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

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

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

John 18:31 Mark 11:27-33 Sanhedrin Sanhedrin temple cleansing

The chief priests, scribes, and elders = a delegation from the Sanhedrin (Jewish supreme court, ~70 members). This is a significant escalation — Jesus is now on their turf in Jerusalem, confronting the highest authority in Israel.

Identifying the Sanhedrin delegation in Mark 11:27-28

Mark 11:27-33 Mark 14:61-62 Sanhedrin Sanhedrin Mark 11:27-33

The Sanhedrin's question is for intimidation and ammunition, not information. Jesus's counter-question about John's baptism is a standard rabbinic technique that embeds his answer while denying them usable ammo.

Analysis of the Sanhedrin's question and Jesus's response strategy

Mark 7:8-9 sola scriptura Mark 7:8-9 sola scriptura

Jesus's two options — "from heaven or from men" — establish a "sola heaven" principle: heavenly authority doesn't need earthly institutional approval. John didn't get Sanhedrin permission; neither does Jesus.

The theological implications of Jesus's binary question

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

Roman Catholicism sola scriptura papacy

Jesus's response pattern gives us a template: acknowledge the legitimate role (responsibility to teach) while rejecting the authority claims. The papacy has responsibility to teach God's Word but not the authority to determine truth.

How Jesus's response to the Sanhedrin applies to modern Catholic 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

Mark 12:1-12 Psalm 118:22-23 Mark series Sanhedrin Sanhedrin Mark 12:1-12

The Parable of the Vineyard (Mark 12:1-12) is Jesus's most backhanded parable — told directly to the Sanhedrin, predicting they'll reject and kill God's Son, be destroyed, and be replaced. They know it's about them but can't use it in court.

Introduction and overview of Mark 12:1-12

Isaiah 5 Isaiah 5:1-7 typology typology temple cleansing

Jesus's parable directly taps into Isaiah 5's vineyard song — same elements (wall, vat, wine press, tower) — creating a typological parallel: Isaiah's time (prophets rejected → first temple destroyed) mirrors Jesus's time (Son rejected → second temple destroyed).

Isaiah 5 connection and temple destruction context

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

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

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

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

John 5 Mark 12:1-12 John 5 deity of Christ Mark 12:1-12

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)

James 3:1 Psalm 118:22-23 papacy James 3:1 leadership accountability

Psalm 118:22-23 (rejected cornerstone) is quoted by the crowd entering Jerusalem AND by Jesus to the Sanhedrin — the "builders" (scribes/scholars in rabbinic literature) reject the stone, but God establishes it anyway. The "others" who receive the vineyard are the leaders of the Christian church.

The cornerstone quotation and who replaces the vine growers

humility humility leadership accountability

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

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

Mark 12:13-17 Acts 5:37 Proverbs 29:5 Josephus Josephus Sanhedrin

The trap: Pharisees and Herodians (sent by the Sanhedrin) use flattery to pressure Jesus into a direct yes/no answer. They want either criminal charges (sedition) or depopularization (alienating zealot followers).

Analysis of the trap question setup in Mark 12:13-16

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

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