#mike winger

[coffeeman777]

Mike Winger:

"The cross was an unspeakably brutal method of slow torture and execution.

"The device was so horrific and the social shame of experiencing crucifixion was so bad that the body of a crucified person couldn’t be buried in a Jewish tomb alongside the bodies or bones of other people. The Romans had perfected this cruelty and used its public display to give nightmares to anyone who dare challenge the empire.

"Writers from the first century sometimes avoided using the term “crucified,” preferring “the extreme penalty” or some other euphemism. The word itself carried such weight of terror that it was, perhaps subconsciously, dodged.

"It’s hard for us to easily grasp something that people in the first century would have understood immediately. If Jesus, the Son of God, was crucified for us then the shame and suffering that he went through was such that we can’t overstate how bad our sin is or how much love he has for us. This, this is how extreme my sin is. And this, this is how incredible God’s love for me is.

"Nor can we hesitate to endure any measure of suffering or loss for his name. He took up the cross and called us to take up our cross and follow him.

"All the way to the grave and to eternal life."

[grits-galraisedinthesouth]

Christian PSA: sign of Jonah was NOT an eclipse!

[kira-ani-mcgrath]

I love how much detail Mike Winger has in his vids and how he goes through all options and/or arguments for/against the views on a verse/subject.

[thisbibliomaniac]

"even if you use google translate, which you better not"

[snarkleharkle]

Most Quoted Verse for Anti Semitism and Why it Doesn't Work.

[naengmyeong]

Some treat Christianity as if it's merely an emotional feeling, or a generally positive attitude of continual "niceness."

After seeing the hope, forgiveness, freedom, life, truth, and reconciliation that we have in Jesus, I think I'd be pretty depressed if this whole thing was reduced to niceness and positivity.

Pop-Christianity is such a small and shallow thing compared to the glory of Christ.

- Mike Winger

[focr]

Jesus in Psalm 22: Evidence for the Bible Pt. 6 | Mike Winger

Psalm 22 clearly foretells the crucifixion of Jesus.

[christianshorts]

When to be scared you're NOT a genuine Christian

[blessed-artist]

Since it’s June I thought I’d take the opportunity to share this with y’all! This is one of the best series on the topic of what the Bible says about homosexuality I’ve listened to.

It’s a refreshing mix of respectful and loving but also clear and firm.

[liberty1776]

Theology of the Holy Spirit

[kira-ani-mcgrath]

I'd have to rewatch the videos, but IIRC Mike Winger makes similar points.

Would you be able to explain Romans 9 to me? I’ve been stuck on it for the past few days because it seems to contradict what I’ve been taught. If God shows mercy on whoever He chooses and hardens the hearts of others, how is hell justified? And do humans truly have free will to believe if He is the one who causes us to believe or not? Do atheists not believe because they were not predestined to believe? I’m sorry if it seems like a really obvious answer, I just genuinely don’t understand.

Heya! Thank you for the question, I'm happy to explain Romans 9. The confusion you're experiencing over this passage is very common, so please don't feel as if this is something super obvious that you just don't get. The Church has been debating this passage and related passages for centuries.

In Romans 9, the Apostle Paul begins by lamenting the state of the ethnic Jews of his day who rejected Messiah. He goes on to teach that true Jews aren't merely the physical descendants of Abraham, but those who have faith like Abraham did. Later, Paul makes it clear that Gentiles have been given the opportunity to be included as "children of Abraham" on the basis of faith.

