would occur." And in order for God to get those genetic mutations to occur, He could use His middle knowledge to actualize a possible world where those animals are in just those circumstances so that the mutations do occur, and natural selection does preserve those changes.

This view differs from progressive creationism in that, on Progressive Creationism, God intervenes throughout evolutionary history in a miraculous way in order to help nature along. On this view that I'm positing, nature would be doing all the work, but God would be directing the process through His knowledge of what nature would do under any given circumstance. So evolution would be completely non-miraculous (just as its non-miraculous when Bob chooses A over B in circumstance S), but it's also completely God-guided.

"We knew of old that God was so wise that He could make all things; but behold, God is so much wiser than that, that He can make all things make themselves." - Charles Kingsley, an Anglican Priest, and a friend of Darwin.

6: Adam and Eve
Adam and Eve evolve from lower primates but aren't the only humans to come into existence. Nevertheless, the creation narrative focuses on them because everyone alive from the time of Noah is descended from them (explanation is given in next subheader), and also because they are the ones to introduce sin to the human race. The introduce the sin nature through their progeny through inheritance (i.e their descendants inherit their sin nature), but their contemporaries get it through Adam and Eve being a bad influence. 
Now, of course, some would object that Adam and Eve couldn't have evolved from lower primates because The Bible says Adam was made out of dust (Genesis 2:7) and Eve from Adam's Rib (Genesis 2:22). John Walton makes a strong case that the reference to dust is implying Adam's mortality, given other places in Scripture where it speaks of humans being dust, with the context making it clear that the "dust" language is speaking of our mortality. Psalm 103:13-16 says "As a father has compassion for his children, so the Lord has compassion for those who fear him. For he knows how we were made; he remembers that we are dust. As for mortals, their days are like grass; they flourish like a flower of the field; For the wind passes over it, and it is gone, and its place knows it no more." 
We are dust. We are mortal. Just like the grass and flowers.
The “teacher” of Ecclesiastes asserts the same thing, comparing us to animals:
"The fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again." - Ecclesiastes 3:19-20
It's very plausible that the Genesis text is just saying God created Adam mortal, rather than literally scooping up a handful of dirt and miraculously transforming it into a person.
"But wait!" you'll object. "Doesn't The Bible make it clear that Adam was created immortal? Romans 5 says death came into the world through his sin." -- For one thing, I think it's plausible that Romans 5 is speaking of spiritual death, not physical (see my blog post "Why Pre-Fall Death Isn't A Problem For Old Earth Creationism" to see why). But besides that, if Adam was created mortal, then the tree of life becomes superfluous. For if Adam was an inherently immortal being until he sinned, then why does there need to be a tree of life for him to eat from? And why did God feel the need to bar access from the tree of life? In Genesis 3:22, God told us the reason for barring access to the tree of life. "And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." God barred access to the tree of life to prevent Adam and Eve from living forever. But if they were inherently immortal, such a tree wouldn't be needed. It's implied that unless Adam and Eve could have regular access to the tree of life, they would die, which entails they didn't have immortality in and of themselves. 
7: God destroyed 99% of humanity due to the extreme depravity that filled the Earth in Noah's time. The reason all humans are descended from Adam and Eve even though they weren't THE first human is because their lineage, and only their lineage, survived through Noah and his sons. 
On this creation model, Adam and Eve would be one of the first homo sapiens to evolve, and the reason scripture focuses so heavily on them is that all human beings are descendants of these two people. But, how could that be if they weren't the first human beings but only one of the first human beings? This is where the Genesis flood comes in. We know from scripture that Noah and his sons are descendants of Adam (via the genealogies), and we also know that all human beings were killed in the flood except for Noah and his sons and daughter-in-laws on the ark. If this is the case, then virtually every person since that time is a descendant of Adam and Eve because Noah is a descendant of Adam and Eve, and Noah and his sons and daughter-in-laws were the only people to survive that catastrophe. No one descended from any other homo sapiens because these other homo sapiens that evolved along with Adam and Eve had their ancestral lines end when the last ones in their family tree were killed in the Genesis flood.
So, when The Bible says in Acts 17:26 that God built the nations from one man, we don't have to view this as being in conflict with the Darwinian view of human origins. If this model is correct, then God did build all of the nations from only one man.
The flood was local, not global. 
Which Interpretation Of Genesis 1 Is Compatible With This Model?
The Day-Age Theory, The Framework Hypothesis, and The Functional Creation (John Walton) view are all compatible with this evolutionary creation model. The Calendar Day View (7 literal 24 hour days) are not. 
Conclusion 
I want to make clear that I am not an evolutionary creationist. I lean that way, but that's as far as it goes. I am an OEC-leaning-towards-EC. I think the model of creation I presented in this one is compatible with The Bible and is compatible with the theory of evolution. If I ever go from mere leaning to actually adhering to evolutionary creationism, this is is the view I would hold to. As an Old Earth Creationist, I already adhere to 4 out of 7 of the tenets of this model, and talk about the first 3 in my book Inference To The One True God: Why I Believe In Jesus Instead Of Other Gods. 

Addressing Some Common Misconceptions Of Molinism

Molinism (named after the 16th-century priest Luis De Molina) is, in my opinion, one of the best theological systems I have ever come across. It solves so many issues; primarily, it reconciles the meticulous providence of God taught in The Bible with a genuine human free will. But more than harmonizing God's sovereignty and human free will, I have found that it even explains some soteriological conundrums, and would explain the inspiration of The Bible, and if evolution were true, it would explain how God guided it to produce the creatures He wanted.

Unfortunately, it is a minority view in the church, and I've found that most people have a poor and distorted view of what Molinism teaches. When Calvinists, Arminians (of the simple foreknowledge variety), Open Theists, or other non-Molinists describe Molinism and then proceed to criticize it, 9 out of 10 times, they're bashing a straw man. They're not arguing against anything Molinists believe. It's frustrating to constantly have your views misrepresented.

In this blog post, I seek to correct several of the most common misrepresentations of Molinism that I have come across. Keep in mind that it is beyond the scope of this article to argue for Molinism's truth (I've done that in other posts). This article is simply meant to explain what we Molinists believe, rather than why. 

Misconception 1: "God looks into the future in order to learn what people will do."

I'm not sure where this idea came from because it certainly doesn't resemble anything I've ever read from the Molinist literature. No Molinist that I am aware would ever say that God looks into the future, observes people doing various things, and from observing us, acquires knowledge of what we will eventually do. For one thing, most Molinists I've come across (myself included) hold to a conceptualist view of foreknowledge, not a perceptualist view. What do these terms mean? A perceptualist view teaches that God literally sees the future, just like I see the words on the screen in front of me. God looks down the corridors of time and actually, literally sees what's going to happen. A conceptualist view, by contrast, teaches that God does not literally see the future. The future doesn't exist yet, and therefore God cannot see it. It is impossible for anyone to look at something that doesn't exist. A Conceptualist view denies that God sees, the future, and instead asserts that God knows the future innately. He knows what's going to happen ahead of time, even though he doesn't see it in a visual sense.

I have sometimes said things like "God sees the future" or "The Lord sees all your tomorrows", but I didn't mean it in the same sense that a perceptualist would. I meant simply that He knows what the future is going to look like. God can see the future in His mind's eye, so He knows what the things in the future will look like. Just like I know what Kevin Baldesare's house looks like even though it's almost been a year since I last saw it. I can "see" his living room, kitchen, extremely comfy sofas, etc. in my mind's eye. I'm remembering the visual details. I'm "seeing" the past in my mind's eye. I've always believed that God "saw" the future in a similar sense. He could have mind's eye like details of what my grandchildren's faces will look like, for example. But He doesn't literally see them. They don't exist yet to be seen in a literal visual sense.

In short: Conceptualism = God knows the future innately.
               Perceptualism = God literally sees the future and knows it because He sees it.

This misconception of Molinism fails because it presupposes a view of foreknowledge that most Molinists reject.

Moreover, no Molinist believes that God ever "learns" anything. We believe God has always known everything there is to know. No one can teach Him. God has always known what could happen, would happen, and will happen. There isn't a single true proposition that God doesn't know and believe. We Molinists believe that God is omniscient and has been from eternity past. There has never been a time when God lacked any knowledge of any kind.

Misconception 2: "Molinism Makes God Dependent On Man's Choices" 

I encountered this one recently in a Facebook group. The person said "To say that God was dependent upon who He foresaw would accept Him to then elect them is false teaching. God is not dependent upon anyone or anything to do whatever He wants." 

But Molinists don't believe this. Molinists don't believe God is dependent on God for anything. Molinists don't believe God is dependent on [creation, creatures, man] for anything." God is not dependent on man's choices for election either. We also affirm that God can do whatever He wants (Psalm 135:6), but we believe what He wanted was to create a world of free creatures, and ergo took their choices into account when deciding to actualize a possible world. Molinist don't believe that God was forced to actualize a possible world in which humans possess libertarian free will. God didn't have to create a world of free creatures if He didn't want to. He could have actualized a world where He causally determines everything. Though we would argue that had He done that, our world would look a lot different than it does (since a good God would not cause people to commit sin). But since He wasn't compelled to create a free will world, He, therefore, is not dependent upon free creatures for anything.

Sometimes this objection is raised with reference to William Lane Craig's "Card Dealer" illustration. The analogy was used in an article Craig wrote responding to the question: "If God is good, why isn’t everyone saved?". Essentially, God must face the truth of the CCFs (counterfactuals of creaturely freedom) that confront Him and choose which world to actualize within that framework i.e. “play with the hand He has been dealt”, because God cannot change the truth value of what a creature would freely do in a circumstance. James White and other Calvinists had a field day (and still do) attacking Craig on this point. The objection here is that God is dependent on human choices to a significant degree, and this undermines His sovereignty because He can't just simply do whatever He wants because often times His creatures won't get in line.  The illustration appears to make God enslaved to the free choices of man. God cannot do some things simply because man won't cooperate. Man appears to have some power over how God behaves.

The thing is, only if God wanted to actualize a world of free creatures does He have to play the cards He's dealt. He could have chosen to be the card dealer if He wanted to be, but then, I would argue that we'd be living in a totally different world if that were the case. God would never deal evil cards. If God wanted a world of free creatures (and I think we have good grounds both biblically and philosophically for concluding that that is the kind of world God desired), then God would have to accept the fact that there are some possible worlds infeasible for Him to actualize simply because human beings' free will wouldn't go that way.

God only has control over the counterfactuals of creaturely choices in possible worlds where He causally determines everything. He has no control over counterfactuals of creaturely choices in possible worlds where said creatures have libertarian free will. In possible worlds where people have libertarian free will, God knows "If Bob were in circumstance C, He would freely choose action A over action B", but God didn't decide that this counterfactual statement would be true. Bob is the one who made this CCF (counterfactual of creaturely freedom) true. Likewise, counterfactual statements such as "If Suzan were in circumstance S, she would freely choose action B over action A" is a statement made true by Suzan, not God. Now, let's say God wanted a world where humans are truly free, but He also wanted Bob to choose B in circumstance C, and He wanted Suzan to choose A instead of B when she found herself in circumstance S. God is stuck with a true dichotomy here. He would be unable to get Bob to choose B and Suzan to choose A in the above circumstances because that is not the direction in which their wills would go. God could perhaps get Bob to freely choose B if God were to place Bob in an entirely different circumstance (say, circumstance D), but it would be infeasible for God to get Bob to choose A in circumstance B. Sure, Bob would freely choose action A if placed in D, but He would not choose A if placed in C. God could actualize a slightly different world to get Bob to choose A, but it wouldn't be any of the worlds where Bob finds himself in circumstance C.

