Thinking to Believe: Recent Episodes
Jason Dulle
Was Phoebe a deacon, and if so, does that inveigh against Complementarianism? I argue that Phoebe was a deacon, and that women can be deacons, but this has nothing to do with whether women can be elders/pastors/teachers.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Now that I have established my argument for Complemenatarianism, I am turning my attention to various objections raised by Egalitarians against this view. In this episode I address four objections:
-
Galatians 3:28 requires that we make no distinction between men and women in the kingdom of God.
-
Paul speaks of women as laboring with him in the gospel, and thus women can e ministers.
-
Paul speaks of churches in the house of different women. This implies that they were pastors in these house churches.
-
Priscilla is an example of a teacher in the Bible.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Does the Bible teach male headship? Yes. I examine Genesis 3:16 where God told Eve "your desire will be to your husband, and he will rule over you." I argue that it refers to the woman's desire to exercise authority over her husband rather than submit to his authority. I also make the case that female submission to male headship was not introduced in Gen 3:16, but part of creation order in Genesis 2.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I look at what the NT has to say regarding headship, submission, and authority, focusing on texts like 1 Cor 11 and Eph 5.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Does the Bible teach male headship? Yes. I examine Genesis 3:16 where God told Eve "your desire will be to your husband, and he will rule over you." I argue that it refers to the woman's desire to exercise authority over her husband rather than submit to his authority. I also make the case that female submission to male headship was not introduced in Gen 3:16, but part of creation order in Genesis 2.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I explore the last two possible interpretations of 1 Cor 14:34-35, namely the view that Paul is prohibiting women from engaging in theological discussion/debate in the church, and the view that Paul is prohibiting women from engaging in the judgment of prophetic utterances.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I explored two more possible interpretations of 1 Cor 14:34-35: (1) the cultural/circumstantial view; (2) the absolute silence view.
I argued that the cultural/circumstantial views cannot explain all that we see in the text, and we would have to believe that Paul prohibits all women from speaking due to the sins of a few. We would also have to ignore Paul’s rationale for this. He said it was shameful, and it is the teaching of the Law.
The silence view takes “silence” very literally, but ignores the fact that Paul does not prohibit women from speaking in church in the forms of prayer and prophecy. Silence does refer to the cessation of speaking, but it normally refers to speaking about a particular topic or in a very specific context. It does not have a broad application that would silence women in all things for the duration of a church assembly.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
After dealing with possible understandings of Paul's reference to "the Law," I examined two interpretations of 1 Cor 14:34-35: (1) The interpolation view which holds that these verses are not Pauline, but were added to the text by a scribe early in the text's history; (2) The quote and refute view which holds that verses 34-35 reflect the Corinthians' point of view, not Paul's.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Did an extended recap of what I covered for 1 Tim 2, and then began my discussion of 1 Cor 14:33-35. I concluded:
-
Paul's teaching pertains to public worship.
-
"As in all the churches of the saints" in 33b is the start of the sentence that continues in v.34, and thus it's clear that Paul is not talking about a local circumstance but a universal church practice.
-
Paul is likely referring to men and women in general, not husbands and wives in particular.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I focus on Paul's second reason for prohibiting a woman from teaching or exercising authority over a man, namely the fact that it was Eve - not Adam - who was deceived by the devil.
While Eve was the first to sinn, Adam was held responsible for the fall of mankind because of his headship role, showing that headship and submission were part of creation, not a result of the fall.
I argue against the notion that Adam improperly communicated God's command to Eve, as well as the idea that Adam stood in silence as the devil tempted Eve.
Finally, I argue that Paul's point is not that women are more easily deceived than men, but that Eve's deception has enduring consequences for all men.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I examine 1 Tim 2:13, where Paul provides his first reason for permitting women from teaching or exercising authority over males, namely creation order. Man was created first, then Eve, and thus Eve was created in a place of submission to Adam. Paul's reason was rooted in Scripture, not culture or historical circumstance. I demonstrate why a number of egalitarian attempts to make Paul's teaching temporary and non-binding today, fail. These include the idea that Paul was only concerned about women teaching false doctrine, women being uneducated, and women coming out of the cult of Artemis.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I explore the two things Paul did not prohibit women from doing in 1 Tim 2:12 - teaching and exercising authority. I show why the egalitarian claim that "exercise authority" is talking about an abuse of authority is mistaken.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I begin my examination of the most important NT text on this topic: 1 Tim 2:11-14. I look at the meaning of "silence" and "subjection" in verse 11, and then start my exegesis of verse 12 by exploring two things: (1) Does the fact that Paul said "I do not permit" mean his teaching is not binding?; (2) Is Paul's teaching for husbands and wives in particular, or men and women more generally?
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Is the role of pastors and teacher open to women, or has God ordained that these roles be occupied by men? In this episode, I define the positions, define some key Biblical terminology, and clarify what the debate is about. Finally, I provide three key observations about 1 Tim 2:11-14 and 1 Cor 14:33-35 that will help us properly interpret Paul's meaning.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
To even ask the question is heretical to feminism and an affront to some very recent Christian traditions, but the question is not what we think should be true or would like to be true. It's what Scripture teaches. In this 1-N-Done, I argue that 1 Tim 2:11-14 and 1 Cor 14:33-35 clearly prohibit women from occupying these roles. There are many ways in which women can be used by God, but pastoring and teaching are not included in that list. God has ordained men to lead both the home and the church. I finish the episode by briefly answering a few common Biblical objections.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I finish up my examination of difficult OT passages and start with the NT teaching that women are "weaker vessels" and should submit to their husbands as unto Christ. In the process, I show why the doctrine of "mutual submission" is not Biblical.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
After looking at a variety of texts where women are given important roles and spoken of favorably, I looked at a number of difficult OT texts:
--God's word to Eve that her husband would rule over her
--The jealousy trial
--Coveting your neighbor's wife
--Levirate marriage
--Marrying one's rapist
--The bride price
--The treatment of women POWs
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Is the God of the Bible sexist and misogynistic? No, He’s no feminist either. After critiquing feminist ideology, I demonstrate that the Bible teaches women are equal to men in dignity and spiritual status.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I look at the NT data regarding slavery to wrap up my discussion on the Biblical view of slavery. The NT teaches that our spiritual status is more important than our earthly social status. In Christ, there is neither slave nor free. While Paul encouraged those who could obtain their freedom to do so, what mattered more was their spiritual status as slaves of Jesus Christ (true of free men as well). All humans are slaves in the sense that we are enslaved to sin or to righteousness. In Christ, we are slaves to God and slaves to righteousness, which results in eternal life.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
There are really two institutions of slavery in the OT: one for Israelites, and one for foreigners. The last episode explained the former institution, while this podcast explains the latter. I explain how they were different.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Did you know the Bible regulates slavery rather than condemn it? How can a good God allow something as immoral as slavery? In this episode, I look at the OT data, specifically the OT teaching regarding Hebrew slaves. I argue that the kind of slavery allowed in the OT is vastly different from the kind of slavery most of us think of today. The purpose of slavery was different, how slaves were obtained was different, how long they served was different, and how they were treated was different.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I demonstrate that the commands to devote the Canaanites to destruction are hyperbolic rather than literal, explain why God can (but we cannot) kill anyone He wants, ask whether women and children were killed in the Conquest, and compare the Conquest to Islamic jihad.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Critics have claimed the Conquest of Canaan is an example of divinely commanded genocide or ethnic cleansing. I argue that the rationale for the Conquest had nothing to do with race or ethnicity, and is not an example of genocide. It’s an example of mass judgment for gross immorality. I also explain how Israel had a historical claim to the land, God waited patiently for the Canaanites to repent before judging them, and the main goal was to expel the people from the land.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Many think the God of the OT is harsh and judgmental, while the God of the NT is gracious and loving. Is the God of the OT different than the God of the NT? Did God reform Himself between the testaments? No. I demonstrate that we find a God of love and justice in both testaments.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Christians and Jews believe the God of the Bible is morally good. Many non-believers, however, think otherwise. They claim the God of Christianity is morally evil, and thus no god at all. So is the Biblical God the epitome of moral perfection, or a moral monster? I introduce this new sub-series and provide some guiding principles to help us understand difficult Biblical issues.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I finished my thoughts on how Christians can deal with the emotional problem of evil, which wraps up this sub-series on the problem of evil. I explored the different purposes God has for evil, give some perspective in light of eternity and the cross, and God's plan for ultimately solving the problem of evil.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Evil brings with it suffering and emotional pain. How are we to deal with this? I contrast the atheist worldview with the Christian worldview on this matter.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I’ve offered a theodicy for moral evil, but what about natural evil? Why does God allow for suffering caused by natural disasters, disease, and accidents?
