Search — Theology Explorer

Filter results by source database — Scripture Commentary, Theology, Mike Winger, or Pulpit. Click a tab to narrow to one database.

...more

All (4093) Mike Winger (4093)

Mike Winger idea 2021-03-19

Praying for healing for a child with a birth defect — contentment vs. miracle prayer

Listener Maria says her unborn baby has a serious birth defect; many friends are praying for a miracle but she isn't sure she can/should.

Romans 8:26 Kenneth Copeland Word of Faith Healing prayer

Mike Winger idea 2021-03-19

Helping a nominal Christian spouse grow in biblical knowledge

Listener Tasteful Chicken has a wife who believes in Jesus and prays but does not read the Bible; her lifestyle does not align with Scripture.

Pastoral care Discipleship in marriage Nominal Christianity

Mike Winger idea 2021-03-19

Politics in the pulpit — biblical worldview yes, partisan politics no

Listener Lisa asks whether politics belong in the pulpit; she is 100% against it.

Abortion Politics in the pulpit Biblical worldview

Mike Winger idea 2021-03-19

Sharing Jesus with children when an atheist spouse objects

Listener Sheila is a new believer; her atheist husband does not want her sharing Jesus with their daughter because the daughter will think he's going to hell.

Praying for healing for a child with a birth defect — contentment vs. miracle prayer

Helping a nominal Christian spouse grow in biblical knowledge

Politics in the pulpit — biblical worldview yes, partisan politics no

Sharing Jesus with children when an atheist spouse objects

Introduction: Mike frames the show goal as helping viewers think biblically about everything.

Unity of the faith in Ephesians 4 involves shared core doctrine, knowledge of Christ, and Christlike character.

Caution against broadly judging the church as disunified; American church worldliness is the real local issue.

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

Admitting ignorance builds trust rather than undermining pastoral credibility.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Guest Braxton Hunter (president of Trinity Seminary, PhD) introduces the Kalam cosmological argument and explains its ultimate payoff: reasoning toward what the cause of the universe must be like.

The conceptual analysis points toward a spaceless, timeless, non-material, incredibly powerful, exceedingly wise mind — matching what Jews and Christians have always understood from Genesis 1:1.

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.

The Kalam conclusion (the universe has a cause) doesn't mention God explicitly, but the conceptual analysis that always follows leads to theistic conclusions about the nature of that cause.

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: 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 to Premise 2: maybe the universe is infinite in the past. Response: an actually infinite past is impossible — you could never traverse infinite moments to arrive at the present.

Objection: the argument doesn't mention God, so it's irrelevant. Response: the Kalam is always the beginning of a case, not the end — it forces you into the conceptual analysis that points to God.

Objection: this is just a God-of-the-gaps argument. Response: the Kalam provides POSITIVE evidence for what the cause is, not merely an appeal to ignorance.

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.

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.

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.

Objection: this only gets you to generic theism, not the Christian God. Response: each attribute (spaceless, timeless, etc.) was justified, not ad hoc; the Kalam is meant to be followed by evidence for the resurrection to identify the God.

Classical apologetics typically combines the Kalam with design arguments and a moral argument (showing God has moral principles and loves people), building a cumulative case before presenting Christ.

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: 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: 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: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cameron adds: Michael Rota's avarice objection response — the wager need not be self-interested; one might commit to God out of desire to avoid disappointing God, to grow morally, or out of moral duty. Rota's drowning child analogy: even at 50/50, the stakes justify commitment.

Bible Link Settings