Search — Theology Explorer

Charles Spurgeon Emmanuel Swedenborg Watchman Nee

Brief assessment of Spurgeon; no strong opinions on Swedenborg or Watchman Nee.

Question 3/4 from Marty (South Africa) about the works of Swedenborg, Watchman Nee, and Spurgeon.

2 Samuel 6 David Christian liberty dancing

Dancing is not inherently sinful; Christians should apply liberty-with-responsibility rather than blanket prohibition.

Question 4 from Kate for Christ about the biblical basis for viewing dancing as sinful.

intellectual honesty pastoral integrity

Admitting ignorance builds trust rather than undermining pastoral credibility.

Transition comment between questions; Mike reflecting on his own practice.

Judges 6 Gideon signs Judges 6

Putting out a fleece (asking God for a sign) is not inherently wrong but carries dangers of presumption and heart projection.

Question 5 from AZF Stories about whether Christians should ask for signs like Gideon's fleece.

Proverbs spiritual disciplines Proverbs practical wisdom

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

Question 6 from Sherry Lynn about overcoming laziness at home after hard work-days.

Matthew 26:50 Mark 14 Jesus betrayal of Jesus Judas

Jesus calling Judas friend at the betrayal (Matthew 26:50) is likely both literal and ironic simultaneously.

Question 7 from A.D. Chan about the Greek word hetairos in Matthew 26:50.

Romans 1 John 5 John 1 apologetics Matt Dillahunty unbelief

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

Question 8 from Amanda about why God does not appear physically and audibly to eliminate all unbelief.

Hebrews Romans 10:1-4 Hebrews works-righteousness Day of Atonement

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

Question 9 from Meg Smiley about how Jews obtain forgiveness without the Temple.

1 Samuel 28 John 10 Psalm 82 Michael Heiser 1 Samuel 28 John 10

Psalm 82 gods (elohim) most likely refers to earthly rulers ironically addressed as divine beings, not literal supernatural deities.

Question 10 from RaHR17 about who the gods in Psalm 82 are; engages Michael Heiser's divine council worldview.

Genesis 1 Genesis 1 creation ex nihilo Big Bang

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

Question 11 from J James about whether the Big Bang is biblical.

Mark 14:36 Trinity apologetics deity of Christ

Mark 14:36 refutes Oneness Pentecostal modalism by demonstrating distinct wills between Father and Son.

Question 12 from Our Fish about witnessing to a husband raised in Oneness Pentecostalism regarding the Trinity.

Acts 17 Paul Acts 17 evangelism

The gospel presentation should be adapted to the individual; the content stays constant but the approach changes.

Question 13 from Steph T about how to summarize the gospel with strangers or those from different religions.

Ezekiel 13 Holy Spirit discernment wisdom

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

Question 14 from Gel Stapper (Netherlands) about how the Holy Spirit speaks personally, after leaving a hyper-charismatic church.

John 3:16 atonement Incarnation righteousness of God

God chose to redeem through the cross to display his love, patience, righteousness, and desire for relationship simultaneously.

Question 15 from Daniel James about why God chose death and resurrection as the method of redemption.

Mark 5:1-20 Gerasene demoniac Gentile mission demon possession

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

Question 16 from Galushkin about whether Jesus or the demons were tricked in the Gerasene demoniac account.

marriage Christian ethics cohabitation

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

Question 17 from Dasha Castenko about being informally married to a fiance in another country due to COVID restrictions.

1 Corinthians 6 1 Corinthians 6 self-control spiritual disciplines

Gluttony is an underaddressed sin in the American church; fasting is a practical corrective; no need for strict calorie counting.

Question 18 about how to avoid gluttony and whether strict calorie limits are legalistic.

1 Peter Genesis 50 priesthood of all believers Mormonism 1 Peter

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

Question 19 from Evelyn Ellsworth (a Latter-day Saint) about the priesthood of all believers and Mike's denial of fellowship to Mormons.

2 Kings 2 prophetic authority word study Elisha

The youths mauled by bears in 2 Kings 2 were not small children but likely young adult men mocking Elisha's prophetic authority.

Question 20 from That One Christian about the children mauled in 2 Kings 2.

apologetics evidence for God apologetics

Mike Winger introduces the livestream on evidence for God's existence, framing it as a resource video covering one strong argument simply, then in detail, then defending against objections.

Introduction to the Kalam cosmological argument livestream

syllogism William Lane Craig William Lane Craig

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.

Formal presentation of the Kalam syllogism

Richard Dawkins who made God infinite regress

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 — who made God? (Dawkins)

Kalam cosmological argument Cosmic Skeptic Kalam cosmological argument

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 — composition fallacy (Cosmic Skeptic)

William Lane Craig William Lane Craig Lawrence Krauss

Nothing means NOT ANYTHING — no possibilities, no properties, no potentialities. Some atheist physicists (Lawrence Krauss) equivocate by treating "nothing" as a quantum vacuum with energy, gravity, and space.

Clarifying what "nothing" means

quantum vacuum quantum physics Stephen Hawking

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 — quantum physics

Lawrence Krauss Lawrence Krauss nothing vs not anything

Isaac Asimov memorial panel discussion: Lawrence Krauss and Neil deGrasse Tyson debated "what is nothing" for two hours. The philosopher on the panel was visibly frustrated, saying nothing means NOT ANYTHING.

