Search — Theology Explorer

Filter results by source database — Scripture Commentary, Theology, Mike Winger, or Pulpit. Click a tab to narrow to one database.

...more

All (7015) Scripture Commentary (3373) Theology (205) Mike Winger (3407) Pulpit (30)

Mike Winger idea 2021-03-19

1 Corinthians 5:11 "do not eat with them" — does not apply to family relationships

Listener Melissa Heeg asks whether 1 Corinthians 5:11's instruction not to eat with a sinning "brother" applies to family gatherings.

1 Peter 3 1 Corinthians 5:11 1 Peter 3 Lifestyle sin 1 Corinthians 5:11

Mike Winger idea 2021-03-19

Helping a nominal Christian spouse grow in biblical knowledge

Listener Tasteful Chicken has a wife who believes in Jesus and prays but does not read the Bible; her lifestyle does not align with Scripture.

Pastoral care Discipleship in marriage Nominal Christianity

Mike Winger idea 2021-03-19

Politics in the pulpit — biblical worldview yes, partisan politics no

Listener Lisa asks whether politics belong in the pulpit; she is 100% against it.

Abortion Politics in the pulpit Biblical worldview

Mike Winger idea 2021-03-19

Sharing Jesus with children when an atheist spouse objects

Listener Sheila is a new believer; her atheist husband does not want her sharing Jesus with their daughter because the daughter will think he's going to hell.

1 Corinthians 5:11 "do not eat with them" — does not apply to family relationships

Helping a nominal Christian spouse grow in biblical knowledge

Politics in the pulpit — biblical worldview yes, partisan politics no

Sharing Jesus with children when an atheist spouse objects

Introduction: Mike frames the show goal as helping viewers think biblically about everything.

Unity of the faith in Ephesians 4 involves shared core doctrine, knowledge of Christ, and Christlike character.

Apparent contradiction between Stephen's speech (Acts 7:4) and Genesis chronology of Terah and Abraham.

Overcoming laziness requires creating structured tasks, improving energy through exercise and diet, and reading Proverbs.

God physically appearing to everyone would not necessarily eliminate unbelief; unbelief is often a heart issue, not an evidence problem.

Modern (rabbinic) Judaism differs fundamentally from biblical Judaism; good works now replace the sacrificial system.

Christians can hold various views on Genesis 1 and the Big Bang; the Big Bang is actually strong evidence for God.

The Holy Spirit speaks through fruit, track record, and confirmation from other believers; not every decision requires supernatural direction.

Mark 5 demoniac: Jesus was not tricked by the demons; the swine destruction may have been demonic sabotage that God repurposed for good.

Couples should formalize their marriage as officially as possible rather than treating informal cohabitation as equivalent.

Joseph Smith was a demonstrably false prophet; modern Mormonism is a victim of his fraud.

The cause of the universe must be timeless, spaceless, and non-material, because the universe itself consists of time, space, and matter — the cause cannot be made of the things it created.

The conceptual analysis points toward a spaceless, timeless, non-material, incredibly powerful, exceedingly wise mind — matching what Jews and Christians have always understood from Genesis 1:1.

The Kalam cosmological argument stated formally: Premise 1 — whatever begins to exist must have a cause; Premise 2 — the universe began to exist; Conclusion — the universe has a cause.

Objection to Premise 1: "Who made God?" (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion). Response: the premise says whatever BEGINS to exist needs a cause, not whatever EXISTS needs a cause.

Objection to Premise 1: the composition fallacy — just because every part of the universe has a cause doesn't mean the whole does. Response: this misunderstands the argument; it's about a CLASS of things (things that begin to exist), not parts composing a whole.

Objection: quantum physics shows things can come into existence uncaused. Response: quantum events are not truly uncaused or from nothing; the quantum vacuum is something, not nothing.

Objection: the multiverse avoids the need for God. Response: everything said about our universe needing a cause applies equally to the multiverse — you're just kicking the can back.

Objection to Premise 2: maybe the universe is infinite in the past. Response: an actually infinite past is impossible — you could never traverse infinite moments to arrive at the present.

Objection: what if science one day explains the universe without God? Response: Christians welcome continued scientific inquiry; this objection is "naturalism of the gaps" — hoping naturalism will eventually explain it with no current evidence.