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I wrap up my examination of the Free Will Defense and conclude that it succeeds. In the course of the discussion I explore why believers will not sin in heaven. I present two different explanations that Christians have offered, and reasons for preferring one over the other.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
In the last episode, I offered the Free Will Defense (FWD) as an explanation for why God might allow evil: God cannot create free creatures who are unable to choose evil. The example of God, however, calls this logic into question. He is free, and yet He cannot sin. Is the FWD cooked, or is there a reason why God cannot - but we can - choose evil?
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I’ve demonstrated that evil doesn’t make God’s existence impossible or even unlikely, but one might wonder why, if God exists, He permits evil. What is the purpose? This is the question of theodicy.
I cover five reasons God might permit evil:
-
To better our souls via moral growth (soul-making theodicy)
-
To bring glory to God
-
To make moral freedom and love possible
-
To make happiness possible
-
To reveal more of God to us
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
On this miscellany episode I cover:
-- How the NYC mayoral race helps us think through our voting philosophy
-- What gerrymandering is, why it's a danger to our democracy, and which party does it the most
-- Don't assume that those who believe different than you do so because of a spiritual problem.
-- Stop worrying about people being offended.
-- 2 pet peeves - using foreign words and performative prayer
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
The evidential problem of evil falsely assumes that if God had a purpose for permitting the amounts/kinds of evil we see in the world, we would be able to discern what those reasons were. The bottom line is that so long as the existence of evil and the existence of evil are logically compatible, there is no good reason to think that greater amounts of evil make God's existence more unlikely.
I also discuss gratuitous evil. Some think that God can't exist if gratuitous evil exists, but this presumes that every evil must produce some good for it to be justified. The theist is not committed to such a proposition.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
While there may be no logical incompatibility between a theistic God and evil, can certain amounts or kinds of evil make it highly unlikely that theism is true? That's the claim of the evidential problem of evil. In this episode, I examine the claim that there is too much evil in the world to think that God exists.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I finish my discussion of the logical POE, showing how evil is actually one of the best evidences for God’s existence – not against God’s existence, and showing how the atheist’s answer to the problem of evil is far less satisfactory than the theist’s.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Is the presence of evil in our world evidence against the existence of God? How could an all-good and all-loving God allow so much evil?
In this episode, I begin to evaluate the logical problem of evil. I discuss what evil is (a privation of good), the different kinds of evil, and why the logical problem of evil does not succeed in undermining theism or proving atheism.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Is the presence of evil in our world evidence against the existence of God? How could an all-good and all-loving God allow so much evil?
In this 1-N-Done episode, I tackle this problem head-on. I cover:
- Why there is no logical incompatibility between God and evil
- Evil is actually evidence for God's existence, not against it
- Theism offers a better solution to the problem of evil than atheism
- Explore some reasons God may permit evil
- Offer principles to help people endure evil and suffering
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Does the multiplicity of religions and their cultural-rootedness show that religions are just human inventions? Are religions just examples of wish fulfillment? Did humans invent religion as an emotional crutch?
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Many think that science has disproven God, or at least shown that He is superfluous. Nothing could be further from the case. I show how science cannot, even in principle, disprove God's existence. I also examine whether science has truly been able to explain the things God has typically been invoked to explain such as the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the diversity of life. In the process, I talk about why Darwinian evolution fails and why theists are not committing the God of the gaps fallacy.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
In today's episode I cover two objections: (1) Divine omniscience is incompatible with human freedom; (2) A Person without a body is impossible.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
This episode is in honor of Charlie Kirk and his legacy.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I address the nature of the problem (it's more emotional than intellectual), and then focus on two key objections: (1) Hell is contrary to God’s love; (2) Hell is contrary to God’s nature (eternal nature of hell).
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Many consider the doctrine of hell to be the best reason for rejecting the God of Christianity. Can we reconcile the doctrine of hell with the loving, merciful, and just God of the Christian faith? Yes, we can. In this episode I cover the Biblical teaching on hell, explain why hell is necessary, and explain why hell is just.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I address three objections in this episode:
-
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (and theists don't have it)
-
No one can know if God exists (so theists are just blowing smoke)
-
It is impossible to falsify theism (so it is not worthy of our belief)
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I round out my discussion on possible reasons God seems hidden to unbelievers, and then explain why one of those reasons is not because too much evidence would violate people's free will. I end by explaining some possible reasons that God feels hidden from believers.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
God has plenty of critics, and His critics raise numerous objections against Him. So I’m beginning a new series that will answer God’s critics, starting with their objection that God has not provided enough evidence to convince rational people that He exists – the so-called problem of divine hiddenness. If God exists, why isn’t His existence more obvious? Why doesn’t God provide evidence sufficient to convince everyone that He’s real?
In this episode, I argue that the hiddenness of God is not just a problem for unbelievers, but believers as well. I also argue that even if the objection is successful, it does not disprove theism and surely does not prove atheism. Then I question the assumption that God is hidden and provide some reasons that God may not provide more evidence of His existence than He does.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
We often hear it said that the rich should pay their fair share in taxes. Actually, they’re paying more than their fair share already. It’s the non-rich who are paying too little. I also make the case for trickle-down economics and why property taxes are a scam.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Capitalism is the natural economic system, meaning it's what people do naturally until and unless they are constrained to do otherwise by the State. In this episode, I argue for the moral and practical superiority of capitalism. It is not perfect, but it is the best economic system available.
I also discuss minimum wage laws and argue that increasing the minimum wage has many negative, unintended consequences that often hurt the very people they are intended to help.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Economic theories have both a moral foundation and moral implications. As such, Christians ought to critically evaluate economic theory. I contend that socialism is a morally evil and ideologically naïve economic philosophy that has failed everywhere it has been tried, resulting in tyranny and poverty. In this episode, I provide five more reasons for rejecting socialism, and then argue against the idea that Jesus or the Bible is socialist:
-
Socialism demonizes the rich and falsely attributes their wealth to oppression and discrimination
-
Socialism results in equal misery, not equal wealth
-
Socialism punishes the industrious and rewards/hurts the lazy
-
Socialism robs people of the fruit of their labor
-
Socialism makes people less charitable
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Economic theories have both a moral foundation and moral implications. As such, Christians ought to critically evaluate economic theory. I contend that socialism is a morally evil and ideologically naïve economic philosophy that has failed everywhere it has been tried, resulting in tyranny and poverty. In this episode, I provide four reasons for rejecting socialism:
1 . Socialism requires big government and a loss of personal freedom
-
Socialism is legalized theft
-
Socialism forces "charity" and falsely pretends to be charitable
-
Socialism is motivated by envy, jealousy, and covetousness
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
In this miscellany episode, I address:
- Justin Welby's recent comments as to why he changed his view on homosex and same-sex relationships
- Who is authorized to baptize people, and where should baptisms take place?
- What is proper church attire? Should it be formal, casual, or somewhere in between?
- The difference between the Bible and theology
- Ministerial bios
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
In recent days, N. T. Wright made some remarks on the morality of abortion and the necessity of believing in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Regarding abortion, he essentially articulated the view that early abortions are morally acceptable, particularly in the cases of rape, incest, and physical deformity.
Regarding the resurrection, while Write believes that Jesus was raised bodily from the dead and this should be a normative belief for Christians, he does not think a denial of this doctrine necessarily makes one a heretic who is bereft of salvation. I think he is wrong on both counts, and explain why.
I end the episode with a Pet the Peeve segment about driving.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I demonstrate that while Jesus was God incarnate, He functioned as an ordinary human being, which meant that He was anointed by the Holy Spirit for ministry. To equip His followers to continue His ministry after His ascension, Jesus transferred the Holy Spirit to them on the Day of Pentecost.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Jesus’ ascension into heaven not only signaled a major transition of Jesus’ ministry, but also a major transition for His disciples. It meant their training was over, and now it was time to pick up Jesus’ mantle and carry on His ministry. In this episode, I begin to connect the dots between Jesus’ ascension into heaven and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, showing how the latter was required to equip Jesus’ followers to carry on His earthly ministry and fulfill God’s plan to save humanity. In doing so, I'll explore Luke's theology of the Holy Spirit.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I finished up my discussion of the significance of Jesus' ascension, arguing that it was when Jesus was fully glorified, and it includes a promise of His return to Earth. Then, I reviewed five things Jesus is doing right now in heaven:
-
He's with His church
-
He's preparing a place for us
-
He's building His church
-
He's dispensing the Holy Spirit
-
He's functioning as our high priest, interceding on our behalf
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
We don't talk much about Jesus' ascension into heaven, but historically, this was always recognized as a significant event in Jesus' life. And it is! I discuss the practical and theological significance of the ascension.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
In this final episode on the resurrection, look at some of the NT promises regarding our own future resurrection from the dead, explore what our resurrection body will be like, and explain the theological and practical implications of the general resurrection.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I share some post-Easter thoughts (including a “pet the peeve” segment) and begin a discussion on our own future resurrection from the dead.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
In this final episode on the Shroud of Turin, I talk about art based on the shroud, reasons to doubt the Shroud is authentic, and where the Shroud shows up in the historical record.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I look at various attempts to recreate the Shroud image through naturalistic means before moving on to other ways we can know the Shroud is older than what the carbon dating suggests.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I discuss how the image on the shroud was made, as well as the age of the Shroud and the infamous C-14 dating from 1988.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
What is the evidence that the Shroud of Turin is the real burial cloth of Jesus and bears His crucified image? In this episode I begin to cover 17 points of evidence that point to authenticity.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
The Shroud of Turin is the purported burial cloth of Jesus Christ, bearing the image of a crucified man. Is it authentic and evidence for the resurrection, or just a medieval forgery? This is the first episode in the final sub-series in the resurrection series. I start by examining the features of the cloth itself, as well as the image of a crucified man that is embedded within the fibers of the cloth. The characteristics are quite distinct, and match the unique description of Jesus' death found in the gospels.
