Search — Theology Explorer

naturalism naturalism arguments for God

The Free Thinking Argument: if naturalism is true, humans cannot freely think; but humans can freely think; therefore naturalism is false — and the best explanation is the biblical God.

Introduction to interview with Dr. Tim Stratton on the argument from free will for God's existence

compatibilism compatibilism libertarian free will

Libertarian free will defined: the ability to choose among alternative options compatible with one's nature. Two versions — principle of alternative possibilities (PAP) and sourcehood freedom.

Philosophical definitions before presenting the formal argument

Daniel Dennett Sam Harris Dan Barker Dan Barker

Most leading naturalist/atheist thinkers deny libertarian free will: Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hawking, Rosenberg, Coyne, Carroll, Barker. Stratton uses their own admissions as premises in his argument.

Establishing that atheists themselves concede the naturalism-determinism link

libertarian free will free thinking argument

The Free Thinking Argument formal syllogism: (1) no libertarian freedom → no rational inference; (2) humans DO rationally infer; (3) therefore humans have libertarian freedom. Stratton calls it deductive and potentially debate-ending.

Presentation of the core Free Thinking Argument

naturalism naturalism arguments for God

The expanded Free Thinking Argument Against Naturalism adds steps from naturalism → no soul → no libertarian freedom → no rational inference (all deductive), plus abductive conclusion that God is best explanation.

Full 8-step argument against naturalism

determinism determinism consciousness

Premise 3 defense: if external forces determine your beliefs, you lose justification for knowledge. You become a "bag of beliefs, none of which are up to the bag." The mad scientist thought experiment illustrates this.

Detailed defense of the most attacked premise

Alvin Plantinga self-refuting argument properly basic beliefs

Premise 4 is self-evident: to argue that humans CANNOT rationally infer knowledge claims is itself a rational inference — it's self-defeating. Some things are properly basic beliefs that don't require proof.

Defense of premise 4 and discussion of properly basic beliefs

William Lane Craig William Lane Craig Kalam cosmological argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument supports step 8: the cause of the universe must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal, and possessing libertarian freedom — matching the biblical God.

Using the Kalam to defend the abductive conclusion (step 8)

Genesis 1:26-27 2 Corinthians 5:8 Galatians 5:13 image of God Genesis 1:26-27 2 Corinthians 5:8

Biblical confirmation: Genesis 1:26-27 (made in God's image as immaterial minds), 2 Corinthians 5:8 (we exist apart from body), Galatians 5:13 (called to live in libertarian freedom to choose love over sin).

Scriptural support for the philosophical conclusions

Daniel Dennett Sam Harris naturalism naturalism

Some atheists are driven to deny their own existence to maintain naturalism — Rosenberg (The Atheist's Guide to Reality), Harris, Dennett all deny the reality of the self/consciousness. This is self-refuting: someone must be having the illusion.

Consequence of determinism: denial of self-existence

1 Corinthians 13:2 Mark 11:24 Mark 13:2 cessationism 1 Corinthians 13:2 cessationism

Six reasons why "this mountain" is NOT limited to the temple (contra cessationist interpretation), but is a general truth about prayer: Paul's usage, Matthew/Luke parallels, OT mountain-moving language.

Refuting Jeff Durbin's cessationist interpretation that limits Mark 11 to imprecatory prayer against the temple

1 Peter 2:5 Ephesians 2:19-22 2 Chronicles 6:24-40 1 Peter 2:5 Ephesians 2:19-22 2 Chronicles 6:24-40

The prayer promise is couched in the destruction-of-temple context because Jesus is inaugurating NEW COVENANT prayer — from temple-mediated access to direct access through Christ. Christians ARE the new temple.

The temple context explains WHY this prayer teaching appears here in Mark

1 Peter 3:7 Mark 11:25 Matthew 5:23-24 1 Peter 3:7 Mark 11:25 Matthew 5:23-24

Your part in prayer is faith, but GOD does the miracles — the power is not in your words or your belief, but in God's response. Forgiveness of others and repentance of sin are prerequisites for effective prayer.