Why the cause must be PERSONAL: (1) a mind uniquely fits spaceless/timeless/immaterial yet has causal powers, (2) state-event causation from timelessness requires a decision to act, (3) absence of determinism in nothingness requires libertarian free will.

Classical apologetics typically combines the Kalam with design arguments and a moral argument (showing God has moral principles and loves people), building a cumulative case before presenting Christ.

Q&A: Revelation 21:1-2 and time in heaven. Heaven will involve time — months, sequential experiences — in physical resurrected bodies in the new creation. "Time will be no more" is poetic for everlasting, not literal timelessness.

Q&A: An infinite universe causing our universe in a "bounce" still faces the same problems — an infinite past of cycles can't be traversed, and a meta-timeline outside ours would need its own cause.

Q&A: When a Christian feels static in their walk, the answer is to fall in love with Jesus again rather than legalistically checking boxes. Pray for increased love and dedication; remember first works (Revelation 2, Ephesus).

Closing: Mike encourages viewers who are convinced to start seeking God, praying, and paying attention to Christ. He promotes Braxton Hunter's YouTube channel as a resource for apologetics.

Braxton responds: even if Drew's point succeeded, it wouldn't lead to atheism — at most it would adjust your concept of God. The video's title ("make you an atheist") overstates the stakes. Drew's argument mirrors Epicurus' logical argument from evil, which is too ambitious.

The JW blood transfusion example actually comes from Watchtower proclamations, not biblical interpretation. John notes the Bible's manuscript tradition makes it more reliable than modern media like video. Even supernatural direct knowledge could still be questioned by skeptics.

Cameron adds: Michael Rota's avarice objection response — the wager need not be self-interested; one might commit to God out of desire to avoid disappointing God, to grow morally, or out of moral duty. Rota's drowning child analogy: even at 50/50, the stakes justify commitment.

Drew's Question 4: If God knows who will choose him, why not only create those people and skip earthly suffering? If free will is the answer, that implies heaven lacks free will (since there's no suffering there), making earth better than heaven.

Good #3: Soul-building theodicy — suffering provides opportunities to develop character virtues (sacrifice, courage, compassion, forgiveness). Good #4: Robin Collins' connection-building theodicy — virtuous responses to evil create valuable relationships that grow infinitely over time.

Scientific consensus: 95% of 5,502 biologists from 1,050 institutions affirm human life begins at fertilization, including pro-choice and atheist biologists. Bernard Nathanson (co-founder of NARAL) confirmed the early embryo is indisputably a human being.

Pro-choice language like "clump of cells," "remove the pregnancy," and "evacuate the uterus" are propagandistic euphemisms designed to avoid acknowledging that a living human being is being killed.

Fourth artwork shows Valentine candy hearts with pro-choice slogans: "abortion is freedom," "abortion is normal," "shout your abortion." The strategy: repeat loudly and often enough until people believe it.

Every argument for abortion in the womb can equally justify killing a baby five minutes after birth — the baby is just as dependent, just as unaware, just as small. The moral distinction collapses.

The pro-choice movement needs a victim (the pregnant woman) to distract from the real victim (the baby). This is a propaganda tactic seen in every historical atrocity — the oppressors create an alternative victim narrative.

Both pro-life and pro-choice movements believe they hold the moral high ground. The pro-choice movement has inverted morality — helping a woman kill her offspring is seen as a moral good. The conversation breaks down because they're talking past each other.

Even if you're unsure about early-term abortion, the "maybe" should compel you to oppose it — you wouldn't demolish a building that "maybe" has people in it. And if you draw the line anywhere, you should be fighting for that line instead of voting for unrestricted abortion.

Q&A: Single-issue (pro-life) voting is legitimate because abortion is a deal-breaker moral issue. Mike would vote for a pro-life candidate with bad economic policies because saving lives outweighs financial pain.

Q&A: Family members with distorted gospels — separate fellowship/church from family. 1 Peter teaches a wife should stay committed to an unbelieving husband. Family is not the same as church partnership; maintain relationship while not partnering in false ministry.

Q&A: When the mother's life is in danger and both will die, abortion to save the mother is the one exception most pro-lifers accept. Analogous to separating conjoined twins when one is dying — saving one life rather than losing both.

Reason 1 (Sherry): Her 8-week ultrasound. She didn't see a clump of cells — she saw her child. "My choice was to keep her alive or kill her." Ultrasound compilation shows parents instinctively calling the image "he" or "she," never "the fetus."

Bible Link Settings