View the shroud images by downloading my Power Point presentation at www.bit.ly/Jesusshroud.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
In this miscellany episode I offer my short thoughts on worship music, being thoughtful about our language, the centrality of truth, words of advice to aspiring preachers, why religion is not a bad word, conversation etiquette, and end with a Pet the Peeve segment about where waitresses place the bill on the table.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I covered the final four differences in the gospel accounts:
- Did Peter just look into the tomb, or did he enter it?
- Why did the angels tell the women to tell the male disciples to meet Him in Galilee if Jesus was going to appear to the apostles that same day in Jerusalem?
- Why did Jesus tell the apostles to stay in Jerusalem if they had not yet gone to Galilee?
- Did Jesus ascend to heaven from Bethany or the Mount of Olives?
I also show how the Evangelists agree on more than they disagree, reconstruct a video view of events, and explain why inerrancy is irrelevant to establishing the truth of Christianity.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I address three Gospel differences:
- Did all of the apostles disbelieve the report of the Emmaus Disciples, or only some of them?
- Did Jesus ascend to heaven the same day as His resurrection, or weeks later
- Was Jesus’ first appearance to the apostles to 10 or 11 apostles
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
We know the Synoptic gospels simplified their empty tomb narratives, so how did that affect their portrayal of the event? Why did Luke leave out the appearance of Jesus to the women? I also explore differences related to the Emmaus disciples narrative.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I continue to examine differences in the empty tomb narratives. In this episode, I address differences in where the women were when the angels appeared to them. I show how the differences can be resolved when we recognize that there were two tomb visits. Mary Magdalene went to the tomb twice. She left before the angels/Jesus appeared to the remaining women, but saw the angels/Jesus when she returned to the tomb for the second time.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I do a walkthrough of the four gospel accounts’ concerning the empty tomb, resurrection, and post-mortem appearances of Jesus, comparing and contrasting them to identify similarities and differences. Then I begin to harmonize the empty tomb narratives, addressing the following differences:
-
Which women went to the tomb?
-
Did the women journey to the tomb when it was dark or at dawn?
-
Did the women see angels or men?
-
Did the women see one or two angels?
-
Did the women encounter the angels inside the tomb or outside the tomb, and were the angels sitting or standing?
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I explored the various compositional devices used in Greco-Roman biographies and provided Biblical examples of their use in the Gospels. These compositional devices explain many of the so-called errors and differences in the Gospels.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Part 2 of harmonizing the resurrection accounts. Still establishing the foundation for harmonization by looking at how the ancients recorded history. Explained how differences in words and events can be explained. Started looking at Mike Licona's work on compositional devices.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Skeptics point to so-called contradictions in the Gospel accounts as reasons to doubt their claims that Jesus rose from the dead. I'll spend several episodes harmonizing the resurrection accounts in the Gospels, but in this episode I begin to lay the foundation for how we should think about so-called contradictions and what's really at stake.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Covered more objections to the resurrection of Jesus, including
-- Why didn't Jesus' disciples always recognize Him after His resurrection?
-- Why did the apostles wait so long to proclaim Jesus' resurrection?
-- If the evidence for Jesus' resurrection is so good, why do only Christians believe it?
-- Didn't Jesus tell Thomas he wasn't blessed precisely because he required evidence for the resurrection?
-- Isn't evidence for the resurrection opposed to faith?
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I address more questions and objections:
-- Was Jesus' "appearance" to Paul truly a resurrection appearance?
-- Jews did not bury crucified victims. Jesus was left in an open tomb and most likely eaten by dogs/birds.
-- Jesus’ Body Would have been Unrecognizable
-- Why Didn’t Jesus Appear to Unbelievers?
-- The Doctrine of Resurrection was a Later Doctrine
-- How did Mark know what the women saw at the tomb if they did not say anything to anyone?
--Why were the unbelieving Jews anticipating a resurrection of Jesus, but not the apostles?
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I address the following questions and objections:
o When Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?
o Where is Jesus’ body now?
o It’s difficult to know what’s true about history.
o The ancients were just gullible and easily accepted miracle claims
o The Resurrection is Not a Historical Conclusion
o Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence, and you haven't provided extraordinary evidence.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I continue my examination of non-miraculous explanations for the historical facts including the spiritual resurrection theory, deification theory, wish fulfillment theory, and more. Then, I argue that the resurrection hypothesis is the best explanation for the historical data.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Now that we've established the historical facts, all that remains is to determine what best explains them. The explanation offered by Jesus' disciples was that Jesus was raised from the dead. Non-Christians, atheists, and anti-supernaturalists do not want to accept that explanation, so they have proposed a great number of alternative, non-miraculous explanations. I'll examine those alternative theories over the next two episodes. In this episode I examine the theft hypothesis, the switcheroo hypothesis, the apparent death theory, the hallucination theory, the wrong tomb theory, and the copycat of pagan mythology theory.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I cover the four remaining historical facts that I'll argue are best explained by Jesus' resurrection from the dead:
- The conversion of James
- The conversion of Paul
- The changed behavior of the disciples
- The origin of the disciples' belief in the resurrection
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Not only did the disciples discover Jesus' tomb to be empty, but Jesus also appeared in the flesh to various individuals and groups at different times and in different locations. I explore the reasons historians are convinced that the disciples had some sort of experience of Jesus after His death. I also harmonize all of the various resurrection appearances recorded in the gospels and 1 Corinthians, ordering them chronologically.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I present six lines of evidence in favor of the historicity of the empty tomb, and explain why this historical fact is significant in the case for the resurrection of Jesus.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
I present the reasons that have convinced the vast majority of historians that Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea and why this historical fact is significant. I also address other matters related to Jesus' burial, including the location of Jesus' tomb, the rolling stone that covered the tomb, how long Jesus was in the tomb, and whether the guard at the tomb was Roman or Jewish.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
The first line of historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection is Jesus' death by crucifixion. In addition to providing the evidence that has convinced virtually all historians of this fact, I also explore the nature of crucifixion, how it killed its victims, the shape of the cross, the date of Jesus' crucifixion, and more.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Some claim that there's no evidence that Jesus even existed, or that the evidence we have is less than compelling. Nothing could be further from the truth. I provide a number of reasons to think Jesus was a real historical person, including what is recorded about Him in early, non-Christian sources. Not only do non-Christians take it for granted that Jesus existed, but also provide information about Jesus and His followers that is corroborated in the New Testament.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve
Even if it's true that Jesus rose from the dead, so what? It may be odd. It may be amazing. But why should it matter to me? What's the significance of Jesus' resurrection from the dead? I lay out nine reasons that Jesus' resurrection changed the world, and ought to change your life.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I've started a new series on the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. In this first episode, I rehearse the various topics I'll cover in the series and talk about a historical approach to the resurrection of Jesus. Christianity is based on certain historical events, and and to the degree that those events can be verified or falsified, Christianity can be verified or falsified. NT historians examine the purported events of the NT using the same criteria historians of secular history do. This yields a number of historical facts about the life of Jesus that are best explained by His resurrection from the dead.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
In this final episode in my Political Theology series, I argue that our approach to voting ought to be to make a moral difference, not just a moral statement. As such, we should not vote for third parties or stay home on Election Day. I also make the case that Christians should still vote for Trump and the Republican Party despite the steps both have taken recently away from moral conservatism.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
God takes positions on moral issues. Political parties also take positions on moral issues. As such, God takes sides when it comes to politics. All political parties fail to represent God’s point of view on certain issues, but they don’t all fail equally. God is on the side of the party that will best fulfill His purpose for government: justice. That’s why our vote is morally significant. We must vote for the party that will best fulfill God’s purpose for government and avoid voting for those who will promote more evil. Right now, in the United States, the party that promotes the most amount of evil is the Democrat Party. If we care about what God cares about, we cannot vote for candidates from the Democrat Party. They are disqualified from holding office for many reasons, but the most important issue is their stance on abortion. Anyone who would use their political power to allow mothers to murder their own children should never be allowed to yield political power. If we wouldn’t vote for a party that promoted the legalization of slavery, we should not vote for a party that promotes the legalization of baby murder. God cares how we vote.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
It's common knowledge that "you can't (or shouldn't) legislate morality," but in reality, this is a common misunderstanding. Morality is all that you should legislate. The only question is whose morality will be legislated. It would be religious discrimination and anti-democratic to exclude the voices of Christians simply because they are religious.
