Destined to Be Creatures of Thanksgiving

(Montana Rockies - Bozeman Pass)

The older I get, the more thankful I am becoming. Giving thanks is habitual. I often find myself saying, to myself, or out loud in a whisper, "Thank you God."

This happens several times a day. I think of something God has done for me, I see something he has given me, and reflexively the words rise up and come out of me.

I wake in the morning and say "Thank You" for waking in the morning and moving into a new day.

Dallas Willard, before he went to be with Jesus, was grateful. Gary Moon describes Willard's last words. 

"At 4:30 a.m. a nurse came in to turn Dallas in the bed. Her visit awakened [Dallas’ good friend Gary Black who was in the hospital room with him]. Moving Dallas awakened him too. Gary took Dallas’s hand. Dallas turned to him and told him to tell his loved ones how much he was blessed by them and how much he appreciated them. … Then, as Gary described, “In a voice clearer than I had heard in days, he leaned his head back slightly and with his eyes closed said, ‘Thank you.’” Gary did not feel that Dallas was talking to him, but to another presence that Dallas seemed to sense in the room. And those were the last words of Dallas Willard. “Thank you,” he said, to a very present and then finally visible to him God."

Gary Moon, Becoming Dallas Willard (IVP, 2018), page 240

Gratitude is moving from volition to embodiment. This is good. I am being prepared.

In the great throne room scene of Revelation 4, the awesome four living creatures are spotlighted, as they levitate around the throne of God. They give splendor to the One who sits on the throne. I am destined to do the same. I am being prepped for full-being God-glorification. The creatures give value to him who occupies the throne. I have the same destiny. I am being shaped into a God-honoring creature.

The four living creatures give thanks. 

An eternal outpouring of gratitude. 

I will one day join this mighty chorus! 

I am being mentored in this, by the Holy Spirit.

All I am meant to be is summed up in the great outpouring of glory, honor, and thanks to him who sits on the throne and lives for ever and ever. (Revelation 4:9)

This outpouring of magnification is too much for the twenty-four elders. The threefold amplification of the four living creatures drops the elders to their knees before the Lord, and they worship him. (Revelation 4:10)

Listen, all you who are in Christ! This is your transcendent destiny, which, in your current immanent embodiment, you are being schooled for. 

To be creatures who radiate glory, display honor, and sing thanksgiving to the God who reigns for ever and ever. To be, as C.S. Lewis once said, "everlasting splendors."

Thank you.

Getting Into a Relationship Won't Heal the Wounded Heart

Linda and I, in Cancun (the sun was bright!)

Every heart has its wound. 

Some have multiple wounds. What can mend a broken heart? Not: getting into a relationship. Not: getting married. And not committing emotional adultery. (See here, and here, and here, and here.)

The person with an unhealed, bleeding heart brings their bloody mess into every relationship and, if the other gets close enough, they get bled on. Probably they are wounded too, and that's why, unknowingly, they are attracted to another hurting person. Misery loves company. People that bond in their misery form dysfunctional relationships.

Who a person is pre-maritally is who they are maritally. Unless, of course, they change. But just being in a relationship doesn't bring healing. Often the opposite happens. Old, oozing scars get re-opened. We cannot restore the souls of others.

God, on the other hand, is the Soul-Restorer (Psalm 23:3). Therefore, know and be known by him. I've seen this work, in my own life and others. In relationship counseling Linda and I attempt to bring people back to this.

After countless hours of counseling couples, pre-counseling them, post-marital counseling, and wedding-doing over the past forty-five years, we have seen marriages get restored. This happens when husband and wife stop viewing each other as either "savior" or "destroyer," individually look to God, cry out "Change me, God!", and respond to God's counsel.

Can God use a partner to mediate healing? Of course. But that's God, not the partner (who gets some credit for being a vessel of God, like a mug is to be affirmed for containing a great blend of coffee). God has mediated much healing to me through Linda, and she would say the same about me. But neither of us is The Great Healer. It is bad news relationship-wise if one is viewed that way, or views the other that way. What happens is big-time disappointment.

