Other Sermons

John 3 16

In Context

The Bread of Life

The Cosmic Christ

Jesus Awakening

I am the Way

The Awakening

Children of Wrath

You Are Gods

Job

Salvation Means Freedom

Only One Son

The Cross

Jesus Was Christian

The abomination of desolation is one of the hardest passages in the entire gospel of Mark, touching on eschatology, Daniel's prophecy, and whether its fulfillment is past (70 AD) or future. Winger introduces a futurist position while acknowledging in-house Christian disagreement.

Intro to Mark 13:14-23 study; sets up the interpretive stakes

2 Thessalonians 2 describes the same figure Jesus warned about: a "man of lawlessness" who sits in the temple declaring himself God, whose coming is connected to satanic signs, and who will be slain at Christ's return. This harmonizes with Daniel and Mark, and the self-worship element connects to Revelation's description of the Beast demanding worship.

Paul's teaching in 2 Thessalonians 2 as parallel to the abomination of desolation

The futurist interpretation requires a rebuilt temple in Israel, a seven-year covenant halted at midpoint, and a specific person who demands worship — all still future events. Winger holds this view while acknowledging it is an in-house Christian discussion and not a salvation issue.

Winger's own futurist position and how it integrates the Daniel/Paul/Revelation data

Some skeptics argue that the gospel of Mark has a "low Christology" — presenting Jesus as a mere messianic figure without full divine identity. Winger argues Mark's trial narrative (14:53-72) is actually a theological climax demonstrating the opposite: high Christology is central to the earliest gospel.

Framing the apologetic argument against low-Christology claims about Mark

Jesus's trial before the Sanhedrin was procedurally corrupt: it occurred at night, at the high priest's house rather than a court, began with the council soliciting witnesses rather than witnesses bringing a case, and no consequences were imposed on the false witnesses — violating Deuteronomy 19:16-19.

Analysis of the illegality of Jesus's trial; the court was weaponizing law to oppress

Peter following Jesus "at a distance" is a literal physical description, not an allegory for halfhearted discipleship. Allegorizing clear narrative details damages biblical literacy and leaves congregations unable to handle false interpretations they will encounter later. Peter's actual situation shows a man confused by suffering he couldn't reconcile with his vision of the Messiah.

Warning against allegorizing historical narrative; proper interpretation of Peter's presence

The false witnesses couldn't even agree on what Jesus said about destroying the temple — showing the trial was seeking a pretext, not justice. Jesus actually said "destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it," referring to his body (John 2:19). Mark doesn't explain the pretext; John does, creating an undesigned coincidence that supports historicity.

The false testimony about the temple; undesigned coincidence between Mark and John

When the high priest asks if Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the Blessed," Jesus responds "I am" and quotes two Old Testament passages: Daniel 7:13-14 (the Son of Man receiving all dominion) and Psalm 110:1 (sitting at the right hand of God). Both are deity-laden claims — riding the clouds is a divine prerogative in the OT (Psalm 68:4; Deut. 33:26), and the Son of Man receives eternal worship from all nations.

The high Christology embedded in Jesus's self-disclosure at his trial

Isaiah's four Servant Songs (Isa 42, 49, 50, 53) form a unified prophetic arc pointing to Jesus. Isaiah 50:6 — "I gave my back to those who strike me, my cheeks to those who pluck out the beard; I did not cover my face from humiliation and spitting" — is fulfilled in the mocking scene at Jesus's trial, showing the OT and NT are deeply integrated, not incidentally connected.

Isaiah's Servant Songs as OT prophecy fulfilled in Jesus's suffering

Winger shares from his own childhood: an absent/indifferent father, an abusive stepfather, and poverty — all three conditions the note-writer listed as grounds for abortion. His life was redeemed and transformed through Christ. He argues the pro-choice logic, applied to him, would have called for his death, yet God demonstrated that suffering circumstances do not determine a life's value or potential.

Personal testimony used to refute the claim that bad circumstances justify abortion

The pro-choice logic of "this child will suffer, so it's merciful to kill them" parallels suicide logic: if a life is going to be hard, end it early. Applied globally, it would justify aborting virtually all children in sub-Saharan Africa. The Christian answer to suffering is not termination but redemption, care, and help — the "take care of them" solution rather than the "kill them" solution.

