Search — Theology Explorer

Romans 1:20 general revelation total depravity general revelation

Q: Does Romans 1:20 refute total depravity? Not directly. Romans 1:20 says everyone has received sufficient revelation of God's existence through creation, making them without excuse. Mike disagrees with Calvinist "total inability" (inability to respond even with Holy Spirit's calling) but doesn't think this verse addresses it.

Q&A — Romans 1:20 and total depravity

Romans 5 (peace with God) faith alone works as evidence faith alone

Q: Does "saved by faith alone" mean you can sin and still be saved? In one sense yes — salvation is grounded on grace, not works (Romans 5: "having been justified by grace, we have peace with God"). But genuine salvation produces the Holy Spirit, which works out into good works. Works are evidence of salvation, not the means of maintaining it. A person living in reckless sin may never have been saved.

Q&A — faith alone and ongoing sin

virgin birth inspiration of Scripture virgin birth

Q: Evidence for the virgin birth? Not as strong as resurrection evidence, but that's okay — not every doctrine needs the same burden of proof. Mike believes it because Scripture teaches it. The argument chain: resurrection → inspiration of Scripture → virgin birth. The central claim (resurrection) carries the secondary claims.

Q&A — evidence for the virgin birth

Lee Strobel William Lane Craig William Lane Craig

Q: Good apologetics books? On Guard by William Lane Craig (accessible) or Reasonable Faith (scholarly). The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel for overall Christianity evidence — the first apologetics book Mike ever read.

Q&A — apologetics book recommendations

Mike Winger idea 2020-03-11

Mike introduces a study on flat earth Bible verses. His goal is not to argue about the shape of the earth but to show that the Bible does NOT teach flat earth. Ground rules: not about conspiracies, geocentrism, or the firmament — only about whether specific verses teach a flat earth.

Introduction — flat earth Bible study

hermeneutics hermeneutics biblical cosmology

Mike Winger idea 2020-03-18

Q: Could Christians have made up martyrdom claims? Unreasonable for Peter, James, and John — first-century evidence of their martyrdom is strong. Some later apostle martyrdom stories may have been embellished, but the core eyewitnesses clearly suffered for their resurrection claims. Martyrdom proves sincerity, not necessarily truth — but combined with ruling out hallucination, the case is strong.

Q&A — historicity of apostolic martyrdom

apostolic martyrdom sincerity of testimony

Mike Winger idea 2020-04-08

Works come AFTER salvation, not before. Ephesians 2:8-10: saved by grace through faith, not of works — but created in Christ Jesus FOR good works. You don't earn forgiveness; you receive it and then good works flow from the new life. The danger: thinking you need to be a better person first.

Works after salvation — Ephesians 2:8-10

Ephesians 2:8-10 Luke 18:9-14 Ephesians 2:8-10 grace through faith Luke 18:9-14

Mike Winger idea 2020-04-08

Building a case for Jesus's miracles with kids: (1) If God exists, miracles are possible — this is a worldview starting point. (2) Earliest sources (Mark) describe a miracle-working Jesus — 40% of Mark's narrative involves miracles. (3) No sources describe a non-miracle-working Jesus. (4) Miracles are integrally woven into the narrative — you can't remove them without the story collapsing. (5) Virtually all historians agree Jesus drew large crowds doing something remarkable. (6) The resurrection is the central miracle with significant historical evidence.

Case for Jesus's miracles — for kids

1 Corinthians 15:14 Gary Habermas Gospel of Mark Gospel of Mark

apostolic martyrdom Sean McDowell conspiracy hypothesis

Mike interviews Dr. Sean McDowell about his doctoral research on apostolic martyrdom as evidence for the resurrection. The argument: martyrdom proves sincerity (not truth), which eliminates the conspiracy/lying hypothesis. It's one piece of a larger resurrection argument, not standalone proof.