If you are hurting and lonely, even while married, the answer to your personal hell is not "I need to find someone!" Way too many mistakes are made at this point. Someone dates as a cure for their inner tragedy. Two unhealed people "fall in love." Never date or marry as relief for tragedy. Unless you want to experience hell on earth in a failing marriage, with children.

Every person's story is different, especially in the details. Here's part of mine. I was twenty-one years old. I had just become a Jesus-follower. I tried to get back into a previously failed dating relationship with a girl who was not a Jesus-follower. Eventually, she broke up with me. I thought, "I am messed up." God told me to take a year off from opposite-sex relationships and work on my own self. I did. It was a wonderful year! I thought, should God ever bring someone into my life, and should we get married, and should we have children, I want to be healed of a lot of stuff inside me.

Every person is healable. None of us have it all together, inwardly. Getting in a relationship is not the cure. Success in acquiring a life-partner does not equal a life of emotional flourishing.

In this regard Miroslav Volf, in A Public Faith: How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good, writes about how "success" fails to bring lasting satisfaction. 

"God delivers us from the melancholy emptiness that sometimes accompanies our very success. We’ve achieved what we wanted—we have gotten the corner office—and we still feel empty. We are like a child who wants a toy and, when she gets it, plays with it for a day or two and then craves another. Melancholy inevitably sets in when we forget that we are made to find satisfaction in the infinite God and not in any finite object." (Kindle Locations 574-578)

We achieved what we wanted. The thrill dissipates. We still feel empty. Bill and Lynn Hybels wrote about this pattern in their still-excellent book on marriage, Fit To Be Tied.

The answer that heals was never meant to be found in another person.

***
My book on prayer is Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God (May 2016)

My book on leadership is Leading the Presence-Driven Church

Joy Is Non-circumstantial

 

                                                        (Redeemer church, Monroe, MI)

Joy, like contentment, like the fruit of the Spirit, like influence for Christ, like manifestations of the Spirit, finds realization independently of the vicissitudes of life. 

Henri Nouwen writes,

"Joy does not come from positive predictions about the state of the world. It does not depend on the ups and downs of the circumstances of our lives. Joy is based on the spiritual knowledge that, while the world in which we live is shrouded in darkness, God has overcome the world. Jesus says it loudly and clearly: “In the world you will have troubles, but rejoice, I have overcome the world” (John 16:33)."

The Pro-Life Psalm

 

(Redeemer Church, Monroe, dark outside, lights on in the sanctuary)

PSALM 139:13-18

For you created my inmost being;

    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.

My frame was not hidden from you
    when I was made in the secret place,
    when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.

Your eyes saw my unformed body;
    all the days ordained for me were written in your book
    before one of them came to be.

How precious to me are your thoughts, God!
    How vast is the sum of them!

Were I to count them,
    they would outnumber the grains of sand—
    when I awake, I am still with you.

FORGIVENESS: Some Resources

 

(Leading the Presence-Driven Church students, Faith Bible Seminary, NYC)

(I'm re-posting this to keep it in play.)

A QUIZ

Which one is the road to freedom?

a. to forgive

b. to nurture an offense

Linda and I are always talking with people about forgiveness. Here are  links to things I have written about forgiveness.

We all need it, and need to learn it, and practice it. 

For Jesus-followers, this is the heart and soul of the Gospel. 

I bless you all with hearts of forgiveness!

Why Is Self-forgiveness Harder than Forgiving Others?

Confess and Forgive

Self-Forgiveness and Liberation from the Past

To Forgive or to Punish?

Moving From Self-Hatred to Self-Forgiveness

Confession & Forgiveness: The Foundation of All Authentic Relationship

C&F (Confess & Forgive)

Sermon Notes - Forgiveness as a Gateway to Healing

Self-Forgiveness Often Includes Making Amends with Others

How to Forgive Yourself

Forgiving Others - Three Stages

The Best Book on Self-Forgiveness Is...

Are You a Forgiving Person? Take The Forgiveness Quiz

To Withhold Forgiveness is the Core Evil of the Kingdom of Darkness

***

For empirical research on the benefits and power of forgiveness, see Robert Enright's International Forgiveness Institute.