When we vote, our vote should be based on policy rather than personality, race, sex, etc. And since law is a moral enterprise on its face, who and what we vote for is morally significant. We should be voting in ways that best fulfill God's purpose for government (justice), and that means moral issues ought to take precedent over all other political issues.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Does the First Amendment require a strict wall of separation between the government and the people? No. It was intended to prevent the federal government from establishing a national religion or disestablishing any state religion, and to prevent the federal government from interfering in the religious beliefs and expressions of individual citizens.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Many have claimed that America was founded as a secular nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only were our Founding Fathers deeply religious, but they expressed their religion publicly and their Christian religion deeply informed the principles on which this nation was built. Contrary to the claims of those who wish to rewrite American history, most Founding Fathers were orthodox or semi-orthodox Christians, not Deists, and certainly not secular atheists.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Government was God's idea. It's an institution He created to promote justice in human societies. As such, good government requires the participation of the just. Even God is involved in government. He sets up kings and kingdoms, and brings them down. There is no wall between politics and religion. There is a relationship between the two, but we must understand what that relationship is if we hope to properly relate to our government.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
In this final episode of the series, I answer objections to the wisdom model of decision making and respond to verses that are commonly used in support of the Spirit-led model.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
In this episode, I apply the wisdom model of decision making to ministry and marriage, showing how Biblical principles and wisdom should guide us in our ministry and choosing a spouse.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I provide a number of Biblical examples demonstrating that most decisions are to be made in light of wisdom, not divine revelation. Then, I provide some principles for decision making, talk about how to obtain wisdom, and offer some clarifications regarding the wisdom model.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
When God speaks, how does He speak? There are five Biblical characteristics of divine revelation: (1) It was rare; (2) It came to those who were not seeking it; (3) It was clear; (4) It was supernatural in nature; (5) It often went against the dictates of wisdom.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
In part 2 of my series on Simplifying God's Will, I examine the Biblical data on God's will. I argue that the Bible teaches God's will for our lives is more general in nature, primarily related to our moral growth; not who we marry, what career we choose, etc. While God can have a specific will regarding some aspects of our lives, it is rare, and God will make that known to us in a very clear manner. Then, I examine the most common methods people use for deciphering God's will, and demonstrate how each of them is unbiblical. While many of these methods employ Biblical terminology, they do not reflect the Biblical meaning.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I'm starting a 6-part series on finding the will of God. In episode 1, I compare and contrast the two models of God's will, and argue that only one is based in Scripture.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
In this miscellany episode, I exegete two passages in 1 Corinthians 3. I argue that when Paul warns people about the way they are building (with gold, silver, and precious stones vs. wood, hay, and straw), he is not talking about individual Christians' spiritual development. He is talking about the way in which ministers in Corinth were ministering to the body of Christ. Some of their efforts have eternal worth and some do not, and they need to be sure that they are building something of eternal value.
When Paul goes on to warn against destroying God's temple, he's not referring to Christians sinning against their own bodies by smoking, drinking, etc., but warning ministers that if they destroy God's people, God will destroy them.
Then, I explain why DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) is an evil, racist, unjust, Marxist philosophy that should be rejected by Christians because it requires discriminating against some groups to benefit others, and values group identity over personal merit.
I also argue that those who have failed at some X can still be a source of advice regarding X.
Finally, I pet the peeve...twice! I talk about Christian parents who have their kids involved in so many extracurricular activities that they don't have the time to focus on the family and spiritual development. I also talk about those who feel the need to tune out anyone who disagrees with them.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I finish up the existential argument by showing how atheism cannot, but theism can satisfy our deep longing for objective morality, free will, immortality, and love. I end the podcast by providing a real life example of how an atheist came to Christianity, in part, because she realized that only Christianity could satisfy her existential needs.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
My final argument for God's existence is a version of the existential argument. I argue that our existential longings can only be explained by and fulfilled by a theistic God: the desire for meaning and purpose in life, objective morality, immortality, free will, and love. People must either (1) believe there is a God who can fulfill our deepest longings or (2) believe there is no God and that our deepest longings will never be fulfilled.
In part 1, I argue that all human beings have a longing for the transcendent and explain why we need to make people want to believe in God before we provide the evidence for God's existence. Then, I contrast how atheism and theism account for meaning and purpose in life.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I wrap up my discussion of Aquinas' Five Ways by examining both his Fourth and Fifth Ways.
The Fourth Way demonstrate that the grades of perfection we observe in the world can only be explained by the existence of a maximally perfect being.
The Fifth Way demonstrates the existence of an intelligent being who guides everything towards their natural ends.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
For his Third Way, Thomas Aquinas argues that the existence of contingent beings can only be explained by the existence of a necessary being whose essence is identical to His existence.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
For his Second Way, Thomas Aquinas argues that a causal series can only be explained by a first, uncaused cause who is the source of all causation. In a related argument - the existential proof - Aquinas argues that things whose essence is distinct from their existence can only be explained by a being whose essence and existence are identical; i.e. a being who just is existence itself.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I started my exploration of Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways, beginning with his First Way - the argument from motion. Aquinas argues that only God can explain why things change. Change can only be explained by a First, Unmoved Mover; i.e. a Being who is the ultimate source of all change, but is itself not changed by anything.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
The current legal situation regarding abortion law in Arizona has revealed a strategic divide among pro-lifers. All pro-lifers want to make abortion unthinkable in this country, but disagree as to the best way of achieving that end. Abolitionists take an all-or-nothing approach, while incrementalists attempt to end abortion in a series of multiple steps. I argue that the incremental approach is the correct one, and make a case for why we need to pass an abortion law at the federal level.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I offer four more arguments for God's existence from human equality, free will, miracles, and the resurrection.
I argue that the notion of human equality has no place in a materialistic worldview, but can only be grounded by a transcendent source like God who.
I argue that there can be no free will in a materialistic universe. Freedom of the will requires a human soul, and the best explanation for the human soul is God.
I argue that miracles occur, and they point us to a supernatural cause whose identity can be revealed by the context of the miracle.
Finally, I argue that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the best explanation of the historical evidence, and that Jesus' resurrection demonstrates that the Christian God is the true God and Christianity is the one true religion.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I offer three more arguments for God's existence: the origin of life, the argument from human rights, and the argument from human value.
I argue that only a transcendent, intelligent mind like God could create the biological information and order required for living things.
I argue that the notion of human rights can only be grounded in a transcendent source like God.
Finally, I argue that humans can only have real value if we are made in the image of God.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I am continuing my series on the evidence for God's existence with a host of additional arguments. I will not go into the same depth for each argument that I have for the previous arguments. In this episode, I spend the bulk of the time explaining the ontological argument. This is an oft-neglected argument that should be discussed more often. It is a powerful argument that gives you a maximally great being like God. I also give an argument for God from human consciousness, the existence of the laws of logic, and the existence of numbers/mathematics.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
A 1-N-Done episode on the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
In this final episode on the teleological argument, I look at a number of objections that have been raised against the argument and demonstrate why none of them successfully undermine it.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Having previously established four levels of fine-tuning in the universe, I set out to explain the cause of that fine-tuning. I explore chance and physical necessity and conclude that both are inadequate. The only adequate explanation also happens to be the best explanation: design. Who or what is the source of that design? I conclude that it must be a personal agent and necessary being like God. Finally, I conclude with six tips for sharing the teleological argument with others.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I provide a number of examples for the last two levels of fine-tuning: the physical constants and our local solar system. Both exhibit jaw-dropping levels of fine-tuning that beg for an explanation.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I begin my mini-series on the teleological argument by defining what scientists mean when they describe a feature of our universe as "fine-tuned," give examples to show that most scientists affirm the reality of fine-tuning, and then explore two levels of fine tuning (the initial conditions of our universe, natural laws).
