Thursday, October 20, 2016


Christians like to state that they are sinners saved by grace. Christians should say I was a sinner saved by grace. To proclaim, I am a sinner, suggests that no repentance has taken place. Christians are not supposed to maintain the same sinful lifestyle they had before they had their sins washed by the blood of Christ.


1 Corinthians 6:1-11....9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived;
neither fornicators
nor idolaters
nor effeminate
nor homosexuals
nor thieves
not the covetous
nor drunkards
nor revilers
nor swindlers
will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Notice Paul said these Christians were sinners. Paul did not say they are sinners. Paul was not handing out sin permits to the Christians at Corinth. It was the exact opposite. Paul was saying  that the Christians who continue to practice a sinful lifestyle would not enter into the kingdom of God.

Yes, Christians do sin, however, Christians should not be sinners. Christians should have had all the, sin practice, they needed before they became Christians. Do you honestly believe Christians can live an entire life practicing fornication and still enter the kingdom of God?

Ephesians 2:1-5.....3 Among them we too all formerly lived in lust of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.......

Christians should be, formerly sinners, saved by grace. Christians should not be current sinners expecting to be saved by grace!


WHOSE SHOES?  by steve finnell

When Judgment Day arrives whose shoes would you rather be wearing.

Do you want wear the shoes of an atheist?

Psalm 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good.(NKJV)

Do you want to be in the shoes of one who denies that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?

John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (NKJV)

Do you want to wear the shoes of the ones who pervert the gospel plan of salvation by denying what Jesus and the apostles said? Some deny that water baptism is essential in order to be saved, contrary to what Jesus said. Jesus said Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (NKJV)

Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (NKJV)

Do you want to wear the shoes of those who believe and teach that Jesus is simply one of many ways to heaven?

John 14:6 Jesus said to him. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. (NKJV)

Do you want to be found wearing the shoes of one who teaches that all Christians sin; therefore Christians who live an unrepentant sinful lifestyle are guaranteed entrance into the kingdom of God?

1 Corinthians 6:1-11...9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?.........Ephesians 5:1-7...has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God....Galatians 5:16-21 .....those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God....(NKJV)

Do you want to be wearing the shoes of those who worship popes, the Virgin Mary, and other dead saints by praying to them.

Acts 10:25-26 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I myself am also just a man."(NKJV) Matthew 4:10 Then Jesus said to him. "It is written again, "You shall  worship the Lord your God , and Him only you shall serve.'" (NKJV)

When Judgment Day arrives do want to wear the shoes of one who believes the Bible and the Bible alone or one who believes man-made doctrine?   



Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Are Children Born With Sin?

