Elijah Hess has argued that, given the accuracy of Stalnaker-Lewis semantics, Molinists possess good reason to shift their position to neo-Molinism. Conceding the validity but denying the soundness of this argument, I contend that the Stalnaker-Lewis semantics is multiply flawed, especially in its definitions of □→ and ◇→ . Based on corrected definitions of □→ and ◇→ consistent with Molina’s own thought, I show how Hess’s neo-Molinist square of opposition collapses and his neological stages of God’s knowledge are undermined, thereby leading back to an original Molinism.

Richard Swinburne and Robert Larmer have offered different natural theological arguments for preferring Christian belief over Muslim belief. This paper argues (a) that both arguments are vulnerable to real and imagined Muslim objections and (b) that, while both can be bolstered against such objections, Larmer’s argument from miracle has much better prospects. Swinburne’s probabilistic argument suffers the lack of a strong natural theological argument for the Christian model of divine–human interaction. The argument from miracle, however, can be formulated robustly enough to withstand the challenge of the strongest reasonable Muslim miracle account.

Pacifism, as well as just war theory, are expressions of one’s general hermeneutic of reading the Bible. In recent New Testament hermeneutics, while the so-called old perspective might have more resonance with just war theory, both the new perspective and apocalyptic open the door to a hermeneutically based pacifism. I examine the case of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s under the category of a “Christoform hermeneutic,” namely, an approach to Christian ethics and the Christian and state that takes the suffering and cross of Christ as the chief orientation point.

God’s authority justifies belief in scripture, yet scripture also offers corroborating witnesses of prophecies and miracles to Jesus’s authority.