BOOKS

Lewis Smedes, Forgive and Forget: Healing the Hurts We Don't Deserve

David Seamands, Healing for Damaged Emotions

Everett Worthington, Forgiving and Reconciling: Bridges to Wholeness and Hope

Worthington, Moving Forward: Six Steps to Forgiving Yourself and Breaking Free from the Past

Robert Enright, 8 Keys to Forgiveness (8 Keys to Mental Health)

Enright, The Forgiving Life: A Pathway to Overcoming Resentment and Creating a Legacy of Love

David Augsburger, Caring Enough to Forgive

Timothy Keller, Forgiveness: Why Should I and How Can I?

Truth Excludes (as does every community)

 

Downtown Monroe

Humans are tribal. We need to belong to groups. We crave bonds and attachments, which is why we love clubs, teams, fraternities, family. Almost no one is a hermit. Even monks and friars belong to orders. But the tribal instinct is not just an instinct to belong. It is also an instinct to exclude.

Yale Law professor Amy Chua

From her book Political Tribes

Former USC philosopher Dallas Willard writes:

"There is a certain logical exclusiveness built into knowledge as such, and it must be respected... This is due to the fact that knowledge (not mere belief, commitment, sentiment, or tradition) involves truth. Truth by its very nature is exclusive in the following sense. If any belief is true, that by itself excludes the truth of any belief contrary or contradictory to it. And this “exclusion” is not a matter of what anyone wants or hopes to be true or false. For example, if “Sue’s dress is red” is true, then “Sue’s dress is white” and “Sue’s dress is not red” are false. It does not matter what anyone may think or want. It is simply a matter of the objective logical relations between the beliefs (or statements or “propositions”) involved."
- Dallas Willard, Knowing Christ Today: Why We Can Trust Spiritual Knowledge, pp. 170-171

Truth marginalizes. Truth excludes.

You have a worldview, a set of beliefs through which you interpret reality and experience. Your worldview excludes masses of people. 

Here is an example. 

When I was speaking in India, the hotel I stayed in had an altar in the lobby. Every morning a young Hindu priest, dressed in a white skirt, lit incense sticks on the altar, and offered prayers to the god of the hotel. This scene can be captured in the following statements:

1. There is a god who watches over the hotel.
2. Appeasing this god with the burning of incense and other sacrifices helps ensure that the hotel will succeed financially.
3. Uttering prayers of worship to this god increases the probability that the god will show favor towards the hotel.
4. To not perform #s 1 and 2 may cause the god of the hotel to be angry, and bring harm or disaster to it.

Take statement 1. If it is true, then I, who think it is false, am wrong. Such is the nature of truth. The Hindu priest knows something I do not. I am logically excluded from such knowledge.

I think statement 1 is false. If I am right, then statements 2-4 are false, since there exists no "god of the hotel" to be appeased.

It is not rude or impolite to talk like this. It is not disrespectful. Marginalization is epistemically unavoidable. Willard writes: 

"It is not arrogant and unloving merely to believe that you are right about something and that others are wrong... There have, after all, been many people who were strongly convinced of the rightness of their beliefs, in religious and other matters, without being arrogant and unloving." (Ib., 170)

What if you embrace the belief-system of postmodernism? And you claim, We can't know truth. I have two thoughts about that. 1) You just excluded me and all like me who believe we can know truth; and 2) You just made a truth claim which, on your postmodern thinking, is self-contradictory.

In embracing the truths of your worldview, you have excluded many. That's just the way truth works. 

The Progressivist Trajectory Is to Eliminate Christianity

 

                                                             (Park, across from our house.)

In Jesus and the Powers, N. T. Wright and Michael Bird write:

"Many political progressives see Christianity as the number-one enemy against which they are struggling. As such, Christian communities, institutions, cultural influence and moral vision are the darkness against which their post-religious enlightenment is intended to shine. Christianity’s influence can only be eliminated by realigning institutions towards a secularised morality, by narrowing the parameters of religious freedom, by a coercive catharsis of religion itself, and by deconstructing resident fixtures such as history, constitutional law and even family. In the end, the progressive political vision amounts to what US political philosopher Stephen Macedo calls civic totalism, where the State is invested with all power and seeks to regulate as much of public and private life as possible."