Paul writes,

"In the words of the Scripture, “I chose to bless Jacob but not Esau.” And God said this before the children were even born, before they had done anything either good or bad. This proves that God was doing what He had decided from the beginning; it was not because of what the children did but because of what God wanted and chose.14 Was God being unfair? Of course not. 15 For God had said to Moses, “If I want to be kind to someone, I will. And I will take pity on anyone I want to.” 16 And so God’s blessings are not given just because someone decides to have them or works hard to get them. They are given because God takes pity on those He wants to. 17 Pharaoh, king of Egypt, was an example of this fact. For God told him He had given him the kingdom of Egypt for the very purpose of displaying the awesome power of God against him, so that all the world would hear about God’s glorious name. 18 So you see, God is kind to some just because He wants to be, and He makes some refuse to listen. 19 Well then, why does God blame them for not listening? Haven’t they done what he made them do? 20 No, don’t say that. Who are you to criticize God? Should the thing made say to the one who made it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 When a man makes a jar out of clay, doesn’t he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar beautiful, to be used for holding flowers, and another to throw garbage into? 22 Does not God have a perfect right to show His fury and power against those who are fit only for destruction, those He has been patient with for all this time? 23-24 And He has a right to take others such as ourselves, who have been made for pouring the riches of His glory into, whether we are Jews or Gentiles, and to be kind to us so that everyone can see how very great His glory is."

Depending on who you're asking, you're going to get different answers. There are two broad schools of thought, those who seek to uphold free will, and those who seek to uphold God's sovereignty. Within each are a multiplicity of views.

The first group will generally take a corporate approach to the text. The passage doesn't teach that God individually selects some for salvation while bypassing others; instead, the passage means to teach that God has selected to save an entire group of people, which are those who freely chose to respond to Him in faith. This group is typically broadly labeled "Arminian," after the 16th century theologian Jacob Arminius.

The second group will generally state the opposite: this passage does, in fact, teach that it is God who chooses who will be saved and who won't be, completely apart from anything the individual does or doesn't do. Free will doesn't play a part. This group is broadly labeled "Reformed," or "Calvinist" after John Calvin, who was a contemporary of Arminius.

So which is it? Are people exercising free will to choose God, or is God unilaterally deciding Himself?

I am a Molinist, after the theologian Louis De Molina, who was also a contemporary of Arminius. My perspective on Romans 9 is a little bit different.

For the most part, I interpret Romans 9 the same way the Calvinists do. I think the passage is meant to teach that God gets to decide individually who is saved and who isn't. But unlike the Calvinists, I also believe in genuine free will and I hold that it plays a part in all this.

So, as a Molinist, I believe the answer to the above question is both.

Let me explain.

Following Molina, I believe there are three broad categories of Biblical texts that teach these truths: 1) God is Sovereign; 2) Humankind has genuine free will; and 3) God genuinely desires all people to be saved. The Bible teaches these three truths, but doesn't explain how all three interlock. Arminians generally uphold the second two truths by explaining away all the passages of Scripture that teach the first truth, and Calvinists generally uphold the first truth while explaining away all the passages that teach the second two.

Molina held that all three categories of Biblical texts must be upheld together without any explaining away. So, Molina came up with what is called the "doctrine of middle knowledge." At the time, all theologians explained God's knowledge by means of "logical moments"; the first moment of God's knowledge being God's knowledge of all necessary truths (like logic and mathematics), and the second moment being God's knowledge of all that He freely chose to create (all things that are true because God declares them to be true, like the actions of people). The first moment was called "natural knowledge," and the second moment was called "free knowledge." In between these two moments of God's knowledge is God's creative decree.

Molina posited a third moment to God's knowledge, and called it "middle" knowledge because it fits in between the other two moments. Molina suggested that this moment includes God's knowledge of all actions/choices of all His free creatures in all sets of possible circumstances; God knows exactly what each free creature would do in any set of circumstances. Molina suggested that this moment should be placed prior to God's creative decree, and that it informs His decisions when creating.

This means that, if Molina is correct, God is able to exercise exhaustive, meticulous Sovereignty over all of creation, while at the same time allowing all people to be genuinely free in a libertarian sense.