Analysis of active/passive language in Mark 11 and the forgiveness requirement

2 Timothy 4:20 1 Timothy 5:23 1 Peter 4:19 thorn in the flesh 2 Timothy 4:20 Word of Faith

The claim "it's always God's will to heal sickness" is arbitrary — the apostles themselves suffered illness (Timothy's stomach issues, Trophimus left sick, Epaphroditus nearly died) while doing miracles.

Refuting the Word of Faith claim that sickness is never God's will

Mark 11:27-33 Mark 14:61-62 Sanhedrin Sanhedrin Mark 11:27-33

The Sanhedrin's question is for intimidation and ammunition, not information. Jesus's counter-question about John's baptism is a standard rabbinic technique that embeds his answer while denying them usable ammo.

Analysis of the Sanhedrin's question and Jesus's response strategy

Mark 7:8-9 sola scriptura Mark 7:8-9 sola scriptura

Jesus's two options — "from heaven or from men" — establish a "sola heaven" principle: heavenly authority doesn't need earthly institutional approval. John didn't get Sanhedrin permission; neither does Jesus.

The theological implications of Jesus's binary question

Matthew 23 Mark 7:8-9 Roman Catholicism oral tradition papacy

The Sanhedrin's three authority claims (succession from Moses, Moses's seat, oral tradition) are structurally identical to the Catholic magisterium's claims (apostolic succession, chair of Peter, sacred tradition).

Detailed parallel between Sanhedrin and Roman Catholic authority claims

Mark 11:27-33 Sanhedrin Sanhedrin Mark 11:27-33

The Sanhedrin's "we don't know" answer is pretend agnosticism — they knew what they believed but wouldn't say it. This is a modern plague: people claim not to know as a cover for not wanting to submit to the evidence.

Analysis of the Sanhedrin's non-answer and modern pretend agnosticism

Mike Winger idea 2020-10-12

The Parable of the Vineyard (Mark 12:1-12) is Jesus's most backhanded parable — told directly to the Sanhedrin, predicting they'll reject and kill God's Son, be destroyed, and be replaced. They know it's about them but can't use it in court.

Introduction and overview of Mark 12:1-12

Mark 12:1-12 Psalm 118:22-23 Mark series Sanhedrin Sanhedrin Mark 12:1-12

Mike Winger idea 2020-10-12

Jesus's parable directly taps into Isaiah 5's vineyard song — same elements (wall, vat, wine press, tower) — creating a typological parallel: Isaiah's time (prophets rejected → first temple destroyed) mirrors Jesus's time (Son rejected → second temple destroyed).

Isaiah 5 connection and temple destruction context

Isaiah 5 Isaiah 5:1-7 typology typology temple cleansing

Mike Winger idea 2020-10-12

In the parable, the son is sent "last of all" — not meaning no more messengers ever, but that the Son is the final opportunity before judgment falls on the leaders. Jesus is greater than every prophet: they are slaves; he is the beloved Son.

Analysis of the Son's unique status in the parable (Mark 12:6-8)

John 5 Mark 12:1-12 John 5 deity of Christ Mark 12:1-12

Mark 12:13-17 Mark series render to Caesar Mark 12:13-17 render to Caesar

Mark 12:13-17 ("Render to Caesar") is one of the most political NT passages — the Pharisees and Herodians try to trap Jesus with a question about the poll tax, and Jesus's answer gives principles for Christian politics.

Introduction to Mark Series pt 47 on the tribute to Caesar

Mark 12:13-17 Acts 5:37 Proverbs 29:5 Josephus Josephus Sanhedrin

The trap: Pharisees and Herodians (sent by the Sanhedrin) use flattery to pressure Jesus into a direct yes/no answer. They want either criminal charges (sedition) or depopularization (alienating zealot followers).