Introduction — apostolic martyrdom and the resurrection

Candida Moss Myth of Persecution persecution vs prosecution

Where McDowell agrees with Candida Moss: many Christians overstate early persecution. There wasn't official statewide persecution until 3rd-4th centuries. Moss correctly notes that many martyrdom accounts are exaggerated. But she takes the correction too far by dismissing all early persecution evidence.

Agreement with Moss — overstated persecution

multiple attestation Tacitus Clement of Rome

Evidence for early Christian persecution: (1) Multiple attestation across the entire NT — Gospels, Acts, Hebrews, James, 1 John, Peter, Revelation all attest to Christians paying a price for faith. (2) Earliest church fathers (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp) confirm the theme. (3) Non-Christian sources (Tacitus, Suetonius) confirm persecution under Nero.

Evidence for early persecution — multiple independent sources

James brother of Jesus James son of Zebedee James brother of Jesus Sean McDowell James son of Zebedee

The actual historical evidence for specific apostolic martyrdoms: strong for Peter, Paul, James son of Zebedee, James brother of Jesus (early, multiple sources). Possible for Thomas (some 2nd century evidence). For the rest (Bartholomew, Matthew, Matthias etc.) — 3rd-5th century accounts that are contradictory and likely fictional. McDowell and Moss agree on the later accounts being unreliable.

Evidence tiers for apostolic martyrdoms

Lee Strobel empty tomb apostolic martyrdom

How the martyrdom argument fits the larger resurrection case: the resurrection rests on multiple facts (Jesus lived, died, was buried, tomb was empty, early appearance claims to women, the 500, apostles, Paul). The apostles' willingness to suffer gives credibility specifically to the appearance claims — they weren't lying about having seen the risen Jesus. Lee Strobel said this was the most convincing evidence to him.

Martyrdom as sub-argument within resurrection case

Peter Williams inference to best explanation gospel reliability

Mike interviews Dr. Peter Williams (principal of Tyndale House Cambridge) about his book "Can We Trust the Gospels?" The approach: rather than proving individual claims, show that the hypothesis of reliable reporting is far simpler than the hypothesis of fabrication. Two competing explanations — reliable accounts vs complex conspiracy — and the data overwhelmingly favors reliability.

Introduction — cumulative case for gospel reliability

gospel reliability geographic evidence Palestinian geography

Geographic knowledge in the gospels: the four gospel writers demonstrate detailed knowledge of Palestinian geography — small villages (Bethany, Bethphage, Chorazin), sub-village locations (Garden of Gethsemane = "oil press" on the Mount of Olives), topography ("went DOWN from Jerusalem to Jericho" — correct elevation change), and traveling times. This knowledge couldn't come from other ancient sources (Strabo, Pliny, Josephus don't have this level of detail). Only two explanations: the writers visited or spoke with eyewitnesses.

Geographic evidence — local knowledge test

Richard Bauckham Tal Ilan gospel reliability

Names in the gospels match the known name distribution of 1st-century Palestine (research by Tal Ilan, Richard Bauckham). The most common names (Simon, Joseph, Mary) are disambiguated with extra identifiers (Simon Peter, Simon of Cyrene, Simon the Zealot) while less common names (Thomas, Thaddeus) stand alone — exactly as you'd expect from authentic records. Names are the first thing lost in retelling; getting them right indicates early, close-to-source transmission.

Onomastic (name) evidence — statistical match

Luke 19 (Zacchaeus) gospel reliability botanical evidence sycamore in Jericho

Botanical evidence: plants mentioned in the gospels match the specific micro-climates where stories are set. Sycamore tree in Jericho (Luke 19, Zacchaeus) — sycamores grow in Jericho's low-altitude tropical climate but not in Turkey, Greece, or Italy where the gospels were later circulated. Palm branches on the Mount of Olives, mint/rue tithed by Pharisees — all botanically correct for the region.

