Search — Theology Explorer

Matthew 16:17-23 Mark 9:31 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 Semiticisms Matthew 16:17-23 Mark 9:31

Argument 1 — Jesus's death predictions are very early: (a) Matthew 16:17-23 contains Semiticisms ("son of Jonah," "flesh and blood," "Hades") pointing to Aramaic origins, not later Greek tradition. (b) Mark 9:31 has a paronomasia (pun) in Aramaic: "son of man handed into the hands of men." (c) 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 (Last Supper) is written before the Gospels. (d) Paul distinguishes Jesus's commands from his own (1 Cor 7) — proving he doesn't invent words of Jesus.

Argument 1 — earliness of predictions

Mike Licona multiple attestation Mike Licona

Argument 2 — Multiple attestation: Mike Licona found 19+ passages across Mark, M (Matthew-only), L (Luke-only), and John independently attesting Jesus's death/resurrection predictions. Historians consider TWO independent sources "pay dirt" — this has far more. Jesus's prayer in Gethsemane (knowing he'll die) is in Mark 14, Matthew 26, and Luke 22 independently.

Argument 2 — multiple independent attestation

Mark 8:33 criterion of embarrassment Mark 8:33 Peter called Satan

Argument 3 — Criterion of embarrassment: Jesus's predictions include embarrassing elements the early church wouldn't invent. (a) Peter rebukes Jesus for predicting his death — then Jesus calls Peter "Satan" (Mark 8:33). The leader of the church being called Satan is not something the church would fabricate. (b) Disciples repeatedly fail to understand Jesus's predictions — they argue about who's greatest right after. The church wouldn't invent their founders' incompetence.

Argument 3 — criterion of embarrassment

Mark 10:32-34 Mark 10:45 Suffering Servant substitutionary atonement progressive Christianity

Theological insight from the predictions: Jesus saw his death as purposeful sacrifice, not tragedy. He predicted specifics: delivered to chief priests, condemned, handed to Gentiles, mocked, spit on, scourged, killed — and rise three days later. Progressive Christians who reject substitutionary atonement must explain why Jesus described his death as sacrificial and purposeful in his own words. The predictions show Jesus understood himself as Isaiah's Suffering Servant.

Theological insight — purposeful sacrifice, not tragic death

Mike Winger idea 2020-08-14

Mike discusses the American Gospel documentary films. Both are valuable against prosperity gospel and progressive distortions, but both have a strong Calvinist slant — especially the second film. Mike (a non-Calvinist) was included in film 2 to round things out but was surprised by how strongly Calvinistic it came across.

American Gospel films — valuable but Calvinistic

Calvinism Calvinism American Gospel film

Mike Winger idea 2020-08-14

On Steven Furtick: Mike has seen a handful of his messages, finds his preaching style reckless with Scripture. Concerned about the level of allegiance/submission required around him — sounds like pastoral abuse from what he's heard. Furtick doesn't deal carefully with Scripture in context, prioritizing encouragement over accuracy. Similar critique to Joel Osteen.

Steven Furtick critique — reckless with Scripture

Steven Furtick Elevation Church pastoral abuse

Mike Winger idea 2020-08-18

Mark 10:42-45 — Jesus's leadership model: "You know that those recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them... but it is not this way among you." The greatest must be servant; the first must be slave of all. Pastoral abuse happens when leaders adopt CEO mentality — protecting their vision, reputation, and authority instead of serving. Signs: demanding allegiance to the leader rather than to Christ, silencing criticism, creating distance/hierarchy, using authority for personal benefit.

Pastoral abuse — CEO vs servant leadership

Mark 10:42-44 pastoral abuse CEO mentality in ministry Mark 10:42-44

Mike Winger idea 2020-08-18

Hope for abusive pastors: the disciples who asked for thrones became the greatest servants in church history. James was the first apostle martyred; John served faithfully into old age. Jesus didn't disqualify them for their worldly ambitions — he corrected them and they changed. The same transformation is available today. But it requires: (1) honest self-examination, (2) willingness to be corrected, (3) choosing service over authority.

Hope for transformation — disciples changed

James and John request Acts 12 (James martyred) James and John request pastoral transformation Acts 12 (James martyred)

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

1 Corinthians 11 head coverings 1 Corinthians 11 head coverings

Head coverings (1 Corinthians 11): Mike is inclined to say no but admits he can't fully justify that position yet. It's on his list for a 30-40 hour deep study with scholarly literature and commentaries. He's honest about the limits of his current understanding.