by Moisés Pinedo

Have you ever seen the face of a newborn child, touched the soft skin of his rose-colored cheeks, and sensed his innocence when looking into his beautiful eyes? In stark contrast, Catholic teaching alleges that “small infants are sinful!” The Catechism of the Catholic Churchdeclares:
Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called (1994, 1250, emp. added).
The Bible teaches that children do not bear the sin of their parents (Exodus 32:32-33; Deuteronomy 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6; 2 Chronicles 25:4; Jeremiah 31:30; Ezekiel 18:20). However, Catholics are quick to point out that David declared: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,and in sin my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5). To understand this passage, we must keep in mind that the subject of Psalm 51 is David’s sin, not original sin. Consider the nouns and possessives David used to indicate that the sin which he was talking about was the sin he committed: “Blot out my transgression” (vs. 1); “Wash me thoroughly from myiniquity, and cleanse me from my sin” (vs. 2); “acknowledge my transgressions, and my sin is always before me” (vs. 3); “Against You, You only, have I sinned” (vs. 4); etc. There is not even the slightest allusion to some kind of original sin in the psalmist’s supplication. In fact, it was from his own sin and transgression that the psalmist desired to be freed.
But, why did he refer to the moment in which he was formed in the womb of his mother? The psalmist could have been using hyperbole (cf. Psalm 58:3; Colley, 2004), or emphasizing the condition in which his mother conceived him. In the latter case, although he was born without sin, he was born into a world that was covered, plagued, and influenced by sin.
Consider also that the psalmist made these pleas for forgiveness as an adult. He used present-tense verbs to plead for forgiveness: “Have mercy upon me...blot out my transgressions” (vs. 1); “Wash me thoroughly...cleanse me from my sin (vs. 2); “Iacknowledge my transgressions” (vs. 3); “Purge me with hyssop...wash me” (vs. 7); “Makeme hear joy and gladness” (vs. 8); “Hide Your face from my sins...blot out all my iniquities” (vs. 9); “Create in me a clean heart...renew a steadfast spirit within me” (vs. 10).
David’s pleas for forgiveness were due to a sin (or sins) that he committed long after his birth. The psalmist himself made this fact clear in a parallel passage, where he prayed: “Do not remember the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions” (Psalm 25:7, emp. added). If Psalm 51 is a plea to be freed from original sin, how do Catholics explain that God anointed, blessed, and used David while he bore the sin of the first man?
Additionally, the psalmist declared that he was “shapen” and “conceived” in iniquity (51:5,KJV). This is not a reference to birth (as Catholicism claims), but to conception. To be consistent with the Catholic idea that Psalm 51 supports the dogma of original sin, we must conclude that original sin is transmitted at the moment of conception. If that is the case, the Catholic Church will have to rework its theology concerning baptism to include a way to “baptize” children before birth to save them from “the power of darkness” (Cathecism..., 1994, 1250).
To arrive at a correct interpretation of Psalm 51, we also must consider other biblical passages where similar expressions are used. For example, Isaiah declared: “The Lord has called me from the womb; from the matrix of my mother He has made mention of my name” (49:1). In Jeremiah 1:5, God told His prophet: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you.” If by the expression, “I was brought forth in iniquity” (Psalm 51:5), David alluded to the original sin he bore, how do Catholics explain Isaiah and Jeremiah’s declarations of sanctity from the womb? Were these two prophets born without the contamination of original sin? According to Catholicism, only Jesus and Mary were born in a completely holy condition. These passages cannot be reconciled with the Catholic dogma of original sin (see Colley, 2004).
But, what about Romans 5:12, where the apostle Paul wrote that “through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned”? Does this verse teach that we bear Adam’s sin? No. As we observed in another article (cf. Pinedo, 2009), this verse teaches that death—the consequence of sin—spread to all men, not because Adam sinned, but “because all sinned” (5:12; cf. Romans 3:23). Of course, this “all” cannot refer only to Adam. Nothing in the Bible teaches, indicates, or implies that children are born with sin.
Paul indicated that where there is no law, there is no sin (Romans 3:20; cf. John 15:22). And the apostle John declared that “sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4). If infants cannot know the Law of God or understand it, they cannot commit lawlessness.
Jesus Himself said: “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:14, emp. added). Paul declared that none who are unclean can enter into the kingdom of heaven (Ephesians 5:5). Jesus added: “[U]nless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3, emp. added). If children come to the world with a “fallen human nature and tainted by original sin” (to use the words of the Catechism), why would men have to become as little children, who are also “contaminated” with sin? The Bible is clear: sin is not inherited. No baby has ever been born bearing the guilt of Adam’s sin. No one bears the responsibility for Adam’s sin but Adam himself.


Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), (Mahwah, NY: Paulist Press).
Colley, Caleb (2004), “Did David Authorize Infant Baptism?,” [On-line], URL:
Pinedo, Moisés (2009), “Was Mary Sinless?,” [On-line], URL:

Copyright © 2009 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
Phone (334) 272-8558


What study tools are the most confusing, and most inaccurate if you are looking for God's truth to mankind?

Extra-Biblical sources are the last place you should look if you are seeking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

1. Creed books.
2. Bible commentaries.
3. Made-made catechisms.
4. Books about the Bible.
5. Statements of Faith.
6. The writings of the early church fathers.
7. Books that claim to be new revelations from God.
8. Any book other than the Bible.