Analysis of the trap question setup in Mark 12:13-16

Proverbs 15:28 image of God image of God papacy

Jesus answers with a PRINCIPLE rather than yes/no: the coin bears Caesar's image (give it back), but YOU bear God's image (give yourself to God). This is a rabbinic "greater to lesser" argument that deflates their trap.

Analysis of "Render to Caesar" as a principled answer

Romans 13:1-7 Matthew 5:41 submission to government Romans 13:1-7 Matthew 5:41

Christians should pay taxes even to corrupt governments that use money for immoral purposes — Jesus said to pay taxes to Rome, which would use that money to crucify him. Romans 13:1-7 teaches we OWE government obedience, taxes, fear, and honor.

Biblical teaching on taxes, submission to government, and Romans 13

1 Peter 2:13 Romans 13:1-7 1 Peter 2:13 Romans 13:1-7 Christian politics

Honor the office even when you despise the officeholder — "salute the rank, not the person." Christians who only honor leaders they agree with are operating from party affiliation, not biblical integrity.

Biblical principle of honoring government leaders regardless of party

image of God image of God render to Caesar

Jesus redirects from taxes to the image of God — you bear God's image, so you belong to God. For the Christian, there is no separation between religion and politics; being a Christian IS the lens through which you engage all of life.

The image of God as the foundational political principle

Mike Winger idea 2020-10-22

The literary devices view has serious apologetic consequences: it eliminates resurrection appearances, undermines doubting Thomas, weakens the case for Jesus's deity from John's "I AM" sayings, and gives ammunition to cults and skeptics.

Apologetic implications of accepting literary devices in the Gospels

deity of Christ resurrection appearances resurrection appearances

Mike Winger idea 2020-10-26

Du Toit systematically changes key gospel texts: John 1:12 ("become children of God" → you're already God's offspring), John 3:3 (born again → you were already born from above), John 3:18 (condemned already → under your own self-judgment).

Specific examples of the Mirror Bible inverting gospel texts

John 1:12 John 3:3 John 3:7 born again John 1:12 John 3:3

Mike Winger idea 2020-10-26

The Mirror Bible is endorsed by John Crowder ("toking the holy ghost") and William Paul Young (author of The Shack, later a universalist). It's part of a broader movement: progressive Christianity, hyper-charismatic theology, and universal salvation all pushing the same direction.

Endorsers and broader context of the Mirror Bible

John Crowder Mirror Bible Mirror Bible John Crowder

Mike Winger idea 2020-10-29

Overview: Interview with Neil Shenvi on Critical Race Theory. The culture has real racism problems, but CRT distorts the problem and offers solutions that create more injustice. The goal is to think biblically, not politically.

Introduction to CRT discussion with Neil Shenvi

biblical justice Neil Shenvi Christian politics

Mike Winger idea 2020-10-29

CRT redefines racism as "prejudice plus power" — meaning only the dominant group (whites) can be racist, and systemic racism is the only real racism. This enables dismissing any concern from majority groups while making all disparities evidence of racism.

CRT's redefinition of racism and its consequences

Proverbs 18:13 Robin DiAngelo Ibram X. Kendi prejudice plus power

Mike Winger idea 2020-10-29

Biblical framework: impartiality in judgment (no favoritism for rich or poor), all humans of one blood in God's image, individual sin/accountability, Scripture as the authority over lived experience. CRT is incompatible with Christianity on every core tenet.

The biblical response to CRT

Leviticus 19:15 image of God image of God biblical justice

Genesis 9:5-6 image of God image of God capital punishment

The death penalty is clearly supported by Scripture. Genesis 9:5-6 — given to ALL humanity (not just Israel) — establishes capital punishment for murder based on the image of God: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed."

The foundational biblical case for the death penalty from Genesis 9

Romans 13:1-7 Romans 12:19 death penalty Romans 13:1-7 Romans 12:19

Romans 13:1-4 endorses the death penalty in the NEW Testament era — the government "bears the sword" as "God's avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer." Romans 12:19 commands individuals NOT to avenge — leave it to government.