Botanical evidence — plants match locations

parables of Jesus gospel reliability Good Samaritan

Why the gospels can't be explained as deliberate fabrication: (1) No scholar — even skeptics — proposes collusion between gospel writers as a serious hypothesis. (2) The gospels contain brilliant parables (Good Samaritan, Prodigal Son) recognized as among the greatest short stories ever told — you can't manufacture genius by wanting to. (3) The simplest explanation for one amazing storyteller across multiple accounts is that Jesus himself was the storyteller.

Against fabrication — parables and genius

Bart Ehrman Mike Licona Bart Ehrman

Four things to know before historical investigation of Jesus: (1) Historical investigation is limited — historians intentionally bracket inspiration of Scripture. (2) Failure to confirm ≠ denial it happened. (3) History is probabilistic — the best verdict is "extremely likely," never 100%%. (4) Scholars are people with biases — Bart Ehrman rejects miracles by methodology, not evidence ("as a historian you're not allowed to posit miracles").

Framework for historical investigation of Jesus

Matthew 16:17-23 Mark 9:31 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 Semiticisms Matthew 16:17-23 Mark 9:31

Argument 1 — Jesus's death predictions are very early: (a) Matthew 16:17-23 contains Semiticisms ("son of Jonah," "flesh and blood," "Hades") pointing to Aramaic origins, not later Greek tradition. (b) Mark 9:31 has a paronomasia (pun) in Aramaic: "son of man handed into the hands of men." (c) 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 (Last Supper) is written before the Gospels. (d) Paul distinguishes Jesus's commands from his own (1 Cor 7) — proving he doesn't invent words of Jesus.

Argument 1 — earliness of predictions

Mike Licona multiple attestation Mike Licona

Argument 2 — Multiple attestation: Mike Licona found 19+ passages across Mark, M (Matthew-only), L (Luke-only), and John independently attesting Jesus's death/resurrection predictions. Historians consider TWO independent sources "pay dirt" — this has far more. Jesus's prayer in Gethsemane (knowing he'll die) is in Mark 14, Matthew 26, and Luke 22 independently.

Argument 2 — multiple independent attestation

Mark 8:33 criterion of embarrassment Mark 8:33 Peter called Satan

Argument 3 — Criterion of embarrassment: Jesus's predictions include embarrassing elements the early church wouldn't invent. (a) Peter rebukes Jesus for predicting his death — then Jesus calls Peter "Satan" (Mark 8:33). The leader of the church being called Satan is not something the church would fabricate. (b) Disciples repeatedly fail to understand Jesus's predictions — they argue about who's greatest right after. The church wouldn't invent their founders' incompetence.

Argument 3 — criterion of embarrassment

Mark 10:32-34 Mark 10:45 Suffering Servant substitutionary atonement progressive Christianity

Theological insight from the predictions: Jesus saw his death as purposeful sacrifice, not tragedy. He predicted specifics: delivered to chief priests, condemned, handed to Gentiles, mocked, spit on, scourged, killed — and rise three days later. Progressive Christians who reject substitutionary atonement must explain why Jesus described his death as sacrificial and purposeful in his own words. The predictions show Jesus understood himself as Isaiah's Suffering Servant.

Theological insight — purposeful sacrifice, not tragic death

Luke Barnes William Lane Craig biblical prophecy William Lane Craig

The "outsider test of faith" (apply your reasons for rejecting Thor to Christianity) backfires for informed Christians because the evidence for Christianity specifically doesn't work for pagan deities.

Responding to the street epistemology version of argument 1

circular reasoning atheism Matt Dillahunty

Argument 3 — Nietzsche's "atheism is instinctual" — backfires because sociological research shows religious belief is actually natural and atheism must be trained. Also applies a double standard on evidence.

Third argument from Nietzsche: atheism as instinct

theodicy theodicy problem of evil

Four theodicies provide a cumulative answer to the problem of evil: soul-building, free will, natural law, and skeptical theism.

Detailed treatment of theodicies responding to the problem of evil

atheism problem of evil atheism

The problem of evil actually backfires on atheism: evil's existence presupposes objective moral values, which have no grounding on atheism. The problem of evil is itself evidence for God.

How the problem of evil becomes an argument FOR God