- Wright, N. T.; Bird, Michael F.. Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies (pp. 138-139). 

For more on the progressivist trajectory, see my book Deconstructing Progressive Christianity.

"Abortion": Defined

Yale U's Robert P. George on Defending Unborn Life

 

                                                                       (My home office)

(I am re-posting this for the unborn.)

Professor Robert P. George is one of the most influential scholars, for me and many others, on the abortion issue.

As an example of moral and rational clarity, see: "Defending Unborn Life in Political Action: We Must Continue the Struggle for the Soul of Our Nation." It's brilliant and compassionate.

Here's a quote from George.

"Are unborn babies persons? As a matter of moral fact, they are. That is because the offspring of human parents, from the earliest embryonic stage of their development forward, are — and are undeniably — distinct, complete, albeit dependent and developing, living members of the species Homo sapiens: human beings. And all human beings are persons — that is, creatures whose nature is a rational nature. Like human beings in the infant stage, human beings in the fetal and embryonic stages of development do not yet carry out characteristically human mental activities; yet embryonic, fetal and infant human beings are organized precisely to develop the immediately exercisable capacities for precisely such activities. That is their nature."

If anyone wonders why I am so concerned about this issue, please read George's article.

If you want to contact me and talk about this essay, please do so.  johnpiippo@msn.com 

And see here for more. 

Understanding and Responding to Sexuality Issues: A Brief Bibliography

(University of Michigan)

(I am re-posting this, to keep it in play.)

I am against the legalization of same-sex marriage for two reasons, one religious, the other non-religious (sociological and legal).

As regards the religious reason, I do not expect non-religious people to agree with me. Of course not. Just as I don't turn to their irreligious worldviews to make sense of anything, neither do I expect them to partner with me. That's the way worldviews work. Everyone has one. They do not, at significant points, overlap.

If the non-religious person objects to my religious views, they question my worldview, not my reasoning. The irreligious person is a non-player in the intra-religious and intra-Christian dialogue.

Regarding non-religious reasons, here is where the irreligious and religious can join in principled (we would hope) dialogue, rather than ad hominem stereotyping (sadly, some on both sides do this.). We can dialogue without name-calling, right?

These are a few of the resources I have read and found helpful in understanding the issues. Note: I have read pro-gay books since reading Mel White's Stranger at the Gate in, I believe, the early 1980s. 

The Intra-Worldview Discussion

Does the Bible Affirm Same-Sex Relationships?: Examining 10 Claims about Scripture and Sexuality, by Rebecca McLaughlin

Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views, by Dan O. Via and Robert Gagnon

The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, by Robert Gagnon. This is probably the book to read, within this worldview, and from this perspective.

Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality, by Wesley Hill.

Holy Sexuality and the Gospel: Sex, Desire, and Relationships Shaped by Gpd's Grand Story, by Christopher Yuan.

God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships, by Matthew Vines.

Changing Our Mind, by David Gushee.

The Gospel of Inclusion, Brandan Robertson

The Shift: Surviving and Thriving After Moving from Conservative to Progressive Christianity, by Colby Martin.

Unclobber: Rethinking Our Misuse of the Bible on Homosexuality, by Colby Martin.

In my book Deconstructing Progressive Christianity I consider and respond to Martin's two books.

Can You Be Gay and Christian? Responding with Love and Truth to Questions About Homosexuality, by Michael Brown.

A War of Loves: The Unexpected Story of a Gay Activist Discovering Jesus, by David Bennett.

Still Time to Care: What We Can Learn from the Church’s Failed Attempt to Cure Homosexuality, by Greg Johnson.

People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality Is not Just an Issue, by Preston Sprinkle and Wesley Hill.

A Change of Affection: A Gay Man's Incredible Story of Redemption, by Becket Cook.

 What Does the Bible Really Teach About Homosexuality?  By Kevin DeYoung.