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
The teleological argument - or design argument - for God's existence hold that that there is evidence of design in the universe, and this design is best explained by theism. I summarize the argument and respond to a couple of common objections in this 1-N-Done episode. Next week, I'll begin a mini-series on the argument that goes into more detail.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I examine eight more objections to the moral argument and provide a response.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I offer five tactics for presenting the moral argument. Then, I respond to three objections against the moral argument:
(1) One doesn’t have to believe in God to be moral
(2) If you would still be good if God didn’t exist, then God is irrelevant to morality
(3) Is something good because God wills it, or does God will it because it is good (Euthyphro Dilemma)?
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I provide six aspects of our moral experience that are best explained by a theistic God. This is the heart of the moral argument for God's existence.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I round out my critique of non-theistic explanations for morality, including the view that morality is a brute fact, the view that logic can ground morality, the view that science can explain morality, and the best of all non-theistic explanations: moral Platonism.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Spent the entire episode offering 11 critiques against the most popular non-theistic account of morality: Evolutionary Ethics.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Accounting for the existence of real morality (the grounding problem) is the biggest challenge facing any moral theory. I talk about this problem in some detail before beginning my critique of non-theistic explanations for morality, starting with the social constructionism and social contract theory.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
The moral argument argues from the reality of morality to the morality of God, so it's important that we establish the objectivity of morality. I provide a number of reasons to reject moral subjectivism in favor of moral objectivism/realism. Then, I describe the nature of our moral experience. This will provide the basis for future episodes where I explore competing hypotheses that purport to explain our moral experience.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
In episode 1 of my mini-series on the moral argument, I discuss the concept of moral arguments, provide the objective of the argument, and key concepts to understanding the argument.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I begin my fifth argument for God's existence: the moral argument. In this 1-N-Done episode, I explain why God is the only adequate explanation for our moral experience. I explore our moral experience, then compare theistic and non-theistic explanations and conclude that only Theism can explain our moral experience. I conclude with the two most common objections against the moral argument.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
In my final installment for the contingency argument, I address various objections that are raised against the argument and rebut them. I also included a "Pet the Peeve" segment focused on "prayer preaching."
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I explain the contingency argument, and explain why the universe cannot be a metaphysically necessary being or brute fact. I also provide a few tactical ways you can explain the contingency argument to others using illustrations.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
The contingency argument for God's existence is a cosmological argument, but unlike the kalam argument, it does not require a temporally finite universe. The contingency argument holds that even an eternal universe requires a cause, and that cause is God. The essence of the argument is that things which don’t have to exist, but do, can only be explained by something that does have to exist, namely God. In this episode, I cover the objective of the argument, the keys to the argument, key concepts to understand, and offer three brief formulations of the argument.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
In this last episode in the kalam series, I address more objections to the conclusion of the argument.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I show how we can get from the generic concept of a "god" creating the universe to the God of Christian theism, and then move on to objections against the conclusion of the Kalam, starting with the most common of all objections: Who caused God?
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
In addition to having the properties of immateriality, spacelessness, eternality, and power, I argue that the First Cause must also possess the properties of intelligence and volition. Since intelligence and volition are features of personal agents, the First Cause must be a personal agent. Only the God of theism fits the bill.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Now that we have established that the Kalam successfully demonstrates that the universe has a cause, we need to determine what or who that cause is. Using a logical analysis, I explain the necessary properties of such a cause. I examine each one to determine whether they exhibit the necessary properties of the First Cause and find each one wanting.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I answer several objections against the argument for the impossibility of an actual infinite that I offered in the last episode:
- Infinite set theory shows that infinities exist
- You can divide anything an infinite number of times
- God is said to be infinite
- God’s knowledge is infinite
Then, I explain the last two philosophical arguments against an infinite past, namely (1) that an infinite cannot be formed by successive addition and (2) it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
In this episode, I deal with a few objections to the scientific evidence for premise 2 of Kalam before proceeding on to provide the first of three philosophical evidences for premise 2 (the logical impossibility of an actual infinite).
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I address the concerns that cause many Christians to reject the Big Bang theory, show how the theory has come to be accepted as fact by the consensus of scientists, and why all of the new models being put forward by scientists hoping to escape a cosmic beginning fail in their attempt to do so.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
While the Big Bang theory has become the standard model in science and accepted by the vast majority of scientists, that was not always the case. Initially, many scientists rejected the theory because of its theistic implications.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I continue my examination of the Big Bang theory. I look at what scientists think of the theory and why the theory is so important. Then, I look at the concept of the singularity in more detail, arguing that it was not a thing that existed, but a scientific description of nothingness. That morphed into a brief discussion of the meaning of "nothing." Finally, I offered four lines of empirical evidence in favor of the Big Bang theory.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I begin my examination of premise 2 of the Kalam (the universe began to exist). I present three scientific evidences in support of the premise:
- Radioactive decay
- Second Law of Thermodynamics
- Big Bang
The Big Bang theory takes a lot of unpacking, so I've only just begun the conversation in this episode by explaining the theory and its historical development.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I conclude my examination of objections to the first premise of the KCA that everything which begins to exist must be caused to exist. I focus on scientific objections related to quantum mechanics such as virtual particles, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and the indeterminate nature of radioactive decay. I also address the objection that it is nonsensical to speak of efficient causation in the absence of material causation.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I continue my examination of objections to the first premise of the KCA that everything which begins to exist must be caused to exist. The objections I cover in this episode include:
(1) The argument equivocates on the meaning of "begins to exist"
(2) Science cannot support the first premise it only shows that the transformation of matter from one state to another requires a cause - not that the origin of matter itself requires a cause.
(3) We have no experience of things coming into being from nothing to know that they require a cause
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I address what I consider to be the best argument against premise 1, namely Stephen Hawking's objection that the universe cannot have a cause because causes must precede their effect in time, and there was no time prior to the universe. I spent the entire episode on this single objection. Other objections will be addressed next episode.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
In this first episode of the detailed analysis of the Kalam cosmological argument, I provide four reasons for thinking that premise 1 is true ("Anything that begins to exist requires a cause").
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
My third argument for God’s existence is the Kalam cosmological argument. In this 1-N-Done episode, I summarize the argument. I will explore the argument in-depth starting next week.
The essence of the Kalam cosmological argument is that temporally finite things require a cause for their existence. Since the universe began to exist in the finite past, it also requires a cause. An examination of the properties required of such a cause match the properties of the theistic God.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
My second argument for God's existence is the Argument from the Impossibility of Nothingness. This is a lesser-known argument for God's existence, but I think it is quite powerful.