Romans 13 as NT endorsement of the death penalty, paired with Romans 12

John 8 woman adultery Matthew 5 eye for eye death penalty John 8 woman adultery Matthew 5 eye for eye

Objections answered: (1) Jesus's "turn the other cheek" refutes personal vengeance, not governmental justice; (2) David's pardon is a divine exception, not a rule; (3) John 8 (woman in adultery) was a mob, not a court — and the passage is textually questionable.

Responding to objections against the death penalty

Revelation 6:10 Roman Catholicism death penalty Revelation 6:10

God's justice is BOTH restorative AND retributive — using restoration to eliminate punishment is itself unjust. The solution to wrongful convictions is to reform the death penalty, not abolish it.

Restorative vs. retributive justice, and the wrongful conviction problem

Isaiah 53 Isaiah 53 Isaiah 53 Isaiah 53 Brian Zahnd

Penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) is under attack by influential figures who call it "cosmic child abuse" and "pagan." Isaiah 53 is the key passage they avoid. Winger builds the case that Isaiah 53 clearly teaches PSA.

Introduction to the penal substitutionary atonement series focusing on Isaiah 53

Isaiah 53:4-5 Isaiah 53:10 Michael Brown Isaiah 53:4-5 penal substitutionary atonement

Isaiah 53:4-5 is the crux: "he was pierced FOR our transgressions, crushed FOR our iniquities; the chastisement that brought us peace was UPON HIM." The word "chastisement" is ALWAYS affliction from God in the prophets. Isaiah 53:10 confirms: "it was the will of the LORD to crush him."

Detailed exegesis of Isaiah 53:4-5 and 53:10 establishing PSA

Isaiah 53:4-5 Isaiah 53:4-5 penal substitutionary atonement penal substitutionary atonement

The Hebrew preposition "min" (for/because of) in "pierced FOR our transgressions" — anti-PSA advocates claim it means "because of" (we sinned against him) not "for" (substitutionary). But min is used 7,000+ times with huge variety, and most translations render it "for."

Debate over the Hebrew preposition min in Isaiah 53:5

Isaiah 53 Isaiah 53 Isaiah 53 Isaiah 53 penal substitutionary atonement

Conclusion: Isaiah 53 clearly teaches that Christ suffered in our place as a sacrifice bearing our sin, bringing atonement so we receive his righteousness. Those who call PSA wicked are confused by caricatures — if the doctrine is so bad, why must they misstate it to argue against it?

Summary and Q&A on penal substitutionary atonement

Mark 12:18-27 Mark series Rob Bell Brian Zahnd progressive Christianity

Progressive Christians are the modern counterpart of the Sadducees — not atheists, but religious liberals who call themselves Christians while rejecting resurrection, judgment, hell, the supernatural, and biblical authority.

Introduction to Mark Series pt 48 on the Sadducees and progressive Christianity

John Dominic Crossan Alisa Childers Josephus Josephus

The Sadducees: no resurrection, no judgment, no afterlife, no angels/spirits; aristocratic minority of educated elites; publicly pretended to be faithful Jews while privately rejecting core beliefs. Modern progressives follow the exact same pattern.

Detailed profile of the Sadducees and their modern parallels

Mark 12:18-27 Exodus 3:6 resurrection resurrection marriage in heaven

Jesus identifies TWO problems with the Sadducees: they don't know the Scriptures AND they don't know the power of God. He then proves resurrection FROM the Pentateuch — their own strongest ground — using Exodus 3:6 ("I am the God of Abraham").

Jesus's response: two rebukes and the burning bush argument for resurrection

Rob Bell Barack Obama progressive Christianity

Using Scripture against Scripture is the Sadducee/progressive playbook: Obama used the Sermon on the Mount to dismiss Romans on same-sex marriage; Rob Bell used "God is love" to dismiss hell. The only safe position is believing ALL of Scripture.

The progressive pattern of pitting Scripture against Scripture