The "merciful abortion" argument compared to suicide logic; global poverty counterexample

JW salvation requires four things: (1) taking in the "knowledge" of God and Jesus as defined by the organization, (2) obeying God's laws (works-based), (3) belonging to the Jehovah's Witnesses organization, and (4) demonstrating loyalty through door-to-door witnessing. Their own source says "the ransom given by Jesus does not give or guarantee everlasting life" — grace through Christ alone is explicitly denied.

JW soteriology: four requirements for salvation; works-based, organization-dependent

The real authority in JW life is not the Bible but the governing body — eight men in New York City who "formulate doctrine" and whose instructions, according to Watchtower, determine your "spiritual health and relationship with God." The NWT Bible is a doctrinally distorted translation that changes key texts about Christ's deity, and members are discouraged from researching outside Watchtower sources.

JW authority structure: governing body over Scripture; the NWT as a distorted translation

The JW claim that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914 — after failed predictions of a visible return — directly contradicts Matthew 24:27 where Jesus explicitly warns that if anyone says the Christ has returned in a secret room, don't believe it, because every eye will see his return. Scripture anticipated and pre-refuted this JW doctrine.

The invisible 1914 return of Christ: JW teaching and its direct refutation by Matthew 24

Winger describes the founding of his online ministry: he was already a full-time youth pastor when he sensed a strong calling to do something else online. He began on YouTube targeting subjects Christians were confused about (OT law, cult groups, controversial topics) and with the conviction that if he could reach the large YouTube audience, the impact would be extraordinary.

Origin of Winger's online ministry; calling and initial strategy

Andy Stanley's "unhitching from the Old Testament" teaching conflates two different questions: (1) Are Christians under the law of Moses? and (2) Must Christians believe the Old Testament is true? Acts 15 answers question 1 (no, Gentiles need not keep Torah); it says nothing about question 2. Stanley's conflation leads him to suggest that disbelieving the OT is an acceptable option for struggling Christians.

Critiquing Andy Stanley's conflation of applicability of OT law with the truthfulness of the OT

There are two distinct groups who identify Jesus with Michael the Archangel: (1) Jehovah's Witnesses who use it to demote Jesus to a created being (heresy), and (2) orthodox Christians like Spurgeon, Calvin, and Wesley who identify Michael as a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ without denying his deity (an in-house disagreement). These require different responses.

Two types of Jesus-Michael identification; distinguishing heresy from in-house disagreement

The Charlie Kirk memorial was, in Winger's estimation, probably the largest gospel presentation in human history by audience size — with Frank Turk and others delivering bold, explicit gospel proclamations to a global broadcast audience. Winger calls Kirk a martyr, killed because of his Christian convictions on transgender and sexuality issues, and argues this warrants Christian acknowledgment rather than avoidance due to political discomfort.

The Kirk memorial as historic gospel event; Kirk as a Christian martyr

When solidly biblical Christians disengage from politics out of fear of being seen as partisan, they cede that space to power-hungry leaders who compromise — leaving politicians with access only to figures like Paula White rather than those with genuine theological integrity. There is a real cost to being on the fence: biblical values go unrepresented in policymaking.

The cost of Christian political disengagement; faithful Christians must enter the arena

Winger describes sitting at the memorial and realizing he had no framework for navigating political engagement alongside people with whom he has serious theological disagreements (Greg Locke, Patricia King, Bishop Robert Barron). He concludes that Christians need to learn to advocate for shared biblical values in political spaces without implying theological unity or compromising doctrinal integrity.

The challenge of political coalition-building across theological divides; navigating partnerships

Apologetics — rigorously engaging the hard questions of the Christian faith — saved Winger's own faith when he was seriously doubting in his 20s. His guest Jonathan Mclatchie makes the case for a "maximal data argument" for the resurrection, as opposed to the more common "minimal facts" approach, arguing it is more compelling because it involves far more lines of evidence.

Introduction: apologetics as faith-saving; maximal vs. minimal facts approach to the resurrection

The maximal data argument for the resurrection has two steps: (1) establish that the gospel and Acts accounts represent genuine eyewitness testimony, then (2) evaluate what best explains the content of those claims. The apostles voluntarily suffered imprisonment, persecution, and death for their testimony — making the conspiracy/lying hypothesis highly implausible (William Paley, 1794).