Anecdote — philosophers vs. physicists on "nothing"

Matt Dillahunty Kalam cosmological argument Carl Sagan

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 — multiverse

equivocation fallacy material vs efficient cause

Objection to the conclusion: equivocation between material cause and efficient cause in the premises vs. conclusion. Response: both premises and conclusion refer to efficient causation.

Objection — equivocation on "cause"

William Lane Craig methodological naturalism William Lane Craig

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.

Objection — future science

determinism determinism causal powers

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.

Why the cause is a personal agent

design argument fine-tuning argument

A fourth reason the cause is personal: the universe began in a way that permits life, suggesting planning and intent — connecting the Kalam to the fine-tuning argument.

Design argument supplement

Mark 16:9-20 John 8:1-11 textual criticism textual criticism Mark 16:9-20

Q&A: John 8:1-11 (woman caught in adultery) is very likely a true story/memory of Jesus but probably not originally part of John's Gospel. It appears in different locations in manuscripts. Most translations bracket it.

Q&A — John 8:1-11 textual criticism

1 John 4:18 1 John 3:20 assurance of salvation assurance of salvation 1 John 4:18

Q&A: A sermon claiming that struggling with addiction or fearing hell means you're not a Christian is unbiblical. Paul rebuked the Corinthians for sin without denying their faith; 1 John 4:18 says fear indicates incomplete realization of God's love, not absence of salvation.

Q&A — addiction and assurance of salvation

prayer prayer financial stewardship

Q&A: How to test if a financial blessing is from God. Look at whether it came through godliness, follow biblical prayer principles (asking in God's will, not selfish motives), and use money to seek God's kingdom first.

Q&A — financial blessings and stewardship

apologetics apologetics mocking opponents

Q&A: Is it okay to mock atheists? Mike and Braxton both lean toward cordial conversation. Mockery has a legitimate place biblically but easily leads to responding "in the flesh." Most people aren't discerning enough to mock wisely.

Q&A — mocking atheists

Revelation 21:1-2 Revelation 22:1-2 new heaven and new earth William Lane Craig physical resurrection

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 — time in heaven (Revelation 21-22)

multiverse infinite past cyclical universe models

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 — cyclical/bounce universe models

Revelation 2 (Ephesus) first love Revelation 2 (Ephesus) spiritual stagnation

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).

Q&A — spiritual stagnation

Matt Dillahunty Kalam cosmological argument Cosmic Skeptic

Q&A: The Kalam's premises can be confirmed — an infinite past is philosophically untenable, and universal human experience confirms that things beginning to exist have causes with zero counterexamples.

Q&A — can the Kalam premises be confirmed?

John McCrae apologetics apologetics Cameron Bertuzzi

Mike Winger introduces a panel response to Genetically Modified Skeptic's video "4 Questions That Could Make You an Atheist," joined by Braxton Hunter, Cameron Bertuzzi, and John McCrae.

Introduction — response to Genetically Modified Skeptic

problem of evil problem of evil trilemma

Drew's Question 1: Why did God communicate through literature? Literature demands interpretation, leading to contradictory sects and suffering (e.g., JW blood transfusions). If God couldn't do better, he's not omnipotent; if he didn't know, not omniscient; if he didn't care, not omni-benevolent.

Presenting Drew's argument — literature and the problem of evil

problem of evil problem of evil trilemma

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.

Response to Q1 — Drew's argument doesn't lead to atheism

1 Corinthians 12:12 1 Corinthians 12:27 Mark 12:30-31 hermeneutics hermeneutics divine communication

Fourth option: written literature is the BEST medium for communicating detailed, specific information that can be preserved, studied in community, and shared worldwide. Other communication methods (prophets, dreams, miracles) are either also subject to interpretation, subjective, or lack specificity.

Response to Q1 — written text as optimal communication

John McCrae hermeneutics hermeneutics sin nature

John McCrae adds: our sin nature explains interpretive divergence — we read preferences into Scripture. The Bible calls us to strive for truth (narrow gate), which makes the relationship with Christ richer. Drew's question is really just the problem of evil focused on one aspect.

Additional response to Q1 — sin nature and striving

Cameron Bertuzzi justified suffering questions are not arguments

Cameron Bertuzzi identifies that Drew conflates suffering with unjustified suffering. The real burden is showing the suffering is unjustified, which Drew assumes but doesn't argue. Questions are not arguments — you must defend premises, not just state conclusions.

Additional response to Q1 — unjustified vs justified suffering

textual criticism textual criticism Watchtower

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.

Additional response to Q1 — JW example and textual reliability

false dichotomy Genetically Modified Skeptic Pascals wager

Drew's Question 2: Shouldn't you worship the cruelest God imaginable? If Pascal's wager is about maximizing reward and minimizing punishment, inventing a maximally cruel God improves the wager by creating a true dichotomy.

Presenting Drew's argument — Pascal's wager and cruelest God

Pascals wager decision theory Michael Rota

Mike responds with three problems: (1) Drew misrepresents Pascal's wager as "believe whatever promises the most" — Pascal actually included evidential evaluation; (2) modern proponents like Michael Rota and Liz Jackson pair evidence with the wager; (3) Pascal's wager is decision theory, not blind gambling.

Response to Q2 — Pascal's wager is misrepresented

false dichotomy Pascals wager

Drew's false dichotomy objection fails because Pascal's wager can be constructed to meet people where they are. If someone is between Christianity and atheism specifically, it's not a false dichotomy — it's their actual situation. Drew also inadvertently grants theism when proposing alternative gods.

Response to Q2 — false dichotomy and evidential grounding