When it comes to things like a world where no one does evil, but only does good all the time, or a world where everyone freely accepts Christ and is saved, it may not be feasible for God to actualize these worlds because of free will. God could only actualize a world where everyone does good or everyone is saved if He causally determined everything like a cosmic puppet master. If God actualizes a world of free creatures, then He does have to "deal the cards He's dealt" and put up with the fact that not everyone would freely choose to obey Him or freely choose to accept Him.

I don't think Molinism undermines the sovereignty of God or restricts His freedom because "He has to play the cards that He's dealt". God had the freedom to either be the card dealer or to play cards that were dealt with Him by His creatures. Based on biblical exegesis as well as philosophical arguments, I think the latter is the case.

As you can see, Molinism doesn't make God "dependent" on human choices. We Molinists believe that God sovereignly chose to create a world of free creatures, and he took our choices into account when deciding which possible world of free creatures to actualize. But we believe that He was under no obligation to actualize a free will world.

Misconception 3: "Don't you know Molina was a Jesuit? Molinism isn't a Protestant doctrine"

Some non-Molinists have objected to Molinism on the basis that it originated with a Jesuit Priest. "Molinism is a view that every good Protestant should reject! It was formulated by a Jesuit Priest named Luis Molina! A JESUIT! Are you, as a Protestant, seriously going to embrace a view by a Catholic like him!?"

For some reason, people think that because the founder of Molinism (Luis De Molina) was a Roman Catholic, that therefore Molinism must be a Catholic doctrine. I seriously doubt that the people who make this particular objection have actually studied Molinism's claims. If they did, they'd see that there's nothing exclusively Catholic about it. And certainly, nothing about it contradicts any of the 5 solas ((some would argue it violates sola scriptura, but that is dealt with in the next subheader)).

Molinism is at the bare minimum; a view on free will and divine providence. Molinism teaches that human beings have libertarian free will and that God directs the world through His knowledge of what any free creature WOULD freely do in any given circumstance. This knowledge of what free creatures would freely choose in any given circumstance is called “Middle Knowledge”. It's called "Middle" Knowledge because it is logically prior to God's Natural Knowledge (What you could choose) and His Free Knowledge (what you will choose). By means of God’s Middle Knowledge, God can meticulously control history without having to causally determine our actions. For example, God knows “If Bob were in circumstance S, He would freely choose action A over action B”. If God wants Bob to choose action A but also wants Bob to be free in his decision, God can get Bob to choose A by creating a possible world in which Bob finds himself in circumstance S. As a result of being placed in circumstance S, Bob chooses A over B. God’s will is achieved and Bob’s freedom is preserved.

That's about it. That's "Mere Molinism". As I said at the start of this article, Molinism can be applied to areas such as soteriology and evolution, but Molinism at its barest minimum, asserts  that God not only knows what people could do and will do, but that God knows what everyone would do under any given circumstances, and that God uses His knowledge of what everyone would do to determine what will happen without violating peoples' free will.

As you can see, there's nothing particularly Catholic about it.

Moreover, if one rejects Molinism solely on the grounds that it originated with a Jesuit, one is guilty of the genetic fallacy. Whatever else Molina had wrong in his theology, it doesn't mean that he got it wrong in Molinism. Molinism could have originated somewhere else, and it would be just as legitimate as if it originated with a Catholic. Molinism's origin is irrelevant to whether or not it's true. It is the genetic fallacy to attack the origin of the view rather than the view itself.

But the main issue here is the misconception that Molinism is a Catholic doctrine. It is not.

Misconception 4: "Molinism isn't biblical. It's just man-centered philosophy."

Molinism is far too often construed as just a purely philosophical idea. Some will say "It's just philosophy with no biblical basis", or "It's man's philosophy imposed on The Bible" or something similar. However the objection is worded, the main point is that Molinism is philosophy, not doctrine exegeted from The Biblical text.

Now, I don't want to spend too much time on this because I've already extensively written about it in my blog post "Is Molinism Eisegesis?", but because this objection is so common, I think that it would be prudent to address it again here.

A big reason why so many people have this objection against Molinism is because they're looking at it as though it were an exegeted doctrine, rather than a systematic theology. The former is a conclusion drawn straight from the biblical text. The latter is a system formulated to explain that which as been exegeted. I would never say "Molinism is taught in The Bible". What I would say is "Molinism best explains the things that The Bible teaches". The Bible doesn't outright teach Molinism, but what The Bible does teach can be best explained by Molinism. What do I mean by that? I mean that non-Molinist systems tend to do a good job only explaining parts of scripture, but can't account for the totality of scripture. For example, divine determinism can account for verses like Proverbs 21:1 which says "In the LORD's hand the king's heart is a stream of water that he channels toward all who please him." and Proverbs 16:9 which says  "In their hearts humans plan their course, but the LORD establishes their steps.". However, divine determinism cannot account for 1 Corinthians 10:13 which says "No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it." (this is perhaps the most blatant example of libertarian free will in the entire Bible). It also cannot account for Isaiah 30:1 which says "’What sorrow awaits my rebellious children,’ says the LORD. ‘You make plans that are contrary to mine. You make alliances not directed by my Spirit, thus piling up your sins.’” Divine determinism can account for the former, but not the latter. Simple Foreknowledge-Free Will can account for the latter, but not the former. Molinism can account for both sets of scriptures, however. 

There are scriptures which state that God has a significant amount of control over what happens in the world (e.g Proverbs 21:1, Proverbs 16:9, Psalm 37:33), but there are also scripture texts that outright contradict divine determinism (Jeremiah 32:35, Isaiah 30:1, Galatians 5:7-8), and texts that assert or imply libertarian free will (e.g 1 Corinthians 10:13, Deuteronomy 30:15-19, Joshua 24:15). I haven't found any view except for Molinism that can account for these two sets of seemingly contradictory Bible passages. I'm a Molinist because Molinism has the best explanatory scope of all the options I currently know of. All other views; Divine Determinism, Simple-Foreknowledge Arminianism, and Open Theism fail to account for the totality of scripture.

Molinism is a systematic theology. It is invoked to explain that which has been exegeted from Scripture. What has been exegeted from Scripture? That (1) God meticulously controls what happens in the world, and (2) humans have liberarian free will. 

As I said at the start of this blog post, Molinism also can be applied to soteriology. Molinism isn't a soteriological view in and of itself, but it can be applied to soteriology. I think Molinism helps explain the soteriological data of scripture much better than Calvinism or Arminianism. Just like the issue of free will and sovereignty, both the Calvinists' and the Arminian's view can explain only parts of scripture, but not the totality of scripture.

In his book "Salvation and Sovereignty", Kenneth Kealthey explains in a summarized form why he is a Molinist. He writes:

"So why do I embrace Molinism? Because, like the Calvinist, I am convinced The Bible teaches that (1) God is sovereign and His control is meticulous; (2) man is incapable of contributing to his salvation or of even desiring to be saved; (3) God through Christ is Author, accomplisher, and completer of salvation (i.e., salvation is a work of grace from beginning to end); and (4) individual election is unconditional; and (5) the believer is secure in Christ. However, like the Arminian, I am also convinced The Bible teaches that (6) God is not the Author, Origin, or Cause of sin (and to say that He is, is not just hyper-Calvinism but blasphemy); (7) God genuinely desires the salvation of all humanity; (8) Christ genuinely died for all people; (9) God's grace is resistible (this means that regeneration does not precede conversion); and (1) humans genuinely choose, are causal agents, and are responsible for the sin of rejecting Christ (this means that the alternative of accepting salvation was genuinely available to the unbeliever). As we will see, there is only one position that coherently holds to all ten affirmations, and that is Molinism."

- Kenneth Keathley, "Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach", page 7, B&H Academic.

In science, one should go with the hypothesis that has the greatest explanatory scope of the data. I think the same should go for theology; the “mother of all sciences”. Molinism far exceeds Arminianism and Calvinism in explanatory scope in explaining the soteriological data. To dig deeper into the soteriological aspect of Molinism, click on this blog post. And be sure to read Kenneth Keathley's book which I cited from above.

I became a Molinist because of its exhaustive explanatory scope in the area of (1) free will and divine sovereignty, and (2) Soteriology. I didn't become a Molinist because I thought it was an interesting philosophy.

Now, you might object "But 1 Corinthians 10:13 doesn't teach free will!" or "1 Timothy 2:4 doesn't say God wants all people saved!" but that's not really relevant to the issue I'm answering. We can debate whether there really is anything in need of reconciliation in The Bible, but the fact remains that I've adopted Molinism because I thought it provided a reconciliation.

Conclusion

These are some of the most common misconceptions of Molinism I keep coming across. I would hope that non-Molinists would stop misrepresenting the theology like they do, but they probably won't.

Why Pre-Fall Death Isn't A Problem For Old Earth Creationism

I think the primary objection young earth creationists have to old earth creation models (like that of Reasons To Believe and BioLogos) is that an ancient world requires that there was millions and millions of years of animals dying, suffering, and killing. I've heard many biblical arguments given in defense of young earth creationism (none of which I find compelling), but the pre-fall animal death seems to be at the very center of their disdain for old earth models.

With this objection comes several arguments as to why this prevents Old Earth Creationism or Evolutionary Creationism from being tenable.

(1): Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 teach that Adam's sin brought death into the world, and if death is a result of Adam's sin, then it couldn't be the case that death pre-existed sin. 

(2): Genesis 1:29-30 says God gave man and the animals fruits and veggies to eat, not meat. This suggests there was no carnivorous activity in the time before the fall.

(3): God would be evil if He created a world with millions of years of animal suffering. 

(4): Genesis 1:31 Says God's Creation was "Very Good". Millions of years of suffering and death doesn't fit that definition. 

These 4 objections undergird the case that *no animals were harmed in the making of this world*. However, are these arguments sucessful? Does The Bible really preclude any death of any kind before the fall of man? I don't think so. These arguments seem plausible at first glance, but they fall apart under intense scrutiny. Let me explain why:

Argument 1: Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 teach that Adam's sin brought death into the world, and if death is a result of Adam's sin, then it couldn't be the case that death pre-existed sin. 

Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 are not talking about all death of all creatures, but only human death. Moreover, I don't even think it's talking about physical death only, but spiritual death also. So at most you could make the case that human death is a result of the fall. But you can't say that all death is a result of the fall. To do so would be to go beyond what the text warrants. Why do I say that this is only talking about human death? Let's look at the passages in question to see why.