1. Prayer.
2. Comparative study, using various translation of the Bible.


Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (NIV 1984)

Mark 16:16 Who ever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (ESV 2001)

Mark 16:16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. (NASB 1995)

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (KJB Cambridge Ed.)

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (God's Word --Translation)

It would take a highly skilled professional, on steroids, to convince someone that belief and water baptism do not precede being saved.
It would take a stack of extra-Biblical writings and a total disregard for prayer to make someone believe that unbelief will not cause men to be condemned.



Tuesday, October 18, 2016


If you are seeking "The Truth-The Whole Truth-and-Nothing But The Truth" what should you do, where should you look? The complete truth is found in God's word alone. If you are seeking the truth by searching God's word to confirm the established positions held by your particular denomination, chances are that the complete truth will elude you. Only God has the complete truth. How would you expect to find the truth without asking God to show you His truth, that is found in the Bible?

Praying for God to show you His truth, through His written word is the key to finding "The Truth-The Whole Truth-and -Nothing But The Truth."

If you are content to seek a partial truth, a fractional truth, a limited version of the truth; then you should look to creed books, catechisms, and books written by men.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Jesus is the truth. Jesus did not say creed books, catechisms, and other books written by men are the truth.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Creeds , catechisms, and other books written by men do not have the effect as does the word of God.

John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.

Men can only be sanctified by God's truth. The opinions found in creeds, catechisms, and other books written by men cannot sanctify anyone, because they only contain fragments of the truth, along with man-made traditions.

Psalm 119:151 You are near, O Lord, And all your commandments are truth.

God's commandments are the truth and they are found in the Bible from cover to cover. Books written by men are imperfect, limited truth, and perversions of the truth.

Jesus said to His disciples (John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.)

John 16:13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth......

CREEDS BOOKS, CATECHISMS, BOOKS WRITTEN BY MEN DO NOT HAVE ALL TRUTH, they have partial truth, imperfect truth, perverted truth, fractional truth. THEY ARE NOT SCRIPTURE NOR ARE THEY EQUAL TO SCRIPTURE.


(All Scripture quotes from: NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE) 

IS FAITH BLIND TO REALITY? by steve finnell

Is Christianity based on blind faith? Absolutely not. Christianity is based on the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. (NKJV) 

Other historical references: Acts 1:3, Mark 16:12-14, Matthew 28:17, Luke 24:34-36, John 20:18-19, John 20:24-29, John 212:14, Acts 13:29-31.


In order to believe that World War I occurred you have to accept the historical account by faith.

In order to believe that there was a civil war between the states and that Abraham Lincoln was president you have to believe it by faith based on the written historical accounts.

In order to believe the genealogy of your family you have faith that the historical records are true.

In order to believe that the following men lived and died you have to have faith that the historical accounts are accurate. Ludwig van Beethoven, Martin Luther, Buddha, Zoroaster, Napoleon Bonaparte, Confucius, Socrates, Christopher Columbus, Aristotle, John Locke, Alexander the Great, and Julius Caesar.


I believe that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead by God the Father because I have faith that the historical accounts of the Bible are true.      


Monday, October 17, 2016

Only True Christianity is Defensible

by Kyle Butt, M.A.

Recently I was involved in a very productive discussion with two atheists. They were in their early thirties, intelligent, and extremely well spoken. We arranged the meeting to discuss why they had chosen to adopt atheism, and reject God and Christianity. In the course of the two-hour discussion, it became clear that many of their complaints about “Christianity” were legitimate. In fact, I heartily agreed with a host of their lengthy refutations of, and rebuttals to, “Christianity.” Lest I mislead the reader, however, let me explain. Notice that I have put in quotation marks the “Christianity” against which they railed, because the term demands qualification. Much of the “Christianity” that so incensed these young men involved gross misrepresentations of God and heinous misinterpretations of the Bible. For instance, during the discussion, one of the men explained that if, according to John Calvin’s views, God arbitrarily chose some people to be saved and some to be lost, regardless of their choices, then God would be unjust. He explained this point in detail for several minutes. After listening attentively to his astute refutation of Calvinism, I completely agreed with him, but noted that Calvinism is not true Christianity. It seemed that since Calvinism had been so inseparably bound-up in many “brands” of “Christianity” to which this young man had been exposed, he was taken aback that any “Christian” would so readily agree with his assessment of its evident flaws.