The essence of the argument: If there was ever a time when nothing existed, there would still be nothing now because nothing has no potential to become something. And yet something exists, so there could never be a time in the past when nothing existed. Something must have always existed. The universe is not that something since physical reality came into existence at the Big Bang, so the eternal something must transcend physical reality. The eternal something must be immaterial, spaceless, and eternal, which is a basic description of God.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
My first argument for God's existence is the argument from personal experience. The essence of the argument is that if one has an experience of God, then God must exist. I argue that this experience is not aimed at convincing atheists of God's existence so much as it is demonstrating that theists who believe in God based on experience are rational for doing so. I end the episode by examining a few common objections raised against the argument, including the "well, then, why haven't I experienced God?" objection.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I begin the conversation on theism, looking specifically at the relationship between reason and belief in God. I discuss two kinds of reasons, explain why empirical evidence is not required for belief in God, discuss whether we can prove God's existence, discuss how best to argue for God’s existence, and why we need to make people want God to exist before we give them evidence that He exists.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I show the connection between moral rebellion and atheism (the third reason for atheism), develop a Biblical theology of atheism, and address the objection that atheists don’t exist and thus an apologetic for theism is pointless.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I argue against the notion that atheism is the default position unless and until theists can provide sufficient evidence that God exists. I also look at two reasons people become atheists: rational reasons, emotional reasons.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
This is the first episode in a new series on God's existence. I will provide evidence for the existence of God. This episode gives an overview of what I will cover. I begin by examining agnosticism and atheism. I address the recent attempt to redefine atheism.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
My second miscellany episode covering a range of topics:
1. There are stages in our relationship with God
2. Explaining why Christians have so many different beliefs
3. Why we should not use the term "cisgender"
4. Christians who are practical atheists
5. Be careful what you win people to
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
We know Jesus taught that divorce and remarriage is justified in the case of sexual sin, but are there any other moral justifications? In this final episode of the series, I consider other possible justifications for divorce including abuse, criminal activity, abortion, financial mismanagement, pornography, and transgender identity. I provide a principle for evaluating any suggested justifications, and conclude that it’s reasonable to think there are at least some additional moral justifications for divorce and remarriage – albeit limited in scope. The most common reasons for seeking divorce (incompatible, incessant arguing, grew apart, no longer in love) do not qualify as valid reasons for divorce.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I continue my examination of how to apply the Biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage in the 14th episode of the series. I consider the possibility that repentance and/or conversion gives one moral permission to remarry following an unjust divorce and conclude that neither does so. Repentance for an unjust divorce does not give one moral permission to remarry because (1) forgiveness for the divorce does not nullify one’s moral obligation to that marriage covenant, (2) forgiveness does not nullify the consequences for the sin of divorce, and (3) the notion that repentance following an unjust divorce gives one moral permission to remarry effectively nullifies Jesus’ teaching. Conversion does not change the applicability of Jesus’ teaching either. Those who divorced as unbelievers are not free to remarry as believers. Forgiveness of their pre-conversion sins does not nullify their moral obligation to their marriage covenant. Even if they can no longer fulfill that obligation because their ex-spouse has remarried, the consequences for that sin remain: They must remain single.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I continue my practical application of the Biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage by considering the nature of the adultery Jesus charged people with: Is it a singular act or a perpetual sin? I argue that it is a perpetual sin. This leads to the next question: What is the proper form of repentance for those who have wrongly divorced/remarried? The answer depends on whether one interprets Jesus’ charge of adultery in a literal or hyperbolic manner. I go through four possible levels of repentance.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
How do we apply the Biblical principles regarding divorce and remarriage to the various situations we face today? The practical application of the Biblical principles is not always easy. I begin this task by exploring what circumstances under which a divorced person can remarry. I conclude that the guilty party cannot remarry under any circumstance. As for the innocent spouse, Jesus gave him permission to remarry if his spouse committed sexual sin prior to the divorce. In the case of an unjust divorce, however, Jesus does not give the innocent spouse permission to remarry. He must remain single in hopes of reconciling the marriage since there were no moral grounds for terminating that covenant. However, I argue that the moral logic of Jesus’ teaching plausibly allows for the innocent spouse to remarry once their ex-spouse (the guilty party) commits sexual sin or remarries because such acts violate the marriage covenant and thus justify the divorce ex post facto.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I finish my examination of Paul’s teaching on remarriage, and thereby conclude my examination of the NT teaching on remarriage. I examined more passages in 1 Corinthians 7 that some have used to justify remarriage. I rebutted the idea that Romans 7:1-3 means marriage can only be ended by death. Finally, I explored the meaning of Paul’s requirement for elders that they be the “husband of one wife” and concluded that it’s best to understand Paul to mean a pastor must be faithful to his wife.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I start my examination of Paul’s teaching on remarriage, focusing first on 1 Corinthians 7. I show why Paul’s allowance for the “unmarried” to marry (vs. 8-9) does not include formerly-married people. When addressing Christians who wrongly divorced, Paul gave them two options, and neither option included remarriage. I devoted a bulk of the time examining Paul’s teaching in verses 12-16 regarding religiously mixed marriages. Most theologians think Paul gave Christians moral permission to remarry following a divorce. I argue that this is a misreading of the text.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I finish up my examination of Jesus’ teaching on remarriage in the Synoptic Gospels. The brief version in Luke 16 rehashes Jesus’ teaching found in Matthew and Mark, so I focused my attention on Mark 10. Mark’s version is unique in two ways: (1) It is the only account to address a woman who divorces her husband, and (2) it specifies that the man who unjustly divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery against his ex-wife. This is important because it invalidates one interpretive approach to Jesus’ teaching, namely understanding it in light of the OT teaching on adultery. I demonstrate that Jesus’ definition of adultery differed from the OT definition, and thus we should not use the OT definition as a filter for understanding Jesus. To do so would actually cause us to misunderstand Jesus.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I examine Jesus’ teaching on remarriage in Mt 19, focusing on His exception clause. Should we understand Jesus’ exception to be applicable to both divorce and remarriage, or only divorce? I argue that Jesus’ exception gives moral permission to the innocent spouse to both divorce and remarry. I also address why it is that the innocent spouse who was victimized by sexual immorality is free to remarry following a divorce, but the innocent spouse who was victimized by an unjust divorce is not.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I have moved on to the NT teaching concerning remarriage. I begin with an examination of teaching in Matthew 5:31-32. The entire episode focuses on the critical question of how we should understand Jesus’ teaching that those who remarry following an unjust divorce are guilty of “adultery.” Was He speaking literally or hyperbolically? In isolation, the literal interpretation is to be favored, but based on the context of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, I argue that Jesus clearly meant for us to understand “adultery” as hyperbole.
Those who remarry after an unjust divorce are no more guilty of actual adultery than those who lust after a woman are guilty of actual adultery (or those who are unjustly angry at their brother are guilty of actual murder). Jesus’ point is that the spirit of the command against adultery includes our thought life and remarriages. He isn’t claiming that lust and remarriage are just as bad as adultery. They are sinful, but lesser sins, and as such, people who commit these sins be punished as if they had committed actual adultery. Those who remarry following an unjust divorce committed a sin when they contracted a new marriage, but it is a bona fide marriage nonetheless and it would be wrong to force them to divorce.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I examine the OT teaching regarding remarriage and conclude that the OT seems to have allowed remarriage more generally, only prohibiting it in very limited circumstances. I also address the relationship between Jesus’ teaching on remarriage and the OT teaching, and conclude that Jesus’ teaching elucidated rather than abrogated the Mosaic teaching, with at least one new element to His teaching that is not found in the OT.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I finish up my examination of the NT teaching on divorce, this time focusing on Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7. I argue that Paul, like Jesus, is opposed to divorce. He commanded Christian couples not to divorce, but shockingly, allowed them to remain divorced if they had disobeyed Jesus’ teaching. He also commanded Christians in religiously mixed marriages to remain in their marriage, but absolved them of any moral responsibility if the unbelieving spouse initiates a divorce.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Having completed the OT data last week, I start my examination of the NT data concerning divorce. I cover all four of Jesus’ teachings on the subject as found in the Synoptic Gospels.
I concluded that Jesus prohibited all divorce, except in cases involving sexual sin. I also address the meaning of porneia in Jesus’ exception clause, and why the exception clause is only found in Matthew’s Gospel.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I cover the remaining OT passages pertaining to divorce: Ezra 9-10, Hosea 2, Jeremiah 3, Isaiah 50, and Mal 2.
Ezra 9 demanded divorce for immoral marriages. Since this was a form of repentance, this divorce is not just morally justified, but morally good.
Hosea 2 and Jeremiah 3 make it clear that God not only allows others to divorce, but He Himself participated in divorce when He divorced Israel.
In Jer 50, God denies having divorced Judah as He did Israel, and finally, in Mal 2 God expresses his anger at those who divorce without just cause.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
This is part 1 of 2 parts addressing the OT teaching regarding divorce. I cover Gen 21:9-12, Ex 21:7-11, Dt 22:13-19,28-29, and Dt 24:1-4. Most of my time is dedicated to an examination of Dt 24 given the central role this passage played in Jewish debates regarding divorce, including the debate Jesus had with the Pharisees.
In Gen 21, God commanded Abraham to divorce Hagar. Since God can't command evil, clearly not all divorce is morally wrong.
In Ex 21, divorce was required when a polygamous husband deprived his first wife of her basic necessities.
Dt 22 prohibits divorce in special circumstances, implying that it was allowed in all others.
The case law in Dt 24 involves divorce, but is not about divorce per se. It's about prohibiting past spouses from remarrying after an intervening marriage. Nevertheless, this passage does not condemn either husband for divorcing their wife. It also demonstrates that from God's perspective, the first divorce truly ended the first marriage. The woman was not deemed an adulteress, and she was prohibited from remarrying her first husband. Such a prohibition only makes sense if her first husband is no longer her husband.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
What better place to begin my extended series on divorce and remarriage than by examining the nature of marriage itself.
Whether divorce and remarriage is ever permissible depends, in part, on one's view of the nature of the marital union itself. There are two competing views of marriage: (1) Marriage is a permanent spiritual union; (2) Marriage is a covenant.
The PSU view holds that marriage is a mystical and permanent union of two human spirits. This union can only be ended by death (and some would add sexual immorality). In contrast, the covenant view of marriage holds that marriage is a covenant made between two people and ratified by God. A marriage can be ended if the terms of the marital covenant are violated by one or both spouses.
While both views would typically allow for divorce and remarriage following sexual sin, the two views differ on how they view remarriage following an unjust divorce. The PSU view considers any remarriage following an unjust divorce to be a legal fiction. In God's eyes, they are still married, and thus the second "marriage" is no marriage at all, but an act of adultery. The covenant view agrees that it is morally wrong to contract a new marriage after an unjust divorce, but nevertheless, affirms that the divorce ended the first marriage and the second marriage is a bona fide marriage in God's eyes.