First, a close reading of Romans 5:12 reveals that Paul (the author of the epistle) is not referring to the death of all living creatures, but only human beings. “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—“ Because of Adam and Eve’s sin, God barred us access to the tree of life (Genesis 3:22). Because we can’t eat from the tree of life, we can’t live forever. We eventually grow old and die. If only Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned, we could eat from that tree and live forever. Moreover, the last few words of this verse says that death comes to all people because all people sin. It specifically singles out human beings and states that we die because of our sins against God.

My friend Jt Perry from the Old Earth Creationists Facebook group once made a parody of Romans 5 to fit the YEC interpretation. This parody was the text of Romans 5, except he kept inserting [humans and animals] to show how absurd it would be to extend this text to creatures besides humans. Jt Perry wrote:

----------------------
Rom 5:12, 14-21 NIV - Therefore, just as sin entered the world [of humans and animals] through one man, and death [of humans and animals] through sin, and in this way death came to all men [and animals], because all [humans and animals] sinned-- ...

Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those [humans and animals] who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many [humans and animals] died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many [humans and animals]! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation [to humans and animals], but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification [to humans and animals]. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those [humans and animals] who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men [and animals], so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men [and animals]. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many [humans and animals] were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many [humans and animals] will be made righteous. The law was added so that the trespass might increase [to humans and animals]. But where sin increased [in humans and animals], grace increased all the more [to humans and animals], so that, just as sin reigned in death [of humans and animals], so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life [to humans and animals] through Jesus Christ our Lord.
----------------

This passage is clearly talking about human beings and only human beings. Including animals renders it absurd. If this were about animals in addition to humans, we’d have to conclude that animals die because they sin, and they sin because they inherited a sinful nature from Adam, and that through the obedience of one man (i.e Jesus Christ) animals will be made righteous. This is ridiculous. As for the 1 Corinthians 15 passage, since this is a parallel passage to Romans 5, it would make sense to conclude that this too is talking only about human beings.

Moreover, while we're on the topic of passages about The Fall, let me point out that Genesis 3 doesn't say carnivorous activity came into existence either. What Genesis 3 says is that since Adam and Eve sinned, their work would often be in vein, patriarchy would exist, child birth would be extremely painful, and they would eventually die. That's all. Genesis 3:21 does say that God killed an animal to make fur clothing for Adam and Eve, but nowhere does the text say that it was the first animal to ever die.

Argument 2: Genesis 1:29-30 Proves All Creatures Were Herbivores 

He says "Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.' And it was so." - Genesis 1:29-30

Young Earth Creationists have used this passage to try to argue that there was no carnivorous activity before the fall. All animals and humans ate vegitables and fruit, and they never ate any meat. God doesn't say that he gives them beasts of the field and/or birds of the air to eat. He says that He gives them "every seed-bearing plant", and "every tree that has fruit in it". He also says that he gives, not just Adam and Eve these things, but to the animals as well. This, the YEC argues, suggests that all living things ate a purely vegitarian diet before sin entered the world. They try to strengthen their case by pointing to Genesis 9 where God tells Noah that He gives them animals to eat. They argue that meat-eating only came into the world after the worldwide flood.

The problem with this argument is that it commits a logical fallacy known as argument from silence. Just because God doesn't mention animals in Genesis 1:29-30 doesn't mean He didn't allow Adam and Eve to eat meat or that animals didn't eat each other. All you can get from this passage is that God gave us fruits and veggies to eat.

Imagine you and your brother came to my house to babysit my pets while I went somewhere, and I said to you "I give you every box of Ramen Noodles in the entire cabinet. Every Maruchan cup with noodles and veggies in it will be yours for food. And to your brother, I give every Chow Mein brand of food." Would it follow from my statement that you aren't allowed to eat anything else in the cabinet? Would you infer from my statement that I only intended you to eat noodles all weekend long? Of course not! And if you did, you'd be commiting the logical fallacy; argument from silence.

This passage would only bother me if God said something like "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. But you shall not eat the beasts of the field, or the birds of the air, or the fish of the sea, or that which creeps along the ground. They are forbidden." But, God does not say that.

Argument 3: God Would Be Evil If He Created A World With Millions Of Years Of Animal Suffering 

This isn't a biblical argument against pre-fall animal death, it is a philosophical one. I've heard many YECs tell me that if God created the world with suffering and death built in, He would not be a good God. How could a good and loving God subject innocent animals to millions of years of terrible suffering and death? How could a good God create a world "red in tooth and claw"? God would be evil, according to many YECs, if He created the world with suffering and death built in from the very beginning.

I am not unsympathetic with the YEC's objection. I had it myself before becoming an OEC. It certainly does seem at first glance to pose a challenge to God's goodness. However, one day Greg West of The Poached Egg posed a very simple question to me that made a difference. He asked me "If you think God has good reasons for allowing suffering after the fall, why is it inconceivable for Him to have good reasons for permitting it before the fall?" I had absolutely no answer. If I thought (and I did) that God has good reasons for allowing humans to suffer and die after the fall, why couldn't God have good reasons for allowing animals to suffer before the fall? It seems like if God could have morally sufficient reasons for one, it is at least possible that He could have morally sufficient reasons for the other. Of course, I have no idea what those reasons are in either case, but I trust that God does have them. I have this trust because I know based on several instances in The Bible  that God has had morally sufficient reasons for certain historical instances of suffering. And as I point out in my blog post "The Problem Of Evil and Suffering", there are several illustrations (one of which involving the movie Sliding Doors) which illustrate how God's permittance of some instance of suffering could bring about a greater good, thus making the allowance justified. So even though we don't always know the specific reason for a specific evil, these illustrations demonstrate how God could do so.

If you want to say that God cannot have good reasons for permitting animal death before the fall, you are essentially conceding the problem of pain to the atheists. I highly doubt that YECs want to do that, but that is the logical entailment of the argument.

At this point, one might ask "What possible reasons might there be for God to allow pre-fall animal death?" That is a very good question. One of the possible reasons why God permitted carnivorous activity and animal death pre-fall comes from Hugh Ross in his book “More Than A Theory”.

“Why Did God Create Hominids?
The Bible does not mention any of the hominids that preceded humanity. The omission is consistent with the biblical practice of avoiding references to natural phenomena that only some readers over the centuries would find familiar. Scripture does address human responsibility for the natural realm (See Genesis 1:28-30) however, and warns of the negative impact of human sin upon other creatures (Genesis 3:17, Genesis 9:2). Because God gave soulish animals (birds and mammals) the desire to interact with humans, the evil that people manifested could have had a devastating impact. According to Genesis 9:2, God took protective action 'The fear of dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air.' From a biblical perspective, God possesses complete knowledge of the future. He knew before creating any hominids that future humans would rebel against His authority and become incredibly selfish and dangerously harmful both to each other and to the environment. The many bird and mammal species driven to extinction sadly testifies to such abuse. Of the 15,000 to 20,000 bird species present at the time of humanity’s origin, only about 9,000 remain. Of about 8,000 land mammal species, only about 4,000 are left. Humans have devastated the very creatures God supplied to improve humanity’s quality of life. Perhaps this impact would have been even worse had God not created a series of progressively more advanced hominids. Large bodied mammal extinctions studies support this premise. In Africa, where several hominid species predate humanity, the extinctions for large mammals during the human occupation period is 14%. In North and South America and Austrailia, where no such hominids preceded humans, the extinction rate for mammals stands at 73%, 79%, and 80% respectively. In such places as Africa, the fossil record reveals a sequence of hominids that spanned several million years, with each successive species slightly more capable of hunting birds and mammals than the previous. This increasing exposure to gradually improved predation skills may have allowed birds and mammals to adapt step-by-step to the shock of a sinful super predator.”

So one (out of many possible reasons) God allowed animal suffering pre-fall is for them to learn how to survive against human beings! If they hadn’t, more species probably would have gone extinct than what the current statistics show. Moreover, this possibility could apply regardless of whether God specially created over billions of years or if He used evolution. In fact, perhaps if He used evolution, this might be a reason why. The world was a training ground for "the sinful super predator". Perhaps if God snapped a rainbow-and-puppies kind of world into being, the environment wouldn't have survived against us as well as it did. Perhaps this is why an "Ape Man March" even exists.

Argument 4: Genesis 1:31 Says God's Creation was "Very Good". Millions of years of suffering and death doesn't fit that definition. 

Genesis 1:31 records God finishing His act of creation, and He calls His creation "very good". Young Earth Creationists argue that if the world were full of animal death and predation, it wouldn't be "very good", but "very bad". The inference Young Earth Creationists make from the phrase "very good" is that creation was perfect.

I don't think we need to take "very good" to mean "perfect". There's a good chance that God created an ecosystem where life would flourish and be abundant. A predator-prey relationship is often essential for the ecosystem to do well. In Fasale Rana's article "Animal Death Prevents Ecological Meltdown", he writes "Ecosystem stability requires a means to regulate the levels of each category of organisms. The amount of sunlight, nutrients, moisture, and temperature regulates the abundance of primary producers. Herbivores also affect plant levels through consumption. If not checked, exploding herbivore numbers will cause an ecosystem to collapse by over-consuming the primary producers."

In other words, if herbivore population gets out of hand, plant life runs out, and everyone suffers. Carnivores eat the herbivores and that prevents all the vegitation from vanishing. This ties in with the previous subheader, in which God can have morally sufficient reasons for permitting pre-fall animal death. It would suck if by the time mankind was created, all the plants were gone.

As you can see, to have a functioning ecosystem, a predator-prey relationship is essential. It is even the case that certain species cannot even survive without the presence of predators in their environment because overpopulation and disease become prevanlent. There have even been cases in which people have had to purposefully introduce predators into an environment in order to ensure that the species they desire to hunt doesn't go extinct.

So, when God said that the creation was “very good” that could just be a reference to the flourishing ecosystem. "Very good. Everything is up and running."

Conclusion 

As you can see, The Bible does not preclude animal death existing before The Fall. It doesn't say there was pre-fall animal death, but it doesn't say that there wasn't any either. The Bible leaves death before the fall an open question. How would the question be answered then? Since The Bible is silent on the matter, we must look to science for the answer.

Love, Hate, and The Divine Identity Argument

Introduction

In my book Inference To The One True God: Why I Believe In Jesus Instead Of Other Gods, I make a case for Christianity using what I now call "The Divine Identity Argument". The Divine Identity argument, as I explained in the blog post I just linked to, takes common arguments for the existence of God such as The Moral Argument and The Ontological Argument, it looks at the attributes of the Being these arguments prove exist, then looks at the attributes that The Bible says that God has, and infers that since The God of The Cosmological, Fine Tuning, Local Fine Tuning, Moral, and Ontological Arguments have the same exact attributes as The God Of The Bible, then they must be the same being. This inference is strengthened even more when one looks at descriptions of other so-called deities in other religions and realizes that none of them even come close to having the same attributes as the God of The Natural Theology arguments.

In the chapters on The Moral and Ontological Arguments, I argue that Allah cannot be the God of The Moral and Ontological Arguments. Why? Well, one reason is that Allah does not love all people. He only loves Muslims. A being who loves all people seems to be greater than one who only loves those who give him worship and service. Several passages in the Quran affirm this. You can check out the following Islamic scripture passages to see for yourself.

