Search — Theology Explorer

Calvinism Molinism Calvinism

Tim Stratton's journey from cage-stage Calvinist determinist to Molinist — catalyzed by noticing atheists calling themselves "free thinkers" while denying free will, and Calvinists doing the same in reverse.

Stratton's background and what sparked his research

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

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

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)

Mark 11:22-25 Mark series prayer Kenneth Copeland Word of Faith

Overview: Mark 11:22-25 is the #1 Word of Faith verse. Winger approaches it by sidebaring the Kenneth Copeland debate to first understand the passage in its original context, then apply it.

Introduction to Mark Series pt 43 on prayer, faith, and Mark 11:22-25

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

Mark 10:25-27 Galatians 3:5 Mark 10:25-27 Galatians 3:5 faith and prayer

Mountain-moving is a euphemism for what is humanly impossible but possible for God. Faith is weak (mustard seed), not strong — the emphasis is that you don't earn miracles; God does everything, you just believe.

Correct interpretation of the mountain-moving promise in Mark 11

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

Mark 14:35-36 Word of Faith Gethsemane prayer Word of Faith

Mark 14 (Gethsemane) is the intentional counterpoint to Mark 11 — Jesus with perfect faith, no sin, no unforgiveness prays and God says NO. Faith means trusting God both when he says yes AND when he says no.

The missing piece: Jesus' Gethsemane prayer as counterpoint to the prayer promise

Word of Faith Word of Faith magic vs prayer

First-century magic (witchcraft) forced the gods' will to obey the practitioner. A distorted Mark 11 teaching that sources miracles in MY will rather than God's will moves into the realm of magic, not prayer.

Historical context: prayer vs. magic in the first century

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

1 Corinthians 12:8-11 John 5:19 1 John 5:14 1 Corinthians 12:8-11 John 5:19 1 John 5:14

Faith for miracles is different from saving faith — it's initiated by God (a spiritual gift), not fabricated by the believer. Jesus had a responsive ministry to the Father, not initiatory. You respond to what the Spirit reveals.

Theological framework: miracle-faith as God-initiated response, not self-generated belief

Mark 11:22-25 Mark 14:35-36 Kenneth Copeland Word of Faith Kenneth Copeland

Conclusion: Mark 11 teaches new-covenant prayer through Christ, accessed by faith (not works). Real faith believes both for miracles AND in suffering when God says no. The harder path of faith is trusting God's "no."

Summary of the full teaching on prayer from Mark 11 and 14

Mark 11:27-33 Mark series Roman Catholicism Sanhedrin Sanhedrin

Mark 11:27-33 reveals a striking parallel between the Sanhedrin's authority claims and modern Roman Catholic magisterial claims — not as a "hypocrite" jab, but as a pattern Jesus addresses.

Introduction to Mark Series pt 44 on authority, the Sanhedrin, and Roman Catholicism

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

Christian courage people-pleasing

Christians must have spines — courage of conviction — when facing cultural pressure. Not angry Christians, but Christians who speak truth clearly and wisely. The persecuted church's lesson: when you know you're following God's revealed Word, you don't need man's permission.

Application on Christian courage in the face of authority and cultural pressure

Mike Winger idea 2020-10-12

We are great critics of the past but blind to our own sins — the Pharisees built tombs for prophets their fathers killed while plotting to crucify Christ. We must see ourselves with the same critical clarity we apply to history.

Jesus's rebuke of historical self-righteousness (Matthew 23:29-31) and personal application

Matthew 23:29-31 humility humility Matthew 23:29-31

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

Mike Winger idea 2020-10-12

Final applications: (1) Humility — see yourself with the same clarity you see others; (2) Obedience — receive God's messengers, don't reject them; (3) Leaders can be replaced; (4) The cornerstone wins — no matter what opposition arises, Jesus's lordship is the end of the story.