The discussion with these men, coupled with a critical reading of the atheistic community’s primary authors, has impressed upon my mind the fact that skeptical writers have a knack for exposing pseudo-Christianity for the error that it truly is. Unfortunately, skeptics often use the pseudo-Christianity and misinterpretations of the Bible that they so adequately debunk as straw men that they insist represent true Christianity. In truth, they certainly do not. It is a useful study, however, to notice several areas of biblical misinterpretation and un-Christian beliefs that skeptics have correctly identified as flawed.


In 2006, David Mills authored a book titled Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism. Much of the material in that book is incorrect. But chapter six, titled “Can Genesis Be Reconciled with Modern Science?” has some trenchant things to say about those who claim to believe the Bible but try to bend its interpretation to jibe with modern evolutionary findings. At the beginning of the chapter, Mills stated:
According to Genesis, God made Adam and Eve on the sixth day of Creation Week. The Genesis genealogies then detail the exact ages at which Adam and his male descendants “begat” their own male offspring. The New Testament books of Matthew and Luke [NOTE: Matthew and Luke actually do not give ages—KB] then continue the genealogy from David to Jesus, again specifying the age at which each male descendent “begat” the next generation. Since we have a fixed “historical” time period for Jesus’ birth, creationists thereby calculate that the heavens and Earth were created by God in the year 4004 B.C. Earth, therefore, is only 6000 years old by biblical chronology. [NOTE: Although Mills is correct about the general age of 6,000 years, the chronology is not so precise as to nail down the exact date of 4004 B.C.—KB.] Despite widely divergent viewpoints, creationists and evolutionary biologists agree on a crucial fact: Six-thousand years is insufficient time for evolution to have produced the complex life-forms we observe on Earth today.... A 6000-year-old Earth means therefore that Genesis and the Theory of Evolution are forever irreconcilable (p. 137).
Mills further noted:
If Earth’s history began with Creation Week, and if Genesis provides an accurate historical record, then Earth had no prehistoric eras, no prehistoric peoples, and no prehistoric animals. Dinosaurs walked the Earth only a few thousand years ago, side-by-side with modern man (p. 141).
Mills went on to write: “If creationists now wish to abandon their historical position and acquiesce to an ancient Earth, then I applaud their progress. But it is a farce to maintain that Genesis never really demanded a young Earth since the genealogies were always intended as metaphors” (p. 148, emp. added).

Regarding those who attempt to compromise the literal nature of Genesis and accept both the Bible and evolution, Mills wrote: “Citing the Day-Age theory, these Great Pretenders make believe that Genesis actually describes an ancient Earth. The purpose of this pompous intellectual charade is to allow the Great Pretenders to ‘have it both ways’—imagining themselves to be both religious and scientific at the same time” (p. 151). In what sounds exactly like a young Earth apologist’s writings, Mills then commented: “In seeming anticipation and preemptive rebuttal of the Day-Age theory, however, the Book of Genesis itself provides a clear and specific definition of Creation Week...‘the evening and the morning’ were a day—a literal 24-hour day” (p. 151).

Mills is exactly right in regard to the fact that a compromise of the Genesis account of Creation is indefensible and illogical. He does an excellent job of showing that the special pleading needed to warp the text of Genesis into agreement with modern evolutionary ideas cannot stand critical scrutiny. He concludes correctly that: “A 6000-year-old Earth means therefore that Genesis and the Theory of Evolution are forever irreconcilable” (p. 137). Those who compromise the text of Genesis in an attempt to force it to agree with modern evolutionary teachings have gotten it wrong, and would do well to listen to Mills’ criticism of their inaccurate interpretation.