III.33 states that God doesn’t love unbelievers.

II.277 states that God doesn’t love impious people and those living in sin.

III. 58 says that God doesn’t love people who do evil.

V. 88, VI. 142, VIII. 59, and II.99 say that God doesn’t love transgressors, prodigals, treacherous people, and unbelievers

By contrast, The Bible is replete with statements of God's universal love. John 3:16 says that "For God so loved the world that He gave His only son, that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life." God loves "the world", i.e the entire human race. So God gave His only Son to die an atoning death for all of mankind's sins. Because God loves "the world", He, therefore "wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4, c.f 2 Peter 3:9). The Bible teaches that God's love is universal.

Since the God of Islam only loves some people and The God of The Bible loves all people, The God is Islam cannot be the Maximally Great Being of The Ontological Argument, but Christianity's God can be.

Objection: This Argument, If It Rules Out Allah, Rules Out Yahweh As Well. 

Now, recently it occurred to me that this argument is open to an objection: namely, that there are statements in The Bible that seems to affirm that God hates some people, such as Psalm 5:5 where it says that God hates “all workers of iniquity.” or Psalm 11:5 which says "The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion." , or Malachi 1:2 where God said "Jacob, I loved, but Esau, I hated." These Bible verses affirm that there are people whom God hates; namely sinners. Therefore, God doesn't really love all human beings. And in that case, the Muslim might argue, if this argument really rules out Allah as being the God of The Ontological Argument, then it would rule out Yahweh as well. Now, if I say "Well, God doesn't really have to be all loving in order to be maximally great" then that would re-open the door for Christianity's God to be the God of The Ontological Argument, but it would also re-open the door to Allah.

Now, in my blog post "Does God Love Everyone", I argued that the verses cited above don't literally say that God hates certain individuals, but rather that these verses are employing a figure of speech known as Metonymy. Metonymy is a figure of speech which substitutes the cause for its effect, referring to the cause as though it was an effect. And I gave an example from Luke 16, where Abraham says "The have Moses and the prophets" when referring the Hebrew scriptures. The people Abraham was referring to didn't literally have Moses in their midst (this was long after he died), but they did have his writings. Abraham referred to the effect (the scriptures) as though it was the cause (Moses and the prophets). In these verses, God is using metonymy. He doesn't hate sinners, He merely hates their sins.

"But" The Muslim could respond "Why can't we use that same response with our scriptures? Allah doesn't really hate evildoers. These passages are employing metonymy?" It would seem that once again the logic applied to one could apply to the other. And hence, I don't really get The Divine Identity Argument off the hook by explaining Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5 and other verses as employing metonymy.

This seems like a pretty powerful counter response. What am I going to do? Does The Ontological Argument really leave the door open for Islam as well as Christianity? I don't think so. Let me give my rebuttal to this rebuttal.

Point 1: We Have Good Reasons For Relegating The Bible's Divine Hatred Passages To Metonymy. We Don't In The Case Of The Quran.

In my blog post "Does God Love Everyone?" I don't simply assert that these passages could possibly be employing metonymy, I give actual reasons to think that this interpretation is true. For example, to take the hate passages at their face value meaning would bring them into contradiction with a mountain of other passages that assert or entail that God loves all people (such as John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4-6, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 John 2:2, and John 15:13).

Passages such a John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4-6, 1 John 2:2, and Hebrews 2:9 say that Jesus died on the cross for all humanity, every single human being. In John 15:13, Jesus says that there is no greater love than for someone to give their life so that someone else can live. From this, it follows that Jesus has not just love, but the greatest love possible for all human beings. If Jesus has "no greater love" than the love He has for all humanity, then it follows that He cannot hate any of the world's population. To say that God loves someone and hates someone simultaneously is a contradiction. Contrary to popular opinion, love and hate are indeed opposites. Indifference is only the opposite of love in the sense that love is passionate and takes action while indifference is impassionate and take no action at all. Love and hate are opposite passions, indifference isn't a passion at all.

Moreover, to say that God hates sinners would logically entail that God hates Christians as well since even Christians sin at least sometimes after getting saved. We are "Simul Iustus et Peccator" as Martin Luther so eloquently put it. That's Latin for "Justified yet simultaneously sinners." If everyone is a sinner, even Christians (Romans 3:23), and God hates those who sin (Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5), then it follows logically that God hates Christians as well as non-Christians. But Romans 5:8 says "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

These are the reasons why I take the divine hatred passages to be employing metonymy rather than literally saying that God hates the wicked. Taking the hatred passages at face value simply makes no sense in light of the rest of scripture.

Now, if a similar case could be made for Allah and The Quran, then perhaps we could indeed take the Quranic verses mentioned above as employing metonymy. However, I know of no Islamic scripture passage which states God's love for all of humankind, nor do I know of a collection of passages which would logically entail universal love. If The Muslim could provide me with some, he can be my guest, but I sure can't think of any. In all of the cases where we see Allah's love being talked about, it's directed at Muslims and Muslims alone. There are no universal love passages that would provide a basis for interpreting Quran III.33, II.277, III.58, V. 88, VI. 142, VIII. 59, and II.99 as employing metonymy.

Point 2: Even If I Conceded The Argument, It Still Wouldn't Leave The Door Open To Allah

Even if a Muslim detractor could provide a case for metonymy, it still wouldn't mean that Allah is consistent with The Ontological Argument. In my book, I argued that Allah is not a Maximally Great Being not only because he doesn't love all people, but also because it is essential that a Maximally Great Being be a trinitarian being (i.e be one God who consists of three persons) in order to be Maximally Great. For if God were only one person, then before He created any people, He wouldn't be loving. There would be no one around to love. But if God is a Trinity, then He can carry on a loving relationship within Himself. Therefore, even if no other beings ever came into existence, God would still be a loving God. A Unitarian God, like Allah, would need to create some other creatures before expressing love could be possible. This is the crux of the matter. This is ultimately why only the God of Christianity can be the God of The Moral and Ontological Arguments. Only Christianity has a God who is one entity that consists of three persons. This type of God is foreign to literally every single other religion in the world.

The worst this objection could do would be to remove one of the several reasons why I think Allah fails to be a maximally great being. At worst, I would have to concede that the Quranic hatred passages aren't a strike against him, but I would still hold that Allah fails for other reasons.

However, the reason I think the argument holds is that we have no good reason to think the prima facie readings of Quran III.33, II.277, III.58, V. 88, VI. 142, VIII. 59, and II.99 are wrong. We do, however, have very good reasons to reject the prima facie meaning of Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5, and Malachi 2:1. In the absense of any reason to reject the prima facie readings of Quran III.33, II.277, and the others, I think we're justified in taking them at face value. We would be unjustified to interpret them as cases of metonymy.

Conclusion 

This objection isn't a very good one.

The Contingency Argument For God's Existence

Why does anything at all exist? Why isn't there just nothing? This is the first philosophical question I ever remember asking myself. I remember lying in bed at night when I was about 6 years old, and I asked and pondered this very question. I thought to myself "Everything must have been made by God. If God didn't exist, then nothing else would exist either. Since everything exists, God must exist. But what if God didn't exist either? Then nothing else would exist." It was only 15 years later that I discovered that my childlike insight was actually developed into a sophisticated philosophical argument for the existence of God long before I was even born. In fact, I had even forgotten that moment of reflection when I was a small child until I started reading about the argument as an adult. Then I remembered.
The argument is called "The Contingency Argument For God's Existence". Sometimes it's referred to as "The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument", the reason why it is called that is that the argument was first formulated by the mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. The argument's premises are:
1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3: The universe exists.
4: Therefore, The universe has an explanation of its existence.
5: Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.
Now, this is a logically airtight argument. So if the atheist wants to deny the conclusion, he has to say that one of the three premises is false. Let's examine the premises to see what reasons can be given for affirming them. 
Premise 1: Everything That Exists Has An Explanation Of Its Existence (Either In The Necessity Of Its Own Nature Or In An External Cause). 
*Types Of Explanations – There are 2 types of explanations for why something exists. X was either caused to exist by something that exists outside of and prior to X or X exists out of a necessity of its own nature (I.e its non-existence is impossible and it depends on nothing outside of itself to bring it into or keep it in existence). Something was either caused to exist by something else or it exists out of logical necessity.
*This Premise Is Self-Evident – We all intuitively know that whatever exists has some sort of explanation as to why it exists. Imagine you were walking in the forest with a friend and found a ball lying on the ground. You would naturally wonder how the ball came to be there. If your friend said to you “Don’t worry about it. The Ball just exists inexplicably” you would either think he was crazy or was joking around. Either way, you’d never take seriously the notion that the ball just existed there with no explanation for why it existed or how it came to be there.
Whatever it is we think about, whether it be cars, trucks, chairs, tables, people, houses, trees, balloons, mountains, planets, galaxies, etc. we know that they must have some explanation for their existence. Nothing exists for no reason. Even little children know this. Why else would they ask Mom and Dad “Where do babies come from?” They know that they have an explanation for their existence. They know that they don’t exist inexplicably.
*Objection: Does God Have An Explanation Of His Existence?
Critics of this argument frequently object to this premise by saying that if everything that exists must have an explanation for why it exists, then God must have an explanation for His existence. If God exists, then the premise applies to Him as well. However, that would demean God as it would mean something existed outside of God Himself which brought Him into existence. In other words, God would have a Creator and we would have a Heavenly Grandfather. Now, if we make God an exception to premise 1, the skeptic would rightly accuse us of special pleading. And moreover, he could ask that if we’re allowed to make God an exception to premise 1, why not exempt the universe?
This objection does not succeed. Read the first premise again. “Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause)”. We would agree that God’s greatness would be diminished if he had an external cause for His existence. But that’s not the only type of explanation there is. One category of existence-explanation is necessary existence. What the Christian Apologist would say in response is that God does indeed have an explanation for His existence, but that explanation is that He exists by the necessity of His own nature. If God exists, He cannot not exist. His non-existence is logically impossible.
So premise 1 certainly seems to be true. What about premise 2? Is premise 2 true?
Premise 2: If The Universe Has An Explanation Of Its Existence, That Explanation Is God.
At first, this premise may seem like a huge logical leap. But it actually makes sense when you think about it. In order to have caused the universe to come into being, the cause of the universe must be beyond the universe, beyond space and time. And therefore cannot be a material, spatial, or temporal type of thing. Whatever caused the universe to come into being must be a spaceless, immaterial, uncaused, powerful, personal Creator. Why is that?
The cause must be
Spaceless -- because it brought space into existence. If the cause is responsible for space’s existence, it cannot be inside of space. It cannot exist inside of something that doesn’t exist yet. Just as the builder of your house could not have existed inside your house, so the cause could not have existed inside of space.
Immaterial – The cause’s non-spatiality entails immateriality. How? Because material objects cannot exist unless space exists. Material objects occupy spatial dimensions. If there is no space, matter cannot exist. This means that because the cause is non-spatial, it is therefore non-material.
Supernatural – “Nature” and “The universe” are synonyms. Since the cause is beyond nature (given that its the explanation why nature exists), it follows that the cause is supernatural. After all, that's what phenomenon transcendent to nature is. Super natural, that which transcends the natural.