Is God Anti-Gay? And Other Questions About Jesus, the Bible, and Same-Sex Sexuality, by Sam Allberry

Embodied: Transgender Identities, the Church, and What the Bible Has to Say, by Preston Sprinkle

Understanding Gender Dysphoria: Navigating Transgender Issues in a Changing Culture, by Mark Yarhouse

Emerging Gender Identities: Understanding the Diverse Experiences of Today's Youth, by Yarhouse

When Children Come Out: A Guide for Christian Parents, by Yarhouse

Understanding Sexual Identity: A Resource for Youth Ministry, by Yarhouse

Sexual Identity and Faith: Helping Clients Find Congruence, by Yarhouse

The Moral Vision of the New Testament: An Introduction to New Testament Ethics, by Richard Hays

I am looking forward to reading Hays's new book, where he changes his mind about gay marriage. The Widening of God's Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story.

See Preston Sprinkle's excellent, thorough review of Hays's new book. 

See my friend Phillip Lee's website, His Way Out Ministries. 

See Justin Brierley's "Unbelievable" podcast - "God, Gay Christians and the Church," a dialogue between David Bennett and Brandan Robinson.

See my sermon "The Meaning of Marriage."

See my article "Arsenokoitais" (ἀρσενοκοίταις) in 1 Timothy 1:10 (et. al.)

Legal and Philosophical Reasoning on Same-Sex Marriage

Why Marriage Matters, Third Edition: Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences, by Bradford Wilcox. 

Debating Same-Sex Marriage, by John Corvino and Maggie Gallagher.

The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, and Morals, eds. Robert P. George and Jean Bethke Elshtain.  

What is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense, by Sherif Gergis, Robert P. George, and Ran T. Anderson (forthcoming Oct. 16, 2012) 

When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Movement (Famously banned by Amazon [see here]; while Amazon sells Hitler's Mein Kampf.)

I contacted Robert George re. this issue, and he graciously sent me the following links. He also graciously offered to field questions I have.

From Prof. George:

For a fuller account of my own views, here is the link to a more recent paper I wrote with two of my former students. (It is a free one-click download.)

“What is Marriage?” by Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:   http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

Kenji Yoshino of NYU published a critique on Slate, to which there is a link in our reply, available here:  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2217

Andrew Koppelman of Northwestern published a critique on Balkinization, to which there is a link in our reply, available here:  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2263

Barry Deutsch published a critique on the Family Scholars Blog, to which there is a link in our reply, available here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2277

Kenji Yoshino published a response to our reply, to which there is a link in our reply to that response, available here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2295

Andrew Koppelman published a response to our reply, to which there is a link in our reply to that response, available here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2350

Also, here is an essay in two parts (written with Patrick Lee and Gerard V. Bradley) on the link between procreation and marriage – a link we believe is badly misunderstood by many on both sides of the debate. Here are the links:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2638 “Marriage and Procreation: The Intrinsic Link”

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2637 “Marriage and Procreation: Avoiding Bad Arguments”

Prof. George also sent me:

The Good of Marriage and the Morality of Sexual Relations: some Philosophical and Historical Observations, by John Finnis.

Marriage: A Basic and Exigent Good, John Finnis.

Plantinga's Modal Version of the Ontological Argument for God's Existence

                                                       

                                                       (Pond, at Monroe County Community College)

In my MCCC Philosophy of Religion classes I taught Anselm's Ontological Argument for God's Existence, and modal version of the Ontological Argument. Here is Alvin Plantinga's modal version of the Ontological Argument for God's existence. It is a real head-twister! 

Using modal logic, the following is true: If a necessary being is possible then a necessary being exists. (Think about it, modally.)

Or:

1. There is a possible world in which a necessarily existing being exists.
2. Therefore, a necessarily existing being exists.

Note: This argument avoids the Kantian criticism that 'exists' is not a predicate.

PLANTINGA’S MODAL VERSION OF THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE


The argument goes:

1.    It is possible that there is a being (B) that has maximal greatness.

2.    So, there is a possible being that in some world W has maximal greatness.

3.    A being has maximal greatness in a given world only if it has maximal excellence in every world.

4.    A being has maximal excellence in a given world only if it has omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection in that world.

