Search — Theology Explorer

1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 rapture rapture 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17

Mike affirms the rapture doctrine from 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 as plain biblical teaching. The Greek harpazo ("caught up") → Latin rapturus → English "rapture." He's unsettled on pre/mid/post-trib timing but firmly believes in the event itself. Holds a futurist view of Revelation — future events not yet fulfilled.

Rapture — affirmed, timing unsettled

Mark 16:9-20 Mark 16:17-18 Acts 28 (Paul and viper) textual criticism textual criticism Mark 16:9-20

Mark 16:17-18 (signs accompanying believers) — Mike thinks the last 12 verses of Mark are likely not original (earliest manuscripts lack them). Even if original: (1) the signs may apply to SOME believers, not ALL; (2) picking up serpents refers to unintentional encounters (like Paul in Acts 28), not deliberate snake handling; (3) Jesus said "do not put the Lord your God to the test"; (4) if healing applies to all, every Christian should be in hospitals — but nobody does this, revealing inconsistency.

Mark 16:17-18 — signs and snake handling

Advice for a new missionary to Japan: (1) Don't go alone — attach yourself to other believers and protect those relationships; Satan will target them. (2) Long-term missions requires patience — it's years of investment, not quick results. (3) Your impact ripples through generations even if it feels small. The lives you change will change other lives for decades.

Missionary advice — Japan

long-term missions

Hebrews 10 willful sin apostasy apostasy Hebrews 10 willful sin

Deliberate sin and condemnation (Hebrews 10): (1) The NT provides forgiveness for sins the OT law couldn't cover — Jesus is better than the law. (2) Hebrews' "willful sin" passage is about apostasy (rejecting Christ entirely), not individual acts of deliberate sin. The context of Hebrews 10 is about abandoning the faith, not occasional moral failures.

Deliberate sin — Hebrews 10 is about apostasy

necromancy necromancy contacting the dead

Feeling the presence of a dead loved one: concerning because it may lead to attempting to contact the dead, which the OT consistently condemns. If you're contacting any spirit, it's not the deceased — you're opening yourself to whatever spirit wants to respond. Encourage the person to cherish memories but not pursue spiritual contact. The practice of praying to the dead entered church history through the Eastern church's interaction with pagan culture.

Contacting the dead — biblically condemned

gender dysphoria transgender identity

Gender dysphoria: (1) it's a false belief about identity that shouldn't be fed by dressing as the opposite sex — that reinforces the delusion. (2) Our culture causes harm by affirming transgender identity instead of helping people overcome dysphoria. (3) Presenting as the opposite sex perpetrates a deception on others. (4) Overcoming it involves embracing God-given identity and challenging extreme/stereotypical views of masculinity and femininity.

Gender dysphoria — biblical response

John 5:46 John 6:44 Calvinism Calvinism John 5:46

John 6:44 ("No one can come to me unless the Father draws him") — Mike's non-Calvinist interpretation: the "drawing" is God's OT revelation through the prophets. Jesus came to the Jews who had already been receiving God's word. Those who responded to the Father's prior revelation naturally accept Jesus; those who rejected it naturally reject Jesus. John 5: "if you believed Moses, you'd believe me, for he wrote about me." This is about Jews rejecting their own Messiah, not about irresistible grace or total depravity.

John 6:44 — non-Calvinist interpretation

1 Corinthians 13:1 1 Corinthians 14 tongues speaking in tongues 1 Corinthians 13:1 speaking in tongues

Are tongues overrated? Yes, in many circles. Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:1: tongues without love = noisy gong. 1 Corinthians 14: tongues should be limited in gatherings, require interpretation, and if an unbeliever enters they'll think you're crazy. Paul explicitly says prophecy is BETTER than tongues because it edifies the whole church. Tongues as a status symbol or proof of salvation is completely unbiblical.

Tongues overrated — 1 Corinthians 13-14

2 Corinthians 5:17 born again 2 Corinthians 5:17 born again

Can bad people go to heaven and ruin it? Reconciled by regeneration: everyone who believes in Christ receives a new nature. Even hypothetically, if Hitler truly repented on his deathbed, he'd be a new creation in heaven — hating his old ways, transformed by the Holy Spirit. Heaven is populated by transformed people, not merely forgiven ones.