Head coverings — unsettled, needs more study

Romans 14 Romans 14 Romans 14 Romans 14 entertainment ethics

Biblical view of entertainment: Laughter is good (Proverbs: laughter is medicine) but like sex, it's context-dependent. Entertainment that softens our attitude toward sin, mocks God, or turns holy things into jokes causes spiritual harm. Each Christian must develop personal convictions (Romans 14) rather than imposing them on others. The test: is your walk with God sustained while enjoying this entertainment?

Entertainment — biblical principles

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

Mark 11:1 Mark 11:1 geography of Jerusalem Mount of Olives

The geography of Bethphage, Bethany, and the Mount of Olives sets the stage for a ceremonial ascent to Jerusalem — cresting the mount gives the first view of the city and temple.

Verse-by-verse study of Mark 11:1

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

Zechariah 9:9 Mark 10:45 Zechariah 9:9-10 Zechariah 9:9 Mark 10:45 Zechariah 9:9-10

Zechariah 9:9-10 is the key OT prophecy behind the entry — the messiah comes humble on a donkey bringing salvation through service, not military conquest. The donkey vs. war horse contrast is central.

Old Testament prophetic background for the Triumphal Entry

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

Mark 11:7-8 2 Kings 9:13 Triumphal Entry Mark 11:7-8 2 Kings 9:13

Cloaks and branches on the road are red-carpet treatment declaring Jesus as king — the only OT parallel is 2 Kings 9:13 where Jehu is declared king of Israel.

Analysis of cloaks and branches in Mark 11:7-8

Psalm 118:24-28 songs of ascent Psalm 118:24-28 festival sacrifice hosanna

Psalm 118:24-28 contains a compressed gospel narrative: Hosanna (save now), the festival sacrifice bound to the altar (Christ crucified), and then "You are MY God" — relationship through sacrifice.

Continued Psalm 118 exposition with gospel typology

Malachi 3:1 Mark 11:11 Mark 1:2-3 Malachi 3:1 deity of Christ temple cleansing

Mark 11:11 — Jesus evaluating the temple fulfills Malachi 3:1 ("the Lord will suddenly come to his temple"). This is the culmination of Mark's opening quote and his subtle deity Christology.

Analysis of the brief but significant Mark 11:11

circular reasoning atheism circular reasoning

Overview: Responding to an article presenting the "best arguments" of top atheists against God. The first four are circular and self-refuting; the fifth (problem of evil) is genuinely difficult but well-answered.

Introduction to video analyzing Sam Wickstrom article on atheist arguments from Dawkins, Nietzsche, and Epicurus

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

Romans 8:28 problem of evil logical problem of evil problem of evil

Argument 5 — The Problem of Evil (Epicurus) — is genuinely difficult but the logical version has been abandoned by academic atheist philosophers. The dilemma offers a false set of options.

Fifth argument: the problem of evil from Epicurus

theodicy theodicy problem of evil

Four theodicies provide a cumulative answer to the problem of evil: soul-building, free will, natural law, and skeptical theism.

Detailed treatment of theodicies responding to the problem of evil

atheism problem of evil atheism

The problem of evil actually backfires on atheism: evil's existence presupposes objective moral values, which have no grounding on atheism. The problem of evil is itself evidence for God.

How the problem of evil becomes an argument FOR God

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

compatibilism compatibilism libertarian free will

Libertarian free will defined: the ability to choose among alternative options compatible with one's nature. Two versions — principle of alternative possibilities (PAP) and sourcehood freedom.

Philosophical definitions before presenting the formal argument

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

naturalism naturalism arguments for God

The expanded Free Thinking Argument Against Naturalism adds steps from naturalism → no soul → no libertarian freedom → no rational inference (all deductive), plus abductive conclusion that God is best explanation.

Full 8-step argument against naturalism

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

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)

Genesis 1:26-27 2 Corinthians 5:8 Galatians 5:13 image of God Genesis 1:26-27 2 Corinthians 5:8

Biblical confirmation: Genesis 1:26-27 (made in God's image as immaterial minds), 2 Corinthians 5:8 (we exist apart from body), Galatians 5:13 (called to live in libertarian freedom to choose love over sin).

Scriptural support for the philosophical conclusions

Daniel Dennett Sam Harris naturalism naturalism

Some atheists are driven to deny their own existence to maintain naturalism — Rosenberg (The Atheist's Guide to Reality), Harris, Dennett all deny the reality of the self/consciousness. This is self-refuting: someone must be having the illusion.

Consequence of determinism: denial of self-existence

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

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