I argue that the Bible supports the covenant view of marriage rather than the PSU view.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
In this 1-N-Done episode, I summarize my research on the Biblical teaching regarding divorce and remarriage. I’ve structured the episode around four principles:
-
Marriage was intended to be a life-long union between one man and one woman.
-
Divorce is always due to human sinfulness, but is morally permissible in certain circumstances
-
The death of a spouse justifies remarriage
-
A justified divorce justifies remarriage (for the innocent spouse). An unjustified divorce prevents remarriage (for both spouses).
Here is my condensed summary of the position I articulate:
The OT teaching on divorce and remarriage is instructive (Genesis 21:12; Exodus 21:10-11; Deuteronomy 22:13-19,28-29; 24:1-4; Ezra 10:2-12; Jeremiah 3:8; Hosea 2:2; Malachi 2:13-16), but Jesus’ teaching supersedes all regulations contained in the Mosaic law because Jesus’ teaching returns us to God’s intention for marriage rather than the law’s concessions for divorce rooted in the hardness of human hearts (Matthew 5:32; 19:3-9). Jesus taught that God intends for marriage to endure for a lifetime (Matthew 19:4-6). All divorce is prohibited except in cases involving sexual sin (Matthew 5:32; 19:9). In such cases, the innocent party has the moral permission to divorce the sinning spouse and remarry (Matthew 5:32; 19:9). Divorce for any other reason is morally wrong, and remarriage following an unjust divorce is considered adulterous (Matthew 5:32; 19:9). The sin of remarriage does not constitute actual adultery any more than the sin of lust constitutes actual adultery (Matthew 5:27-32). The sin of remarriage is lesser than, but similar to the sin of adultery. We might call it adultery-lite.
Jesus’ teachings apply to everyone, including the repentant and new converts. God will forgive those who wrongly divorced, but that forgiveness does not give them moral permission to commit the additional sin of remarriage. They must remain single or reconcile to their spouse. Those who have committed both the sin of divorce and remarriage must confess both sins to God, but can and should remain married. They were morally wrong to contract the second marriage, but once contracted, it is a real marriage and it would be morally wrong to end it in divorce.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
In part 2 of how to test religious claims, I start by offering some ad hoc thoughts on the intellectual life. Then, I finish up the test of observation, specifically looking at whether religious claims fit our moral experience and whether they can make sense of our deepest longings for the future. Christianity passes all of the tests whereas other religions fail.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
In the prior series I argued that religious truth can be known and religious claims are testable. In this first installment of a two-part series, I explain how we can test religious claims to find religious truth.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I complete my critique of religious relativism and deconstruct two popular metaphors of religious relativism: all roads lead to Rome, the blind men and the elephant. This concludes not only my sub-series on religious relativism, but my series on relativism.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I finish my discussion of why people subscribe to religious relativism, pointing to pragmatic concerns and the desire to be inclusivistic. Then I begin my critique of religious relativism, detailing a number of reasons it is an incorrect analysis of religion and religious truth.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
This episode begins our final sub-series in the relativism series, focusing in on religious relativism; a.k.a. religious pluralism. I lay out the three main forms of religious relativism and discuss the impact religious relativism has in the debate over religion. I started discussing the reasons why people are led to believe religious pluralism is true. Epistemology is a big factor. Pluralists reason that the best explanation for the vast differences in religious belief and the fact that religious beliefs tend to be geographically isolated is that religion is a human invention. Either there is no spiritual realm to be known, or it is not possible to have genuine knowledge of that realm. I argue that neither conclusion follows from the observation that religions differ from each other.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Is it wrong to judge? That depends on what you mean by judging. Given most people's (false) understanding of judging, it is absolutely right to judge people. In fact, it is both imperative that we do and inescapable. We must distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil. We must also engage in moral correction of those who engage in morally wrong behavior. We are simply forbidden from hypocritical judgment and from having a false sense of moral superiority. In this episode, I examine and critique both secular and religious justifications for the "don't judge" position.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
In this episode, I discuss tactics for talking with moral relativists, respond to several objections and catchphrases, and expose what's wrong with the modern concept of tolerance.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I deconstruct three forms of moral relativism: Society Does, Society Says, and I Say. This is the heart of the series, both explaining the various forms moral relativism takes, as well as what is wrong with them.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
The existence of moral truth seems so obvious that it may be difficult to comprehend why anyone would deny it in favor of moral relativism. I argue that there are at least four reasons people subscribe to moral relativism: (1) It seems to follow from atheism; (2) To justify one's sin; (3) The desire for moral neutrality and non-judgmentalism; (4) They think moral disagreements means there is no moral truth. I critique each of these reasons, and then explain why it is that humans disagree on moral matters.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
There are only two options when it comes to morality: some form of moral realism or some form of moral relativism. I explain the differences between these views, clarify the difference between moral relativism and moral skepticism, how to spot moral relativism, why moral relativism matters, and the extent of the problem.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
In this miscellany episode, I cover a wide variety of unrelated topics. I start by arguing that many segments of the church are being influenced by the culture to change their theology rather than remaining faithful to Biblical teaching. I make the case that the reason some people do not change their theological persuasions is because they don't know how to evaluate the debate - not because they don't love the truth. Then I make the case for the use of labels. I make a plea to change the way we relate to our phones. We should not be a slave to our phone, but make it a slave to us. I address the question of sincerity in forgiveness, and round out the episode by talking about the true meaning of hypocrite.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Skepticism is the fuel of relativism, so I tackle this issue by exposing why hyper skepticism regarding truth and reality is not justified. I also address the idea that it is arrogant to claim you know the truth, and respond to the "everyone thinks they are right" retort which is intended to relativize all truth claims.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Relativism is a popular notion in our culture – the idea that truth can’t be known. “THE truth” has been replaced with “my truth” and “your truth.” I detail four problems with relativism: (1) Self-refuting; (2) Non-sequitur; (3) Closes the Mind; (4) Impractical.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
In this 1-N-Done episode, I explain the meaning of the atonement in a concise, simple manner, devoid of all the details provided in the 4-part series. It's easy to get lost in the details of the series, so this episode will help you put the pieces of the doctrine together in a simple manner and get a bird's eye view of the atonement.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
We know the benefits of the atonement, but how exactly did Jesus' death accomplish those benefits and how do they accrue to us? It was because Jesus was both our substitute and our representative. I show how the resurrection of Jesus is also included in the atonement, talk about some important implications of the doctrine, and address a few objections.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
This episode focuses on the benefits/results of the atonement. The atonement results in the cleansing of sin, the satisfaction of God's wrath, a new covenant, redemption/ransom, and justification/reconciliation.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
I plumb the depths of Isaiah 53 to show how it predicted the various facets of Jesus’ work on the cross: unjust penalty, substitution, representation, and justification. In the process, I address the notion that healing is provided for in the atonement. Then, I deal with the Jewish interpretation that the Servant of Isaiah 53 is the nation of Israel rather than the Messiah. I conclude by arguing that the NT authors understood Jesus' death primarily in terms of sacrifice.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
My new series on the atonement seeks to understand the meaning of Jesus' death. In this first episode I explore the nature of Jesus' mission, the OT sacrificial system as a means of atonement, and the necessity of the incarnation for God to fully and finally satisfy both His desire for justice and His desire for mercy.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
In this abortion postscript episode, I argue that abortion is an even greater evil than slavery because abortion is a violation of the most fundamental of all rights: the right to life. I also offer a new tactic for helping pro-abortionists think about what it is that gives humans their value and right to life, and offer answers to three additional objections to the prolife POV: (1) Women need abortion to have equality with men; (2) Christians should support abortion because it increases the number of people going to heaven; (3) Christians should not oppose abortion because abortion is a lesser evil compared to hell. Finally, I round out this episode with a new segment I call "Pet the Peeve." As the name implies, it's my chance to pet the peeves that get under my skin. The inaugural peeve is the claim that our worship should not be affected by the music being played in church.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
In this final episode in the series, I explain the value of apologetics for believers: It strengthens our faith, gives us the confidence to evangelize, allows us to duplicate our faith in others, and avoids subjectivity. I also respond to common objections against apologetics including: (1) Apologetic arguments don't work; (2) You can't argue someone into the kingdom; (3) People care about your love, not your arguments; (4) God doesn't need us to be His lawyer, and more.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler: @thinkingToBelieve
I address three "anti-apologetics" passages in Scripture, demonstrating how none of them are opposed to the apologetic enterprise: (1) Jn 20:29; (2) 1 Cor 2:1-5; (3) Col 2:8. Then I begin talking about the value of apologetics, specifically for unbelievers. I argue that value of apologetics for non-believers is that it removes intellectual barriers to faith and provides unbelievers with good reasons to put their trust in Christ. In that context, I speak about the role of reason vs. the role of the Holy Spirit.
Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Parler: @thinkingToBelieve
In this episode, I demonstrate how the apostles, Jesus, and God Himself all used apologetics in an attempt to show that apologetics is a thoroughly Biblical enterprise.
In part one of my series on the need for apologetics, I define what apologetics is and why it is so desperately needed in our day. Some object that apologetics is opposed to faith, so I explain the true nature of Biblical faith and show how apologetics is related to faith. Finally, I begin to lay out the Biblical basis for apologetics, citing a number of Scriptures that command Christians to engage in the apologetic enterprise.
In this "1 & Done" episode, I make the case for apologetics. I define what apologetics is, the Biblical basis for apologetics, and the value it brings to both believers and unbelievers alike. I also discuss the relationship between faith and evidence and answer a couple of common objections.
This episode will be followed by a 4-part, in-depth series on the same topic.
Should doctrine ever divide the church? Is it wrong to call someone out for their false theology, or does doing so threaten the unity of the church? Should we just pray for such people instead? I tackle these questions from a Biblical and practical perspective on this week's Thinking to Believe podcast episode. Give it a listen.
In this second and final installment on the case for theology, I argue that theology preserves the Christian experience over time, is the basis for missions, plays the primary role in mental conversion, increases our faith, produces spiritual stability, and determines the depth of our relationship with God.
Why study theology? Why does it matter? Isn't theology just for preachers and smart guys? Isn't theology divisive and difficult? I argue that while theology can be difficult and divisive, it's unavoidable. All of us are theologians. The question is simply whether we will be a good or bad theologian. In this two-part series, I'm going to show why theology matters and how it benefits every believer. In this episode, I argue that theology (1) defines what we are to believe; (2) reveals to us what the spiritual realm is like; and (3) it is a prerequisite for salvation.
Objections addressed in this episode: Are prolifers who are also pro-capital punishment being hypocritical? Is abortion justified in cases where the mother's life is in danger? If aborted babies go to heaven, shouldn't prolifers support abortion? Prolifers only care about the unborn, and do nothing to help the born. Outlawing abortion won't stop abortion. We should focus on eliminating the underlying causes of abortion rather than outlawing abortion.
I also talk about what people can do to advance the prolife cause and introduce the next podcast topic.
Is abortion justified in cases of rape and incest? Are embryos just a clump of cells? If Mother Nature is responsible for killing 40% of embryos, why think abortion is wrong? If an embryo is considered a person, then we should consider every cell in our body a person. Is abortion justified in cases of deformities and severe disease?
I tackle five objections to the pro-life POV, including (1) the right to choose and bodily autonomy objection, (2) the "abortion is a woman's issue" objection, (3) the "forced into back alley abortions" objection, (4) the "poor women can't afford children" objection, and (5) the "what are we going to do with all these unwanted children" objection.
I provide some helpful tips for ministering to women who are contemplating an abortion, as well as those who have already had an abortion. I also kick off our objections and responses segment, noting six problems with the "nobody knows when life begins" objection.
Does “the Pill” have both a contraceptive and abortifacient function? I explore the evidence for and against the “hostile endometrium” theory.
There are a number of moral concerns with IVF that Christians should be aware of. In some cases, doctors recommend aborting one or more babies if too many babies implanted in the uterus. There are also concerns with freezing unused embroys. As for contraception, some forms of contraception are clearly acceptable while others are questionable. In this episode, I explore whether or not IUDs and emergency contraceptives can have an abortifacient effect.
It's one thing to know the truth about abortion, but another thing to present our case to others. We need more than knowledge. We need tactics. I discuss seven tactics for dialoguing with pro-abortion advocates and making the case for life.
I also discuss the use of graphic imagery in making our case. I argue that the use of images of both fetal development and aborted babies is an important supplement to the pro-life argument and can be very effective at persuading pro-abortion advocates and those on the fence that abortion is morally evil.
I continued my critique of personhood theory/functionalism, offering three more reasons to reject this philosophy of human value: (1) It involves circular reasoning; (2) It cannot be consistently applied; (3) It cannot ground equal rights and equal value.
I explore personhood theory, which holds that there is a distinction between being human and being a person - and only personhood has moral value. I provided three reasons to reject this theory: (1) The Law of Identity; (2) It is subjective and arbitrary; (3) It values the exemplification of certain functions rather than the being who has the capacity for such functions.
Having determined what the unborn is, we turn to the question of value. Do the unborn have moral value? What gives humans value? Is value objective and intrinsic, or subjective and intrinsic. Theists argue for the former, whereas non-theists the latter. Theists believe value is inherent to being human, whereas non-theists argue that it is based on humans' ability to exhibit certain functions.
Virtually everyone agrees that born have value. If you are going to maintain that the unborn lack that same value, you must demonstrate some morally significant difference between the born and the unborn. There are only four differences between the born and unborn, and none of those differences are morally significant. It follows, then, that the unborn are just as valuable as the born. All humans, both born and unborn, have a right to life.
In philosophy, the Law of Identity holds that something is what it is. It's identity remains the same over time despite changing properties. I show how this argues for the humanity of the unborn. I also explore the liability of defining humans in terms of their properties rather than their kind, and correct a misunderstanding of human development that sees humans as being constructed rather than built. Humans are not the kinds of things that emerge only after a number of pieces are assembled together, but are present from conception. Humans build themselves from the inside out toward maturity.
I continued quoting various medical experts that human beings come into existence at fertilization, followed by exploring the reasons the scientific community makes this claim. The Law of Biogenesis as well as genetics make it clear that the unborn are human beings.
Abortion is emotionally complex, but morally simple. The abortion debate can be simplified if we break it down into four distinct questions, the most important of which concerns the identify of the unborn. What is it? Since the act of abortion is targeted toward the living entity growing in the woman's womb, the morality of abortion depends on what that living entity is.
I offer a syllogistic argument for the pro-life view, followed by an examination of what biologists know about embryonic development. I demonstrate that from a scientific point of view, it is an incontrovertible fact that the life of every human being begins at fertilization.
While the morality of abortion does not depend on religious presuppositions, as Christians, the Biblical perspective on abortion should be determinative. While the Bible does not directly address the issue of abortion, it does so indirectly in that it prohibits the murder of human beings, and considers the unborn to be human beings.
In my intro, I talk about the objectives I hope to accomplish through this series and share the topics to be covered. I begin with an examination of abortion statistics: Who gets abortions? When are they performed? How many abortions are there? What do Americans believe about abortion?
My take on Dinesh D'Souza's new documentary film, 2000 Mules, regarding new evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
In this one-and-done episode, I lay out a high-level argument for the pro-life point of view, showing how both science and philosophy demonstrate that the unborn are valuable human beings from conception. I finish the episode by addressing five major objections to the pro-life view.
SCOTUS appears poised to overturn Roe. I talk about the legal and practical ramifications of this decision, and how the fight against abortion is just beginning. I also address the "personally opposed, but" view, which holds that while abortion is morally wrong, it should nevertheless be legal. I show that such a view either misunderstands the relationship between church and state, misunderstands the purpose of law, or misunderstands the logic of the pro-life view.
Freedom of speech is on the decline in America. Fewer Americans value free speech, while more are calling for government and corporate censorship. In light of this trend, I talk about a 2021 Pew Research poll, the government's new Disinformation Governance Board, and Twitter. Freedom of speech is central to a free democracy, so we must fight for it in every generation. I also talk about the power of boycotting et al. If we want to see change, we must make our voices heard.
In this final episode in the series, I address various objections that are (or could be) raised against the view of forgiveness I outlined in parts one and two.
Fox News jumps the shark by hiring Bruce Jenner as a contributor. They are on the journey toward the Left and away from conservatism. This also raised the issue of preferred pronouns. I make the case that while conservatives can use someone's preferred name, we must not capitulate to using their preferred pronouns. Pronouns are gendered and ought to match one's sex. Finally, I talk about the phenomenon of theological anger. Why do we get angry at those we disagree with theologically? There is a place for anger, but not merely because of disagreement.
This inaugural episode explains what this podcast is all about, who should listen, what to expect, and a little bit about me.
Visit the TTB blog at thinkingtobelieve.com.
Forgiveness is a misunderstood virtue. This episode covers two misunderstandings: (1) Forgiveness is a matter of personal psychological health and requires an emotional change; (2) Forgiveness can be achieved wholly by ourselves through prayer.
Visit the TTB blog at thinkingtobelieve.com
Forgiveness is a misunderstood virtue. This episode covers the third and final misunderstanding of forgiveness: (3) Forgiveness is unconditional. I argue that the Biblical data as well as God's example demonstrate that we are only obligated to forgive those who have repented, and that forgiveness without repentance is morally wrong.
Visit the TTB blog at thinkingtobelieve.com