Closing summary and applications from Mark 12:1-12

humility humility leadership accountability

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

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

Acts 23 Matthew 10:16 Acts 23 Matthew 10:16 shrewd as serpents

Be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves (Matthew 10:16). Paul before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23) is a model — he cleverly divided the room on the resurrection issue rather than just proclaiming Jesus is Lord.

Example of Christian cleverness from Paul in Acts 23

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 Licona Mike Licona Lydia McGrew

A controversy exists in NT scholarship over whether gospel authors used "literary devices" from Greco-Roman biography that allowed them to change facts. Dr. Lydia McGrew argues against this; Mike Licona argues for it.

Introduction to the literary devices controversy with Dr. Lydia McGrew

Matthew 27 Matthew 27 literary devices in Gospels fictionalizing literary devices

Key examples of alleged literary devices: (1) John moved the temple cleansing from Passion Week to early ministry; (2) John invented "I thirst" on the cross as a theological symbol; (3) Matthew's raised saints as "special effects." McGrew argues all are unnecessary — simpler historical explanations exist.

Examples of literary devices McGrew disputes

harmonization literary devices in Gospels achronological vs dischronological narration

Critical distinction: achronological narration (not specifying order) vs. dischronological narration (deliberately changing order). The former is uncontroversial; the latter requires heavy burden of proof. "Mere difference hunting" is not sufficient evidence for fact-changing.

McGrew's key methodological distinctions

Plutarch Mike Licona Mike Licona

The external evidence (compositional textbooks, Plutarch) is far weaker than claimed. The textbooks never explicitly say "it's acceptable to change historical facts." Plutarch's differences may just be mistakes, not intentional literary devices. Licona admits attributing devices to the Gospels that aren't even found in the textbooks or Plutarch.

Critique of the external evidence for literary devices

Bible translations Mirror Bible Mirror Bible

The Mirror Bible by François Du Toit is the worst Bible translation Winger has ever seen — not just inaccurate but anti-gospel, inverting Scripture to teach that humans are already divine and don't need to be born again.

Introduction to review of the Mirror Bible translation

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

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

Romans 3:22-23 etymological fallacy Mirror Bible Mirror Bible

Du Toit redefines sin itself (hamartia) through the etymological fallacy — deriving fake "root meanings" to avoid the actual meaning. Sin becomes "living out of context with your blueprint" instead of moral rebellion against God.

The etymological fallacy and the Mirror Bible's abuse of Greek

John 17:7 Mirror Bible Mirror Bible François Du Toit

Du Toit changes "forgiveness" to "I am-ness" and teaches that the Trinity has four circles (Father, Son, you/me, Holy Spirit). Jesus didn't die to save us from sin but from a wrong mindset. Hell is "just a pathway to heaven."

The Mirror Bible's broader theological distortions

John Crowder Mirror Bible Mirror Bible John Crowder

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

biblical justice Neil Shenvi Christian politics

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

1 Timothy 1:10 Acts 17:26 1 Timothy 1:10 racism history US Acts 17:26

The historical problem of racism in the US is genuinely appalling — race is a social construct invented to justify white dominance, US chattel slavery was predicated on the anti-gospel act of man-stealing, and legalized racism lasted ~340 years (1619-1964).

Honest accounting of US racial history before critiquing CRT

systemic racism critical race theory white fragility

The four central tenets of CRT: (1) Racism is permanent, pervasive, and normal; (2) Racial disparities prove racial discrimination (disparities = proof of racism); (3) Dominant groups won't address racism because they benefit from it; (4) Lived experience of minorities is central to understanding racism.

Four core tenets of Critical Race Theory

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

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

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

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

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

Deuteronomy 19:11-13 Numbers 35:30-31 death penalty Deuteronomy 19:11-13 Numbers 35:30-31

Deuteronomy 19:11-13 shows the death penalty must be enacted even over compassion — "your eyes shall not pity him" — and failing to punish murderers spreads their guilt onto the entire community.

OT law reinforcing the death penalty with protections and communal guilt

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