The maximal data argument: apostolic suffering establishes sincerity; conspiracy hypothesis fails

David Hume's objection — that miracles are by definition the least plausible explanation because they go against uniform experience — is circular: it uses the rarity of miracles to discount all testimony to miracles, then cites the lack of accepted testimony to miracles as proof they don't happen. Paley's response: if God raises Jesus specifically to vindicate his messianic claim, we would not expect that resurrection to be a repeatable event — so non-repetition is not evidence against it.

Hume's objection to miracles and Paley's response; the circularity in Hume's argument

The Christological trilemma (Lord, Liar, or Lunatic — associated with C.S. Lewis, likely originating with G.K. Chesterton) is built on the historical evidence that Jesus made both messianic and divine identity claims. He cannot have been lying — he made his violent death by the very authorities whose power he claimed to supersede a core part of his mission, which an impostor would never do. Mark 8's double rebuke (Peter rebukes Jesus; Jesus rebukes Peter as "Satan") shows this is not a later invention.

The Christological trilemma: Jesus's self-claims were not those of a liar or madman

The "undesigned coincidence" between Mark and John on the temple statement: Mark records the false witnesses misquoting Jesus about destroying and rebuilding the temple, but never explains the original statement. John 2:19-21 records the original statement and clarifies it referred to his body. Neither account is copied from the other; they lock together in a way that supports the historicity of both.

Undesigned coincidence: Mark and John on the temple statement lock together to support historicity

Rapture panic will increase as the 2,000-year anniversary of New Testament events approaches — date-setters will find new hooks (Pentecost, transfiguration, crucifixion anniversaries) to set dates. Christians need to learn the pattern now: there is no date-specific revelation in Scripture about Christ's return, and even correct eschatology should not produce specific-date confidence.

Prediction that rapture panic will intensify; the need for Christians to recognize the pattern now

Dr. Corey Miller (president of Ratio Christi) argues that what happens in universities does not stay there — it flows into culture, politics, media, and the church. Christians have largely abandoned the universities to secular and post-modern ideological capture, just as the left deliberately targeted them as "the apex of education" upstream of all cultural change.

The university as the strategic apex of cultural change; Christians must re-engage

Miller describes what happens to Christian students at secular universities: the combination of social pressure (frat culture, peers) and intellectual indoctrination (Nietzsche, Freud, Darwin) across all departments erodes faith. Real believers don't technically "lose" their faith but are beaten down to the point where their belief has no practical effect — "the heart cannot embrace what the mind cannot believe."

How universities erode Christian faith through combined social and intellectual pressure

Miller experienced the hostility firsthand: prank calls from PhD colleagues, a Marxist professor placing a "delusional" note in his file, and having his dissertation sabotaged for having "too much of a faith perspective." It is now routinely understood in PhD programs that Christians hide their faith until they receive their degree — a level of suppression that atheists and Marxists never face.

Personal testimony of anti-Christian hostility in secular PhD programs; Christians hide faith to survive

The ideological takeover of American universities followed two phases: (1) scientific naturalism from German-trained PhDs (1880-1930s), producing liberal Protestant theology and the social gospel; (2) neo-Marxist critical theory from Frankfurt School scholars who fled Hitler and embedded themselves in American institutions, producing CRT, gender theory, and the post-modern rejection of objective truth.

Historical overview: two ideological revolutions that captured American universities

The ratio of liberal to conservative professors is 12:1 for those retiring, 23:1 for newly tenured faculty, and 99:1 at Harvard in some departments. 18-24% of social science professors explicitly identify as Marxist, activist, or radical. This is not viewpoint diversity — it is an ideological monoculture, and sending unprepared Christian students into it is, as Miller says, "paying for the apostasy of your own children."

Statistics on liberal-conservative faculty ratio; the ideological monoculture of elite universities

Gender ideology in nursing schools illustrates how post-modern "your truth" thinking penetrates every academic discipline — not just philosophy or social sciences. When a student is trained to say "it's their truth" about gender, she has also been trained to say "it's your truth" about the gospel, effectively dismantling the concept of objective truth that Christianity requires.

Gender ideology in nursing education as a case study of how post-modern relativism threatens the gospel itself