Powerful - Whatever is able to create and/or sustain the entire physical cosmos must have enormous power. 
Uncaused – Given that the cause of the universe is a necesarilly existent being, it must therefore be uncaused. Necesarry existence presupposes eternal existence. 
Personal – This is an entailment of the cause’s immateriality. There are two types of things recognized by philosophers that are immaterial: abstract objects (such as numbers, sets, or other mathematical entities) or unembodied minds. Philosophers realize that abstract objects if they exist, they exist as non-physical entities. However, abstract objects cannot produce any effects. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number 3 isn’t going to be producing any effects anytime soon. Given that abstract objects are causally impotent, it, therefore, follows that an unembodied mind is the cause of the universe’ beginning.
This sounds an awful lot like God to me. Now, we don't have to call this cause "God" if that makes the atheist feel uncomfortable. We could just call it "The non-spatial, immaterial, unimaginably powerful, necesarilly existent Mind behind the universe". But to avoid getting out of breath, I prefer to label this explanation "God". 
Moreover, even if the universe were beginningless, it would still be the case that it needs a cause that has the aforementioned properties. Leibniz' argument doesn't depend on proving that the universe had a beginning. As long as the universe is not a necessarily existent thing, then it needs a non-spatial, non-material, powerful, uncreated Mind to be the explanation for why it exists. For The Contingency Argument to succeed, all that needs to be true is that the universe is contingent.
3: The Universe Exists.
The truth of this premise is overwhelmingly obvious to anyone with even a small shred of sanity. No defense of this premise needs to be given.
Of course, if someone wanted to resort to some crazy idea like solipsism (the view that you are the only thing that exists, and the entire universe and everything you experience are projections of your own mind), that doesn't get you out of this premise. In this case, one could just say that YOU are the universe.
4: Therefore, The Universe Has An Explanation Of Its Existence.
This follows logically from premises 1 and 3.
5: Therefore, The Explanation Of The Existence Of The Universe Is God.
This follows logically from premises 2 and 4.
*Objection: “Well, Maybe The Universe Doesn’t Need To Have An External Explanation For Its Existence. Maybe The Universe Exists By A Necessity Of Its Own Nature.”
This is one way an atheist could escape the conclusion of this argument. Perhaps premise 2 of this argument is false. The atheist could say “Well, granted. God or a being remarkably similar to God must be the explanation of the universe’s existence provided the assumption that the universe requires an external cause. But maybe that assumption is wrong. Maybe the explanation for the universe’s existence is that exists by a nature of its own existence.”
In order to save premise 2 and ergo the argument’s conclusion, we’ll need to show that the universe does require an external cause for its existence. There are some pretty clear reasons why we wouldn't want to embrace this alternative. As we think about this big ole world we live in, none of the things that it consists of seem to exist necessarily. It seems like all of these things didn’t have to exist. It seems like they could have failed to exist.
But, you might say, perhaps the matter that these things are made of exists necessarily? Perhaps that although the galaxies, stars, planets, people, etc. and everything in the universe doesn't exist necesarilly, the material stuff these things are made of exists necesarilly.  
This proposal just simply doesn't work. Allow me to explain why. You see, according to physicists, matter consists of teensy weensy particles called “quarks.” Everything in our world are just different arrangements of these quarks. But it seems to me that one could ask why a different collection of quarks could not have existed in the stead of this one? Are we expected to believe that every single quark in existence cannot possibly fail to exist? Does the skeptic want us to buy into the notion that all of the quarks in the universe have to exist? 
"Okay, well maybe quarks aren't necessarily existent. But maybe the particles of which the quarks are composed exist necessarily." This suggestion won't work because quarks aren’t composed of anything! They just are the basic units of matter. So if a quark doesn’t exist, the matter doesn’t exist.
It seems obvious to me that the existence of a different collection of quarks comprising everything of the cosmos was possible, but in that case, it follows that a different universe could have existed, and if a different universe could have existed, then it follows that our universe isn't necessarily existent. 
To see the point, think of your house. Could your house have been made of candy? Now, I'm not asking if you could have had a different house (one made of candy) in the stead of the one you actually live in. I'm asking if the very house you're currently living in if that house could have been composed of candy. Obviously not. If it did, then it would not be the same house. It would be a different house. 
Similarly, a cosmos comrpised of different quarks would be a different cosmos. Even if the said quarks were arranged in such a way as to resemble our universe identically, it still wouldn't be the same universe because the quarks comrprising it would be different quarks. It follows from this that the universe does not exist by a necessity of its own nature.
Moreover, we have powerful scientific evidence that not only could the universe have failed to exist, but there was a time when it actually did not in fact exist. The Big Bang Theory has a lot of scientific evidence in its favor. A Big Bang beginning is a logical entailment of the expansion of the universe which is itself an entailment of the empirically verified “red shift” of distant galaxies, and moreover, The Big Bang is the only explanation for the abundance of light elements in the universe. Moreover, the universe is running out of usable energy over time, and if the universe had existed from eternity past, it would have run out of usable energy by now. Yet the universe has not run out of usable energy by now. This means that the universe cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning. Since the universe had an absolute beginning, it cannot exist by a necessity of its own nature. Why? Because necessary existence entails beginningless existence. It something cannot possibly not exist, then it could not have had a beginning to its existence. Since if it had a beginning to its existence, that would mean there was a time that it did not exist. 
Conclusion
Given the truth of the 3 premises, the conclusion follows: God is the explanation for why the universe exists. 

Essential Doctrines VS. Non-Essential Doctrines

Truth is important for the Christian. It's important that the Christian have correct doctrine. The Bible says "until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming." (Ephesians 4:13-14) and "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15). The Bible also says "Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them." (Hebrews 13:9). The Bible places heavy emphasis on correct doctrine and true teachings.

That said, there's a tendency among Christians to think that one must get everything right. Every single doctrinal issue that can be discussed, one must be correct on. If you disagree with them on anything, you are deemed by them a "heretic". I can't tell you how many young earth creationists I've talked to on social media have called me a heretic (among a few other colorful names) because I disagree with them on how old the universe and Earth is, and what the best interpretation of Genesis is. I have also had many Calvinists label me a heretic because of my Arminian soteriology. Though fortunately, most Calvinists (or at least the ones I have as friends) don't think that of me. It's mostly those in the cage stage who are apt to hurl that accusation. Is this really right though? Do we have to be correct on all our doctrines?

I don't think so. I don't think that everyone has to have 100% of their theology correct in order to be considered a true Christian. Let me explain why.

If Everyone Had To Be Correct On Everything, Almost Everyone Would Be A Heretic

If we had to have all of our doctrines correct, I doubt very few of us would be orthodox. I think the number of Christians who have everything right will, in the final analysis, be a microscopic minority of believers. I myself have changed views over the years because I found out that I was wrong in some of the views that I held to. Even if you have most things right, you most likely hold at least one false theological belief. Perhaps you got it right on the age of the earth, the existence of God, the death and resurrection of Jesus, The Trinity, justification by faith alone, the right soteriological view in the Arminianism/Calvinism debate, etc. etc. etc. etc. but let's say you get it wrong in the eschatology debate. Let's say you adopt futurism when a preterist framework is correct, or if futurism is true, but you got the timing of the rapture off. Are you really confident in asserting that you couldn't have got it wrong on any of your theological beliefs?

Of course, you obviously don't think you're wrong on any of them. If you did, you would no longer believe them. But certainly, it is at least possible you got it wrong on one or two issues. I wouldn't at all be surprised if, when I see Jesus face to face, He tells me "You know, your theology was really good and accurate in almost everything, but I've got to tell you that you were wrong to believe partial preterism. Tim Lahay was right." or He might say "You know, you got so many things right, but you wrong to reject concordism. I really did intend my Book to convey scientific information. Hugh Ross was right. You were wrong." or whatever it might be that I got wrong. I'd be very shocked if Jesus agreed with every single one of my beliefs. Again, I don't think I got preterism or accommodationism wrong. If I did think that, I wouldn't believe them. But these are examples of things I might have gotten wrong.

You can be a genuine Christian and get some things wrong. A requirement for salvation isn't that you're right on every single one of your theological beliefs.

You Would Consider Everyone But Yourself A Heretic

This would also prevent me from considering any theologian or apologist that I learn from to be true Christians. I disagree with all of the apologists I follow. I agree with William Lane Craig on most things, and I agree with him on more issues than I do anyone else, but I even differ with him on some things. For example, Craig affirms the inherited guilt interpretation of original sin, while I affirm the Eastern Orthodox View of Original Sin (i.e that we inherit Adam's sin nature, but we're not held accountable for his action of Eating from the forbidden tree). I agree with the members of BioLogos that evolution is compatible with The Bible and that God could have used evolution to bring about life, but I'm on the fence about whether or not He did. I agree with R.C Sproul that partial preterism is the correct eschatological view, but I strongly disagree with his Calvinism. I agree with Roger Olson on Arminian soteriology, but I think his assessment of Molinism is dead wrong.

I agree with my friend Richard Bushey's opinions about presuppositionalism, accommodationism, Old Earth Creationism, and other things, but I disagree with him on Calvinism and Annihilationism (i.e the view that those sent to Hell are snuffed out of existence after a little while).

With every Christian I know, I disagree with them on at least some things. I think they're wrong in some of their theological beliefs. However, I don't think that they're heretics. I consider them to be my brothers and sisters in Christ. If I thought that everyone had to be right on everything (and since I think my views are right, that would mean they'd have to agree with me on everything), then that means the only person I would not consider a heretic is myself! But that's absurd. Surely, I'm not the only Orthodox Christian in the world. And yet, I've yet to find a Christian who agrees with me on literally everything. William Lane Craig comes the closest, but I even differ with him on a few things.

Am I Saying That Doctrine Doesn't Matter? 

Not at all! If I did, I'd be contradicting The Bible (and what I said at the beginning of this blog post). Rather, what I am saying is that when it comes to doctrine, there are essentials and non-essentials. There are things that make-or-break your salvation and things that do not. There are things that, if you affirmed them, would make you a heretic, and things that would not.

I believe that it's important that we get it right even in secondary issues. If we care about truth, we should care about whether all of our beliefs adhere to reality. That's why I think so heavily and critically about things: I want to make sure that I'm right. That's why I put more stock in logic than emotion, and why I put heavy emphasis on following the rules of biblical hermeneutics (so that I exegete and not eisegete), and why I try to challenge even my own presuppositions and biases. But not everything is a make-or-break issue for orthodoxy. If it were, we'd all be in trouble. I very much doubt that any of us has everything correct.

The existence of God, the Trinity, the incarnation (that Jesus is truly God and truly human), the death of Jesus to atone for our sins, the resurrection of Jesus, justification by faith alone, the sinfulness of man, that Christ is the only way to Heaven, and a few other things are crucial to Christianity. Take one of them away and it collapses.

