I did not want to comment on this point, but this is the second time Drange proposes that “there are conceptual problems with the idea of a general resurrection of the dead” (348); “the very concept of an afterlife is… incoherent.” (373) How our author can make this claim while admitting evangelical Christianity as a premise in a different argument escapes me. For if Christianity is true, then there are most definitely an afterlife and resurrection that pointedly lack any “conceptual problems.” So this is by the way.
Drange claims that the “confusion” among Christians on many issues pertinent to salvation is ungodly. A good God would intervene to solve all such controversies. Sometimes, he says, an individual is confused in the sense of not knowing what to think; other times a group is, if there are conflicting opinions within it.
Drange overstates the case. For there is no confusion whatsoever about the articles of Christian faith. These, as put forward by, say, the Nicene creed, are accepted by all Christians.
There may be confusions about the nature of God, but we humans can work out natural theology ourselves without divine assistance.
There may be confusions about rational interpretations of the articles of faith, but coming up with these, too, is our own job, not God’s.
There may be confusions about morals. When it is natural morality, human philosophers need to do a better job.
When it is grace-enhanced morality, we can study the lives and teachings of the saints.
When it is due to personal sin clouding the mind, the confused person ought to repent and reform.
There may be confusion about the best Christian sect. I think the Catholic Church has unique advantages. But on its own, the sect one belongs to does not impinge on salvation.
In short, “God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel.” (Sir 15:14) Whence then the pressing need for God’s further involvement?