5.    Therefore, “there actually exists a being (B) that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect; this being, furthermore, exists and has these qualities in every other world as well.”

Needed to understand this argument:

Logical possibilities and impossibilities do not vary from world to world. If a given proposition or state of affairs is impossible in at least one possible world, then it is impossible in every possible world. For example, "square circles" are logical impossibilities in our world. Therefore they are logical impossibilities in every possible world. There is no possible world, no creatively invented world, that could contain a square circle.

• There are no propositions that are in fact impossible but could have been possible. For example, square circles could not exist in any conceivable/possible world.
• And, there are no propositions that in fact are possible but could have been impossible. For example, if there is a possible world in which SpongeBob exists, then there is no possible world in which SpongeBob could not exist.
• Therefore, B's nonexistence is impossible in every possible world. And because B is a maximally great Being, B exists in every possible world.
• Therefore B’s nonexistence is impossible in this world (since this world is a possible world).
• Therefore B exists and exists necessarily.

***

Plantinga's Modal Version Of the Ontological Argument (From Graham Oppy)

(Warren Dunes State Park, Michigan)

Graham Oppy presents Alvin Plantinga's modal version of the ontological argument as follows.

An entity is "maximally great" iff (if and only if) it necessarily exists and possesses "maximal excellence" (i.e., is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect).

Keeping this in mind, note that a maximally great entity cannot be a contingent thing. As regards contingent things, it is possible that a certain contingent thing exists. E.g., it is possible that a unicorn exists (logically possible).

Therefore, regarding a maximally great thing:

1) Either it is not possible that a maximally great entity exists or it is necessary that a maximally great entity exists.

2) It is (logically) possible that a maximally great entity exists.

3) Therefore a maximally great entity exists. (That is, an entity that is omniscient, omnipotent, morally perfect, and possesses these attributes (i.e. is "maximally excellent") in every possible world.)

Oppy frames it this way.

1. There is a possible world in which there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.

2. (Hence) There is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.

Oppy writes: "Under suitable assumptions about the nature of accessibility relations between possible worlds, this argument is valid: from it is possible that it is necessary that p, one can infer that it is necessary that p."

Note:

1) it is possible that it is necessary that p.

2) Either p cannot possibly exist or p necessarily exists.

3) Therefore (from P1 & P2, using disjunctive syllogism) p necessarily exists.

Oppy's essay on the Ontological Argument in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a good one. He goes on to offer criticisms of Plantinga's version. And gives Plantinga's further reflections on the status of the argument.

***

The Modal Ontological Argument According to Plantinga

(Sterling State Park)

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article by Kenneth Himma is good on explaining the Modal Version of the Ontological Argument for God's Existence.. Here is Plantinga's OA for God's existence, via Himma.

Plantinga defines two properties: "maximal excellence" and "maximal greatness."

P1. A being is maximally excellent in a world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect in W.

P2. A being is maximally great in a world W if and only if it is maximally excellent in every possible world.

"Thus, maximal greatness entails existence in every possible world: since a being that is maximally great at W is omnipotent at every possible world and non-existent beings can't be omnipotent, it follows that a maximally great being exists in every logically possible world." If, then, a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world, to include our actual world.

Is it logically possible that a maximally great being exists in some possible world? Plantinga thinks so. To think this is not possible one would have to show that the concept of "maximally great being" is logically contradictory, like "square circle." Therefore, the concept of a "maximally great being" is logically possible; i.e., possibly instantiated. It follows, therefore, that a maximally great being (i.e., God) exists in every possible world.

Himma now formulates Plantinga' argument as follows:

1. The concept of a maximally great being is self-consistent.

2. If 1, then there is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally great being exists.

3. Therefore, there is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally great being exists.

4. If a maximally great being exists in one logically possible world, it exists in every logically possible world.

5. Therefore, a maximally great being (i.e., God) exists in every logically possible world.

As P2 affirms, maximal greatness entails existence in every possible world. If it is possible that such a being exists in one possible world, then it exists in every possible world. Since our world is a possible world, God exists in our world.

See Himma's entire essay for more, including objections.