William Lane Craig uses the analogy of a spider's web. You can plug a few strings from the outer parts of the web, and the spider web will still hold up. But pluck a few strings from the center and the whole web comes crashing down. I hold that the age of the Earth debate, the Arminianism/Calvinism debate, the futurism/preterism debate, the concordism/accommodationism debate, and the eternal torment/annihilationism debate to be at the outer edge. By contrast, the resurrection, the incarnation, the Trinity, etc. are at the very center. Whether one affirms these or disavows them will determine whether they're a Christian or a heretic.

I believe that those in the Answers In Genesis, Reasons To Believe, and the BioLogos crowd are all genuine Christians, and we will have fellowship in Heaven with our Lord. The Molinists of Free Thinking Ministries and the Calvinists of Ligonier Ministries will likewise have fellowship in Heaven. William Lane Craig and James White will likewise stand side by side and sing God's praises in the new creation.

All truth is important, but not all truth is salvifically important. On the day of judgment, what's going to matter more? That you read Genesis correctly or that you faithfully followed Christ?

It's one thing to considers all doctrines important in the sense that you want to make sure you adhere to the right one VS. considering all views a salvation issue.

Is An Essentials/Non-Essentials Divide Biblical? 

Absolutely! In Paul's day, there were internal disputes among believers just like there are today. And Paul argued that the people taking opposite stances should accept one another. He argued for essentials, but in Romans 14, he mentions some non-essentials and says "Don't get so hung up over these." He doesn't appear to even take a stance on them himself. He writes:

"Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person's faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand. One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God." - Romans 14:1-6

Obviously among all these groups mentioned, one is correct and the other is incorrect, and the one who cares about what is true should care about whether he's adopting the right stance. But Paul says both groups of people have been accepted by God. So the distinction between essentials VS. non-essentials has its grounding in scripture. Some things really are non-essential to being a genuine Christian.

How Do We Know What's Essential and What's Non-Essential? 

We need to be sure we know precisely what is an essential and what is not. We need to make sure we put the right things in the essentials category, and not relegate truly important things to the non-essentials category.

I think the councils which formulated creeds (like The Apostles' Creed, for example). These set the boundaries for what counts as essentials. Of course, we don't want to invest the creeds with too much significance as they are the results of fallible men who could be wrong, and as Protestants, we place The Bible as our highest authority on doctrinal matters.

But I think if we really reflect on the reasons why the creeds set the boundaries that they do (i.e why the essentials of Christianity are considered essential), we'll come to agree with them. For example, the humanity of Jesus is essential because if He wasn't truly human, he wouldn't have been able to truly die, and therefore there wouldn't be an atonement, hence no salvation. The deity of Jesus is important because, as Jesus Himself said in John 8:24, if we don't believe that He is who He said He is, we'll die in our sins. Jesus claimed to be God in various places (e.g John 10:30, John 8). If we don't agree with His claims, we're in trouble. Knowing precisely who Jesus is, is more important than knowing how many people He died for or how long the days of creation were. The existence of God is an essential for obvious reasons. Justification by faith alone is an essential because if you're trusting in your own works to save you, you're not trusting in Christ, and it's stated all over The New Testament that trusting in Christ is essential for salvation. You'd be trusting in your own righteousness to save you rather than Christ's. The sinfulness of man is an essential because if man isn't a sinner, then why did Jesus have to die on a cross? His death would be superfluous. Why would a non-sinner need a Savior?

Conclusion

I think that when we encounter people with whom we disagree, we need to be sure whether or not they deny one of the essentials of the faith before labeling them a heretic. If they don't, then we can debate the issues knowing that the other person is a brother or sister in Christ. If they do deny one of the essentials, then they're a mission field, and it's vitally important that we bring them to the truth. However, in both cases, we need to talk to the person with gentleness and respect. Heretic or not, they are a fellow human being made in God's image (Genesis 1:26-27) and they are someone God loved so much that He became incarnate and died for them (John 3:16, 1 John 2:2). We should refute them, but do so graciously. For "A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger."  (Proverbs 15:1 )

What I said can be summed up by this quote from St. Augustine: "Unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and in all things, charity." 

Answering Questions About Demons

Demons are a part of the Christian Worldview. They are talked about in various places in scripture, particularly in The New Testament. Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:13-19 describe the fall of Satan and the other fallen angels, saying that they were once good angels who loved and served God, but became corrupted by pride and envy and decided to rebel against God, attempting to dethrone him and make Satan the King of kings and Lord of lords. These passages say their plan backfired, as God fought back, won, and cast them out of Heaven. Jesus recounts in Luke 10:18 how He witnessed Satan fall like lightning from Heaven, which is the same events the passage in Isaiah and Ezekiel wrote of. Like angels, the existence, powers, and work of demons are very interesting. But they're shrouded in theological questions. For example, is Satan omnipresent? If not, how can he tempt so many people? Is Satan the king of Hell? Does he punish people in the afterlife? If so, how can he really be considered evil? Isn't it superstitious to believe that demonic beings cause effects in our world? Isn't the demonic an outdated pre-scientific belief that only uneducated people believe in? These are some of the questions I'd like to answer in this blog post.

I feel a little uneasy writing this article, as I don't like dwelling on demons very much. Philippians 4:8 tells us "Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable-if anything is excellent or praiseworthy-think about such things." Demons certainly don't fit that description! And C.S Lewis wrote: "There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight." So we mustn't spend more time than is necessary reflecting about the demonic, but we do need to reflect on them some, since, as I said, they are a part of the Christian worldview.

Question 1: Is Satan Omnipresent, And If Not, How Can He Tempt So Many People Around The World? 

There is no evidence in The Bible whatsoever that Satan is omnipresent. In fact, quite the opposite. In the book of Job, when Satan stands before God and God asks him where he's been, he replies "From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it." (see Job 1:6-7). Moreover, 1 Peter 5:8 says "Be sober-minded and alert. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." Satan roams the Earth. He isn't everywhere at once. Job 1 and 1 Peter 5 say that Satan goes from place to place. He walks "back and forth" on our planet. Such language implies that Satan isn't everywhere at once. If he were, he could not be at Point A at T-1, and then move to point B at T-2. Not only could he not, but he wouldn't need to. For he would already be a point A and point B simultaneously at T-1. Therefore, since Job 1:6-7 and 1 Peter 5:8 say that Satan "roams the Earth", this implies that he moves from point A to point B to point C, at isn't at A, B, and C simultaneously. Satan is not omnipresent. Moreover, the fact that Isaiah 14:12-15, Ezekiel 28:13-19, and Revelation 12 teach that Satan was cast out of Heaven implies that Satan cannot be both inside of Heaven and outside of Heaven at the same time.

But if Satan can't be everywhere at once, how is he able to tempt so many people into sin all over the world? Well, for one thing, Satan isn't the only source of temptation. We have the sin nature (Romans 7:7-24, Galatians 5:17, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 2:3) and the world  (Proverbs 1:10, 1 Corinthians 15:33-34, Romans 12:2, 9) to contend with as well. We have a triple threat to our souls: "mundus, caro, et diabolus;" or "The world, the flesh, and the devil". It is not merely Satan we need to be on guard against: but our sinful natures, and the influence of society as well. Our own inherent depravity can drag us down the wrong path, and as Proverbs 1:10 indicates, temptations to sin come from our fellow man as well.

Besides this, in the "the devil" category of "The world, the flesh, and the devil", there's more than simply one devil. The Bible tells us that Satan persuaded one third of the angels to rebel against God with him: "Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth... And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him." (Revelation 12:3-9).

So Satan isn't the only fallen angel around. How many angels is 1 third of the sum total of angels? We can't really say for sure. Since the number of angels is "innumerable" (Hebrews 12:22), one-third includes a vast number of demons who have rebelled against God. When we read Mark 5, we learn of a man who called himself Legion, and this individual was possessed by so many evil spirits that when Jesus cast them out of the man, they entered the bodies of 2,000 pigs and caused them to jump off a cliff (Mark 5:9-13)! Luke 8:2 tells us that Mary Magdalene was freed from seven spirits. Jesus also mentioned another account of seven spirits together at one time (Matthew 12:45; Luke 11:26).

Due to this, I'm often hesitant to say things like " The devil is trying to steal my joy" or " The devil is trying to make me doubt my faith" or " The devil is trying to fill my head with blasphemous thoughts". The word "the" indicates that there's only one devil; Satan. That is not the case.

Given that Satan cannot be everywhere at once, it's very unlikely that I, Evan Minton, have ever gone toe to toe with him. I have indeed gone to war against devils since the time of my teens, but the head honcho himself, Satan, I doubt I've ever faced. It is more reasonable to think that it was only his underlings I've contended with.

Question 2: Do Random Demons Tempt Us Or Do Demons Assign Themselves To People? 

I don't know if this question has been asked by other people (though it probably has), but this was a question I myself have raised. When I am tempted to sin by "the devil", is it just some random demon who happened to come across me and thought to him or herself "Here's a nice chap. Let me see what immorality I can get him to do"? Or is it the case that demons take it upon themselves to dedicate their lives to enticing one individual to commit various sins, with the ultimate goal of bringing spiritual and everlasting destruction upon them? In the latter case, it would be like the opposite of a guardian angel. Just as many believe God assigns individual angels to guide and protect individual humans throughout their entire lives, it may be the case that Satan assigns individual demons to tempt and entice individuals humans. An Anti-Guardian Angel if you will.

Which of these possibilities is correct? The Bible is silent on this matter. You won't find out which one, if either, is correct in the pages of holy scripture. Given that that's the case, I think we're free to speculate on the matter.

I happen to find the latter more plausible, and here's why: In order to be the most effective at leading people away from God, one must really get to know the person. Imagine for a moment that you are a demon. If you knew what made a person tick, you would have a higher chance of success than if you knew nothing about them at all. If I know a person is a Christian man who struggles with homosexual desire, I would be sure to bring the most attractive (and the most promiscuous) person of the same sex into their lives. This individual would be the most effective stumbling block. But if I knew nothing about him, I could bring the promiscuous person into his life and it might have no effect because the man I'm trying to tempt is as straight as an arrow! If I were a demon, it would behoove me to really get to know my "client" so that I would know what he's most susceptible to.

So, I think it's vastly more plausible to think that people literally have their own demons to fight than to think that people have random encounters. I don't know for this certain and I'm quite willing to dismiss this view if given good reason to, but this is what I think is what's most plausible.

Question 3: Is Satan The King Of Hell? Does He Punish People In The Afterlife? If So, How Can He Be Considered Evil? 

I blame cartoons and comics for some of the peoples' misconceptions about Heaven, Hell, and the devil. I remember seeing an episode of Tom and Jerry when I was a kid, where Tom died and went to the gates of Heaven. St. Peter wouldn't let him in because he had spent his entire life terrorizing a mouse, so he gave him one more day on Earth to make things right with Jerry. He tried his best, but Jerry was a little prick (understandable given what Tom put him through), so Tom failed at being nice to him. He ended up going to Hell and being tormented by Satan in a boiling cauldron. And every time Tom tried to escape, the devil would yank him back in. Tom woke up to realize the whole thing was a nightmare. Other depictions of Satan in other works of fiction have also painted him as this being who rules Hell and actually is the one to dish out the punishment to the people who end up there. This depiction became so common that it's understandable that some people might assume that this is what The Bible teaches. However, it is not.

