Thinking to Believe

In this miscellany episode, I argue that it is good and right for Christians to desire God's judgment on evildoers, and that we often put too much faith in authorities. Then I consider the question as to whether someone can be both pro-choice and a Christian. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @thinkingtobelieve

Topics covered:1. Why Christianity is not about "being nice"2. Why the temporary insanity plea is nonsense3. Identifying and stopping gossipWeb: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @thinkingtobelieve

It's the final episode of my Answering God's Critics series. I address three objections:1. We are both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you.2. Belief in God is akin to belief in Santa Clause.3. There are too many hypocrites in the church. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @thinkingtobelieve

The final episode in my sub-series on the question of women pastors and teachers! I address two final objections (women cannot receive the gift of teaching & Joel prophesied that women would be preachers) before considering how to apply the Biblical teaching regarding women today. Can women go to seminary? Can women write books on theology? Can women be politicians? Etc.Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @thinkingtobelieve

Was Junia a male or female, and was this person just well-known to the apostles, or a noteworthy apostle? I argue that Junia is a female, but not an apostle (and if she was an apostle, she is only an apostle in the "missionary" sense of the word - and thus this does nothing to undermine Complementarianism). Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @thinkingtobelieve

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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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:1. Galatians 3:28 requires that we make no distinction between men and women in the kingdom of God. 2. Paul speaks of women as laboring with him in the gospel, and thus women can e ministers.3. Paul speaks of churches in the house of different women. This implies that they were pastors in these house churches. 4. Priscilla is an example of a teacher in the Bible. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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:1. Paul's teaching pertains to public worship.2. "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. 3. Paul is likely referring to men and women in general, not husbands and wives in particular. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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 POWsWeb: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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:1.       To better our souls via moral growth (soul-making theodicy)2.       To bring glory to God3.       To make moral freedom and love possible4.       To make happiness possible5.       To reveal more of God to usWeb: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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 prayerWeb: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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 evilEvil is actually evidence for God's existence, not against itTheism offers a better solution to the problem of evil than atheismExplore some reasons God may permit evilOffer principles to help people endure evil and sufferingWeb: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @thinkingtobelieve

This episode is in honor of Charlie Kirk and his legacy. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @thinkingtobelieve

I address three objections in this episode:1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (and theists don't have it)2. No one can know if God exists (so theists are just blowing smoke)3. It is impossible to falsify theism (so it is not worthy of our belief)Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @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.comEmail: [email protected]: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believTruth: @ThinkingToBelieveParler: @thinkingtobelieve