Bad people in heaven — regeneration transforms

Mark 11:2-6 Mark 11:2-6 donkey symbolism

The colt arrangement was likely a pre-arranged passphrase, not supernatural knowledge — Jesus had extensive prior contact in Bethany and could have sent someone ahead to arrange it.

Analysis of the "password" phrase in Mark 11:2-6

Mark 11:3 deity of Christ kurios Mark 11:3

The phrase "the Lord" (ha kurios) in Mark 11:3 deliberately fuses God's identity with Jesus — Mark's subtle but profound Christology of Christ's deity.

Greek analysis of "the Lord has need of it" in Mark 11:3

Genesis 49:10-11 Psalm 20:7 1 Kings 1 typology typology Genesis 49:10-11

Solomon's inauguration on a donkey (1 Kings 1) and Genesis 49:10-11 provide additional donkey-messiah connections that Zechariah 9:9 likely draws from.

Additional OT background on donkey symbolism

John 7:8-10 Matthew 21:10-11 Triumphal Entry John 7:8-10 Matthew 21:10-11

The "fickle crowd" preaching point (same crowd shouts Hosanna then Crucify Him) is likely wrong — the Palm Sunday crowd was Jesus' traveling followers, distinct from the city population.

Correcting a common sermon point about the Triumphal Entry crowds

Acts 7 Psalm 118 Psalm 118:22 typology typology Acts 7

Psalm 118 is the key text the crowd quotes — it prophesies the rejected cornerstone (Messiah rejected by Israel's leaders) whom God establishes anyway. Jesus quotes it about himself in Mark 12.

Detailed exposition of Psalm 118 and its messianic significance

Richard Dawkins Michael Ruse The God Delusion

Richard Dawkins is not respected even by fellow atheists as a philosopher of religion. Atheist philosopher Michael Ruse says The God Delusion "makes me ashamed to be an atheist."

Setting up Dawkins' credibility before addressing his arguments

circular reasoning atheism circular reasoning

Argument 1 — "We're all atheists, some just go one god further" — is logically absurd. Believing in one God IS the defining difference between monotheism and atheism; it's not a minor distinction.

First argument from Dawkins: the "one less god" argument

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

Natasha Crain false dichotomy circular reasoning

Argument 2 — "Don't indoctrinate children, teach critical thinking" — presents a false dichotomy. You can only separate religion from critical thinking IF you assume all religion is false, making this circular.

Second argument from Dawkins: the indoctrination argument

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

Daniel Dennett circular reasoning atheism Sam Harris

Argument 4 — "Religion is desperation, fear of reality" (Nietzsche) — is circular (assumes atheism is reality) and actually describes Buddhism more than Christianity. Atheism itself denies key realities.

Fourth argument from Nietzsche: religion as escapism

theodicy atheism theodicy

The problem of evil is the #1 argument that practically draws people away from God, but Christianity alone offers both intellectual answers and emotional/pastoral hope — atheism offers neither explanation nor solution.

Pastoral conclusion on the problem of evil and summary of all 5 arguments

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

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

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

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

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

Mike Winger idea 2020-10-05

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

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

Mike Winger idea 2020-10-12

A consistent OT pattern: it's the LEADERS of Israel who persecute God's messengers (Jezebel vs. Elijah, Saul vs. David, people of Ephraim vs. Gideon, King Jehoiakim vs. Jeremiah). The motive: wanting power, credit, and avoidance of suffering.

OT examples of leadership rejecting prophets and application to modern rejection of the gospel

Jeremiah 7:25-26 leadership accountability Jeremiah 7:25-26 leadership accountability

Mike Winger idea 2020-10-19

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

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

Mike Winger idea 2020-10-19

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

image of God image of God render to Caesar

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

John 7 undesigned coincidences Lydia McGrew John 7

Positive evidence FOR gospel reliability: consistent personality of Jesus across Gospels, unexplained allusions (John 7 — Jesus quotes a scripture nobody can identify), unnecessary realistic details, and the absence of realistic fiction as a genre in the first century.

McGrew's positive case for the reportage model