No, Satan is not the king of Hell and no, he does not punish people in the afterlife. The Bible says that God is the Being who will cast Satan, also called the devil, into the “lake of fire and brimstone” to be "tormented forever and ever" (Revelation 20:2,10). Moreover, Matthew 25:41 says that the "eternal fire" (i.e Hell) was "prepared for the devil and his angels." The passages of The Bible debunk the idea that Satan is the king of Hell and tells us that he himself is a prisoner there.

Question 4: Isn't Believing In The Devil A Pre-Scientific Belief That Only Superstitious And Uneducated People Believe? 

In the United States, we've become an extremely secularized society. The common belief is that only natural causes are at work and any appeal to God or the devil as a cause for any event is seen to be superstitious, silly, and/or anti-science. But this question is really complex and there are actually a couple of different issues in this one question which need to be addressed separately. First, we need to talk about whether we have epistemological warrant for concluding that demons even exist in the first place, then we need to talk about when or if we're ever warranted in attributing activity to them.

*The Existence Of Demons Is Warranted Because Christianity Is Demonstrably True

I believe Satan and other demons exist because they are part of the Christian worldview. They are taught by The Bible. I know the Christian worldview is true because The Bible says it is true. I know that The Bible is a source that can be believed because we have several good reasons to think it is. One reason would be "The Divine Identity Argument" which I talk about in my blog post "The Divine Identity Argument For Christianity". This argument takes the various Natural Theology arguments (e.g The Moral Argument, The Ontological Argument), looks at the description of God from The Bible, and concludes based on the logical law of identity that the God Of Natural Theology and The God Of The Bible are one in the same. This inference is strengthened by the fact that none of the other gods in any other religions even come close to having the same properties as the God of Natural Theology.

Given that "The God Of Natural Theology" and The God Of The Bible have exactly the same attributes, and since none of the polytheistic, pantheistic, or Deistic gods even come close to looking like the God of these arguments, the most reasonable explanation is that The God proven to exist by these arguments and the God of The Bible are one in the same being. Now, given that, it's a quick inference to the Bible's inspiration. Here's why I say that: if The Bible were purely a human book written by human men just making stuff up, it is extremely improbable that they would make up a God who is exactly like the God of the Cosmological, Teleological, Moral, and Ontological Arguments. Why didn't their allegedly made up god fall short like gods in the rest of the religious writings of the world? The reason is that the God of the Cosmological, Teleological, Moral, and Ontological Arguments (i.e The God of Natural Theology) inspired the writers of The Bible. That's why they describe Him perfectly. The God Of Natural Theology inspired The Bible's authors.

Now, given that The Bible is inspired by this being (who is perfect, as evidenced by the Moral and Ontological Arguments), then whatever He says must be the truth. Morally perfect beings cannot lie, but will always tell you the truth. The Bible tells us that demons exist. So it follows that demons exist.

"The Divine Identity Argument" for Christianity infers that The God Of The Bible exists (and by extension, The Bible's inspiration) by looking at arguments for God's existence common to those in the field of Christian Apologetics, looking at The Bible's description of God, and using the logical law of identity to infer that they are one in the same. I could only briefly explain my reasoning here. I couldn't go into defending the premises of the arguments at all, in fact, I couldn't even list the premises. It is beyond the scope of this blog post to do so. Those interested in an in-depth treatise of The Divine Identity Argument are recommended to read my book on the subject titled: Inference To The One True God: Why I Believe In Jesus Instead Of Other Gods. The arguments listed in this blog post are also defended in various articles on this site, but they don't do so within the context of The Divine Identity Argument like my book does. Click here to buy the book. 

Another reason to believe The Bible's inspiration comes from the resurrection of Jesus. The historical evidence demonstrates that Jesus claimed to be God and then died and rose from the dead. If Jesus claimed to be God but He really wasn't, then God would never raise Jesus from the dead given that He knew that that would vindicate Jesus' claims. Given that Jesus rose from the dead, that means that God put His stamp of approval on Jesus' ministry. Given this, we can put stock into all of Jesus' spiritual teachings. What did Jesus teach? He taught that The Old Testament was divinely inspired. Who would know better whether The Old Testament is inspired than God Himself? Moreover, Jesus Himself handpicked the authors of The New Testament, so that gives us good reasons to trust the NT's contents as well. Jesus also taught that demons existed. Since Jesus taught these things, we can believe them, because He's God. He proved He was God by rising from dead. This is why you'll sometimes hear apologists say "I don't believe in Jesus because I believe The Bible. I believe The Bible because I believe in Jesus." Now, again, it is beyond the scope of this article to deal with the actual reasons behind the facts undergirding this inference, but I do talk about the historical evidence in blog posts such as "The Minimal Facts Case For Jesus' Resurrection PART 1" and "The Minimal Facts Case For Jesus' Resurrection PART 2" but if those are too lengthy for you, check out "A Quick Case For Jesus' Resurrection". 

Given all that I've said, I think we are within our rational rights to believe that demons exist and that they do stuff in the world.

*Believing That Demons Exist Isn't Superstitious, But Attributing EVERYTHING To Them Is 

One of the things I've witnessed in the average Christian is to attribute everything to the devil. I remember tweeting once that I caught a cold at a concert I had attended, and a girl replied to that tweet saying that the devil was making me sick to keep me from doing God's work, followed by telling me that she would pray for me. While I appreciated her prayers, her comment struck me as odd. I was like "Really? I doubt it. I think it's more likely that germs are the cause rather than the hand of a demon." I've heard Christians blame "the devil" on their automobiles not working, their marriages going bad, their sicknesses, when they lost their jobs, and many other things.

As I argued above, we have good evidence (albeit indirect) that demons exist, and it isn't superstitious or unscientific to believe that. However, what is superstitious to attribute every single misfortune you have to their hands. Richard Bushey talked about this in his blog post "How To Practice Religion Without Being Superstitious". He writes: "The problem with attributing everything to the unseen realm is not that there is no unseen realm. It is that it is difficult to discern whether something is a product of the unseen realm. Perhaps the person with whom you disagree is just mistaken. If there are other, plausible explanations available, and the unseen realm is a superfluous addition, then there is no reason to give assent to that belief. For somebody to give assent to it would seem to be a little too superstitious for my taste. Yet you can believe in the unseen realm without being superstitious about it. You would just need discernment." 

I agree with Richard. We need to resort to natural explanations unless we have very good reasons to think a devil is involved. I adhere to a methodology called Soft Methodological Naturalism: which means I don't invoke the supernatural unless no natural explanations are viable. If natural explanations are viable, then I go with one of those. In the case of my cold, a natural explanation was available: germs were causing me to be sick. So even though I believed in demons, I rejected them as an explanation in favor of the germs hypothesis. I explain Soft Methodological Naturalism in more detail in my article "Are Christians Anti-Science?"  Unlike hard methodological naturalism, soft methodological naturalism doesn't rule out the supernatural entirely, it simply keeps them in reserve as a last resort explanation.

One of my problems regarding devils is that I tend to fall into the opposite error. On one end of the spectrum, you have Christians attributing everything to the devil. However, I tend to fall into the mistake of neglecting the demonic entirely; attributing nothing to demons, even in the areas where we would most likely expect it, such as temptation and impious thoughts. I'm more likely to blame my flesh than I am a demon. This is also a mistake, as The Bible tells us we're at war with them Ephesians 6:11-17 says: "Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." 

So while we shouldn't be attributing everything to demons, we really need to be aware that they do interact with humanity, and they are a threat to our souls.

Conclusion 

Hopefully, I've successfully answered any questions you have regarding demons.

Why Paul Didn't Merely See A "Vision"

In chapter 8 of my book Inference To The One True God, in my blog post “The Minimal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection PART 1” and in my blog post “A Quick Case For Jesus’ Resurrection”, I list 5 facts which undergird an inference to the resurrection of Jesus being raised from the dead. These facts are (1) Jesus' death by crucifixion, (2), Jesus' empty tomb discovered the following Sunday after His death, (3) Jesus' 12 Disciples believed that they saw Jesus alive after His death, (4) Paul converted on the basis of what He believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus, and (5) A skeptic named James converted on the basis what he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

I argued for the historicity of these 5 facts using the historical method, or the "criterion of authenticity", followed by an inference to the He-Is-Risen hypothesis as the best explanation.

In my conversations and debates with non-Christians on this topic, several of them have tried to discredit or downplay the 4th minimal fact in the case by arguing that what Paul saw wasn't really a bodily appearance of Jesus, but that it was merely a vision of Jesus. They point out, for example, that in Acts 26:19 Paul explicitly calls his experience on the road to Damascus a vision. "So king Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision..." Acts 9 says that Paul was blinded by the light and is said to have heard the voice of Jesus. Later on in Acts Jesus appears to him to say he will bear witness to him in Rome but here it's just a voice and a light. The argument here is that based on this biblical data, it means that Paul only saw a sort of spiritual vision like Stephen had when he stood before the Sanhedrin and didn't have a post-mortem sighting on par with the disciples and James. A person in the comment section on this site even took the argument a bit further to say that because Paul lumps his experience in with the disciples that he must have believed their experiences to be of the same kind as his, and therefore the disciples also believed themselves to only have seen a vision of Jesus.

What are we to make of this argument? Did Paul only see a mere vision of Jesus? Was Paul's experience something produced by his own mind? I don't think so. Here are several reasons why this argument is a failure.

Only The Book Of Acts Records The Light, Paul Never Does  

Paul almost never mentions seeing a light in his own epistles. Luke (the author of the book of Acts) is the only one to mention a light. Whenever Paul recounts his postmortem appearance experience in His epistles, he basically just says "I saw Jesus" or "Jesus appeared to me."

"Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are not you my work in the Lord?" - 1 Corinthians 9:1

"Last of all, he appeared to me also, as to one untimely born." - 1 Corinthians 15:8

"But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles..." - Galatians 1:15-16a

While it's true that Paul does mention a light sometimes in the book of Acts, he never does in His own epistles. Only when Luke is recording Paul's words is a light ever mentioned. Paul's own pen never makes mention of it. When one reads Paul's writings, one gets the impression that Paul thought his experience was of an actual, flesh and blood, risen Jesus. Not merely a mental image.

In The Acts Account Of Paul's Experience, Other People Notice Something Going On 

In Acts 9, where the first account of his vision takes place, Luke explains that "the men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one" (Acts 9:7). Later when Paul is giving a speech recounting his experience on the road to Damascus, he says, "now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me" (Acts 22:9).

The Acts account tells us that while none of Paul's companions saw who was there or what was said, they all saw the same light and heard a voice (they just couldn't make out what the voice was saying). If you accept Luke's account, then you have to concede that Paul's experience was an objective experience of something outside his mind. Why? Because that many peoples' brains couldn't all produce the same experience at the same time. It would be akin to a group hallucination, and those are statistically impossible. Hallucinations are like dreams. They don't spread like the common cold. If you met up with a group of your friends, and one of them said to you "Boy, that was one nice dream we all had, right?" You would either think he was joking or that he went crazy. You would never take seriously his claim that all of your friends simultaneously experienced the same dream. Dreams and hallucinations are both projections of a person's mind and it defies the odds that multiple peoples' brains could simultaneously conjure up the same mental images.