Dr. Kirk Macgregor, about Molina's doctrine, writes,

"Molina perceived that middle knowledge was the key to reconciling the three categories of biblical texts. Confronted with his middle knowledge of what every possible individual would freely do in every conceivable set of circumstances, God commits himself, out of his love, to consider for creation only those worlds in which he offers sufficient grace for salvation (i.e., prevenient grace) to each individual. By virtue of the universality of prevenient grace, God provides libertarian freedom to all individuals (thereby satisfying the second biblical category) and expresses his desire for all persons he creates to be saved (thereby satisfying the third biblical category). Among the range of these all-gracious worlds—a range that is infinite—God perceives from his middle knowledge that there is at least one world where each possible individual exists and would freely receive salvation. And God likewise middle-knows that there is at least one world where each possible individual exists and would freely spurn salvation, so being lost. And God likewise middle-knows that there is at least one world where each possible individual does not exist at all. It is here that the genius of Molina’s doctrine of predestination is exposed.

"Basing his thought on Romans 9, Molina proposed that God’s unconditional predestination is accomplished when, in making his providential choice of which world to create, God does not take into consideration any particular individual’s salvation, damnation, or nonexistence. Rather, God simply chooses the world he desires as a sheer act of his sovereignty. Any individual who would freely embrace God’s grace in the world God selects is thus predestined to salvation and so elected by God, even though God could have just as easily selected a world in which that same individual would freely choose to reject God’s grace or a different world in which that same individual would not exist. Any individual who would freely reject God’s grace in the world God selects is reprobated by God, even though God could have just as easily chosen a world in which that same individual would freely choose to embrace God’s grace or a different world in which that same individual would not exist. This choice of world, leading to various individuals’ election, reprobation, or nonexistence, is unconditioned by anything about the individuals but depends solely on the sovereign will of God (thereby satisfying the first biblical category). Hence Molina claimed we may finally understand why Paul insisted that, in predestination, there is no injustice with God (Romans 9:14, 19-20). God cannot be gainsaid for electing some people and reprobating others, since all worlds from which he is selecting are equally good by virtue of each person therein receiving prevenient grace."

I hope this makes sense to you. The answer is that humans really are free, and so really are responsible for their own choices; people choose to be atheists, people choose to believe in Jesus, and no person goes to Hell who couldn't have made different choices. And at the same time, God is completely Sovereign over all things, including the flow of history from eternity past to eternity future.

I realize this is dense material, so if you have any follow up questions, please feel free to ask. I'm always happy to answer!

Be blessed!

[conanssummerchild]

textposts but its just some random instagram dms with @mikewhoreler i found in my gallery (i miss u pookie come back 😔)

[mikhardwheat]

"He is so me!!" and it's a character that can be used to blackmail me in the future.

[limophoitos]

a list of fictional characters whom i wholeheartedly believe are bisexual (+some explanation)

now, i usually operate off of the policy 'assume bi unless proven otherwise' when it comes to fictional characters, but these are ones that nothing you do can convince me they are not bi

~harry potter; how can you read the books and NOT think this

~ginny weasley; girl likes girls. what more can I say. ig i just also love bi-husband/bi-wife as a ship

~jeff winger; mans clearly likes women but also is a little bit too obsessed with other men's bodies and lives in general for there to not be something. i am a stout believer in jeff x doctor rich. (i could write an entire essay analyzing him as a character but moving on)

~tony stark; semi-canon anyways but like?? have you Seen the man

~loki laufeyson; canon but worth mentioning bc didn't all of us always know it?

~chloe decker; even though she and lucifer are sickeningly in love with each other, seeing him being so open about his sexuality early in their friendship def made her more comfortable about her own

~peter parker; yes, every single interation. tobey!peter had a crush on harry osborn AND mary jane, andrew!peter is basically confirmed, and tom!peter def had his bi awakening through thor

~dean winchester; i don't even like/watch spn but GOD even i know it

~max mayfield; even though i am 100% lumax i know deep in my heart that max and el kissed after they broke with with lucas and mike SPEAKING OF WHICH

~mike wheeler; do i need to explain

~lee cheongsan; he and suhyeok should have been endgame but i love onjo and so does he still

will be extended in the future!!