Therefore, to say that Paul had a subjective visionary experience (an experience produced by his own mind) simply does not work. The account clearly says that other people experienced it too. The only difference is that while they saw a light and heard a voice, they couldn't see who was in the light or make out what the voice was saying.

Now, if the skeptic wants to say "No, no. I think Luke was making the incident up", then the Paul-only-saw-a-light argument goes down the toilet because this is the only place in scripture where a light is mentioned. Again, in all of Paul's own writings, he never mentions a light. He just says "I saw Jesus" or "Christ appeared to me" etc. To reject Luke's account as historically accurate, you reject any basis upon which to make the objection. But if you concede it, then you also lose any basis upon which to make the objection.

The Word "Vision" Doesn't Always Mean A Purely Mental Experience 

I asked about this in the Christian Apologetics Support Group a short while back to get my fellow apologists' take on the matter. I wanted to see how their approach to this skeptical argument differed from mine and/or how similar they were to mine.

 In the comment section, Josh Sommer wrote: "The word optasia doesn't necessarily have to mean an apparition projected by our minds. A vision, or optasia, could simply indicate that someone literally saw what they describe to be a vision. I have an optasia of the flowers on my dining room table right now. That doesn't mean they aren't literally right in front of me, tangibly. 

We use the word 'vision' to mean something like a daydream, but that's not usually how Scripture uses the term. 'Vision' can be used to indicate real events. For instance, Jesus calls the Transfiguration a 'vision' in Matthew 17:9, but this does not mean there weren't actual real events playing out in front of Peter and John."

Why Is Paul's Experience Different From The Disciples'?

Given all that I've said, we've got good grounds for affirming that Paul's experience was an experience of a postmortem risen Jesus, or at least that that's what Paul believed it to be. We can debate whether the actual risen Jesus really did appear to Paul, but the fact that Paul believed his experience was that of the risen Jesus (and not a mere vision) is well established.

That said, the postmortem appearance to Paul is clearly different than that of the 12 disciples and James. Why is that? And does Luke contradict Paul by saying he saw a light while Paul he saw a postmortem Jesus? If I can shift from examining the issue from the perspective of a historian for a minute and look at it from a theologian's perspective, I would say that the reason Paul's experience of Jesus is different is that its post-ascension. Paul most likely saw the risen Jesus standing there, bodily, but His body was shining His shekinah glory. It would have been similar to how the gospels describe Jesus during the Transfiguration (see Matthew 17:1–8, Mark 9:2–8, Luke 9:28–36). This seems to me like a plausible way to reconcile the seemingly conflicting accounts.

The postmortem appearance to Paul was lit.

The Divine Identity Argument For Christianity

In August of 2015, I published my very first book ever: Inference To The One True God: Why I Believe In Jesus Instead Of Other Gods. The book was written to respond to skeptics who frequently pose the question "Why do you believe in Jesus instead of all these other gods you claim are myths? Why say these other gods of these other religions don't exist, but Jesus does?" An alternative way the question is asked is "Why believe The Bible instead of the Hindu scriptures or the Quran, or any other supposed revelation?"

In my book, I gave what I now call "The Divine Identity Argument". I never used that phrase in the book because I named the argument quite a while after I wrote and published it. But I will probably mention the name in future editions.

The Arguments Undergirding The Argument

In the book, I defended several arguments for God's existence, such as The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Fine-Tuning Argument, The Local Fine Tuning Argument, The Moral Argument, and The Ontological Argument. These arguments are logically valid (meaning they correctly follow the 9 rules of inference such as modus ponens, modus tollens, hypothetical syllogism, disjunctive syllogism etc.) and they have true premises, as demonstrated by powerful evidence. Given that these arguments meet the 3 criteria required for an argument to be successful (i.e valid logic, true premises, and reasons to believe the premises are true), it follows that their conclusions follow: God exists.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument establishes that a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, uncaused, supernatural, personal Being brought all physical reality into existence at The Big Bang a finite time ago.

The Bible also teaches that a spaceless (see 1 Kings 8:27, 2 Chronicles 2:6), timeless (1 Corinthians 2:7, 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2), immaterial (John 4:24, 1 Timothy 1:17, 1 Timothy 6:16), powerful (Psalm 62:11-12, Job 9:14, Matthew 19:26), uncaused (Psalm 90:2, Isaiah 57:15, 1 Timothy 1:17, Revelation 1:8), supernatural, personal being (John 1:12, James 4:8) brought the universe into existence a finite time ago (Genesis 1:1, John 1:1-3). The Bible calls this being "God".

The Fine Tuning Argument proves that this same Creator finely tuned the laws of physics to precise parameters compatible with the existence of life.

The Bible also teaches that the Creator of the universe arranged the universe in such a way as to permit the existence of life. "For this is what the LORD says-- he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited-- he says: 'I am the LORD, and there is no other." (Isaiah 45:18).

The Local Fine Tuning Argument establishes that this designer of physics also crafted 400+ characteristics in our galaxy cluster, galaxy, solar system, and Earth-Moon planetary system to allow life to evolve.

The Bible says the same (Genesis 1, Isaiah 45:18).

We infer that the Being of the Cosmological and 2 Fine Tuning arguments are the same Being because of Occam's Razor. It's much simpler to posit that the cause of the universe's existence and the cause of the universe's fine tuning are the same Being than it is to postulate different entities for these 3 different events.

The Moral Argument shows us that a morally perfect, necessarily existent, personal being who is a Trinity is the ontological grounding of objective morality. He inscribed the knowledge of right and wrong into our hearts. In the absence of this being, objective moral values and duties wouldn't exist. Since they do exist, it follows that this being exists.

The Bible says the same: "(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)" (Romans 2:14-15). The Bible also teaches that God is a Trinity.

The Ontological Argument proves the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, morally perfect, necessarily existence Trinitarian being who exists in all possible worlds including the actual world. The Bible also teaches that God is omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:37, Job 42:2, Job 9:14, Psalm 147:5, Matthew 19:26), omniscient (Psalm 147:5, Isaiah 40:28, Psalm 139:1-6, John 21:15-17, 1 John 3:20), omnipresent (Joshua 1:9, Psalm 139:7-10), necessarily existent (Exodus 3:14), morally perfect (Deuteronomy 32:4), and is a Trinity.

Putting It All Together 

Given that "The God Of Natural Theology" and The God Of The Bible have exactly the same attributes, and since none of the polytheistic, pantheistic, or Deistic gods even come close to bearing the attributes of the God of these arguments, the most reasonable explanation is that The God proven to exist by these arguments and the God of The Bible are the exact same Being. This conclusion draws its inference from the law of identity. In logic, the law of identity states that "each thing is the same with itself and different from another". What this means is that each thing is composed of its own unique set of characteristic qualities or features. In its symbolic representation, "a = a" or "For all x: x = x".

The law of identity states If Thing X has the same properties as Thing Y, and if there's nothing whatsoever to distinguish X from Y, then what that means is that X is Y. If Thing X has properties 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and Thing 2 also has properties 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and there is no additional property in either to distinguish Thing 1 from Thing 2, then it follows that Things 1 and 2 are the same thing, not 2 separate entities. If there is an additional property to distinguish one from the other, then it would be fallacious to conclude that they are the same.

To illustrate: Let's say an alien came from outer space and knew nothing about Donald Trump. In talking to Earthlings throughout the course of his conversations, he finds out that Donald Trump is the current president of The United States. He also finds out much later that the president is the former host of the TV show The Apprentice. Based on these facts, the alien would infer that Donald Trump was the host of The Apprentice. If Donald Trump is the current U.S President, and the current U.S president used to be the host of The Apprentice, then it follows that Donald Trump is the person talked about in the latter.

My book makes a case for The God Of The Bible using this law of logic. The God Of The Natural Theology arguments bare properties 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The God Of The Bible also bares those properties. The conclusion is that they are the same. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that none of the other deities in any of the other religions even come close to resembling the God of the Natural Theology arguments. This is particularly the case for The Moral and Ontological Arguments, which demonstrate the existence of a trinitarian Being. Only Christianity has a God that is a Trinity.

A Fingerprint analogy is another way to help you grasp my reasoning. Everyone's fingerprints are different. No two are alike. This is why if a detective has your fingerprint on file, he can look at fingerprints on a physical surface, and compare them with your fingerprint on file, and if the two different fingerprints are a match, the detective concludes that they come from the same individual (you). The Natural Theology arguments are like the fingerprints taken from a solid surface while The Bible's content is like the fingerprint on file.

An Argument For The Bible's Inspiration 

Now, not only does this argument show that The God Of The Bible and the God of The Natural Theology arguments are the same, and thus answers the skeptics question in the first paragraph, but this also provides us with a good argument for The Bible's inspiration. If The Bible were only a human book written by human men just making stuff up, it is extremely improbable that they would make up a God who is exactly like the God of the Cosmological, Teleological, Moral, and Ontological Arguments. Why didn't their allegedly made up god fall short like the so-called gods in the rest of the religious writings of the world? The reason is that the God of the Cosmological, Teleological, Moral, and Ontological Arguments (i.e The God of Natural Theology) inspired the writers of The Bible. That's why they describe Him perfectly. The God Of Natural Theology inspired The Bible's authors and that's why they describe Him perfectly.

Now, given that The Bible is inspired by this Being (who is morally perfect, as evidenced by the Moral and Ontological Arguments), then whatever The Bible says must be the truth. Morally perfect beings cannot lie, but will always tell you the truth. This means that we can believe that Heaven and Hell actually exist, that angels and demons actually exist, that Adam and Eve actually existed (provided our exegesis takes us to that conclusion, which I think it does), that believing in Jesus will grant you eternal life, but disbelieving in Him will land you in Hell, and so on and so forth.

Conclusion

I call this "The Divine Identity Argument" for Christianity. It infers that The God Of The Bible exists (and by extension, The Bible's inspiration) by looking at arguments for God's existence common to those in the field of Christian Apologetics, looking at The Bible's description of God, and using the logical law of identity to infer that they are one in the same. I could only briefly explain my reasoning here. I couldn't go into defending the premises of the arguments at all, in fact, I couldn't even list the premises. Those interested in an in-depth treatise of The Divine Identity Argument are recommended to read my book on the subject titled: Inference To The One True God: Why I Believe In Jesus Instead Of Other Gods. The arguments listed in this blog post are also defended in various articles on this site, but they don't do so within the context of The Divine Identity Argument like my book does. So if you would like to see my defense of the arguments' premises, and how I respond to objections from critics, and how only The Bible's God shares the same attributes with Natural Theology's God, and you want all of the aforementioned in one organized package, then you should read the book. Click here to buy the book. 

For skeptics who may object in the comment section that I haven't proven my case in this blog post, that's because I haven't. This blog post is merely meant to outline the reasoning of The Divine Identity Argument. Whether the premises of the Natural Theology arguments undergirding The Divine Identity Argument are true is precisely why I referenced you to my blog posts on the arguments, and the book which treats the Natural Theology arguments within the context of The Divine Identity Argument.