Unfortunately, Mills leaves his critical thinking at the doorstep of his correct assessment that the Bible and evolutionary theory are irreconcilable. He incorrectly reasons that the Bible has been wrong all along and that evolution is the true creative agent of our planet. We have shown repeatedly that such simply cannot be the case (cf. Jackson, et al., 2008), and Mills and other atheists would do well to apply the same critical thinking to the false evolutionary theory as they so aptly apply to indefensible compromises of the biblical text.


Many people who consider themselves Christians today have accepted the idea that humans are born with a sinful nature. These religious people believe that sin can be inherited from one’s ancestors, and that every human, even infants, deserve death due to their inherently sinful nature. The Bible, however, nowhere teaches such a doctrine. Thus, when atheists and skeptics seize on this false interpretation of Scripture, they correctly insist that such a teaching would manifest a contradiction in the nature of the God of the Bible.

Christopher Hitchens, in his discussion of Christ’s death on the cross, wrote:
Furthermore, I am required to believe that the agony was necessary in order to compensate for an earlier crime in which I also had not part, the sin of Adam.... Thus my own guilt in the matter is deemed “original” and inescapable. However, I am still granted free will with which to reject the offer of vicarious redemption (2007, p. 209, italics in orig.).
Hitchens correctly concluded that such an idea “negates the moral and reasonable idea that the children are innocent of their parent’s offenses” (p. 99). Richard Dawkins weighed in on the idea as well: “The sin of Adam and Eve is thought to have passed down the male line—transmitted in the semen according to Augustine. What kind of ethical philosophy is it that condemns every child, even before it is born, to inherit the sin of a remote ancestor?” (Dawkins, 2006, p. 251, emp. added).

Hitchens, Dawkins, and numerous other atheistic writers correctly conclude that a god who condemns children because they inherited their ancestors’ sins would be an unjust being unworthy of worship. The biblical portrait of God, however, is not of such a cruel, unjust being. In fact, it is the exact opposite. The Bible points out in unambiguous terms that children do not inherit the sins or guilt of their ancestors. The prophet Ezekiel wrote: “The one who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (18:20). It has been shown repeatedly and beyond doubt that the Bible never indicates that children inherit sin or guilt from their parents (Butt, 2004), nor do children ever suffer any type of spiritual punishment as a result of the sins of their parents (Butt, 2003). While it is the case that children often suffer physical consequences of their parents’ wrong choices, such as when a drunken father abuses his children, it is not the case that those children bear any of the father’s spiritual guilt or inherit any of their parents’ sin.

One can completely understand why the skeptical community would be aghast at a being who would cast innocent babies into hell as punishment for the sins of their parents. Yet, a correct interpretation of the Bible shows that such is not the case. While it is sad that many religious people have falsely taught such a view, their false teaching on the subject, and the skeptics’ acceptance of that false teaching as a correct interpretation of the Bible, cannot be used as a legitimate weapon to impugn the character of the God of the Bible.


It is unfortunate for Christianity that some who call themselves Christians completely misunderstand the basic concept of faith. For many in Christendom, faith is a warm feeling in their hearts when they have failed to find adequate evidence to justify their beliefs. Modern dictionaries have done much to engrain this false definition of faith into modern Christianity. For instance, Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary states that faith is “a firm belief in something for which there is no proof” (1988). The American Heritage Dictionary gives as a primary definition of faith: “belief that does not rest on logical or material evidence” (2000, p. 636). The idea that faith is a warm, fuzzy feeling divorced from logical thinking and separated from all “material evidence” does not coincide with what the Bible actually says about faith (cf. Sztanyo, 1996). As Sztanyo correctly noted: “There is not a single item in Christianity, upon which our souls’ salvation depends, that is only ‘probably’ true. In each case, the evidence supplied is sufficient to establish conclusive proof regarding the truth of the Christian faith” (1996, p. 7).

The false view that faith is “a leap in the dark” without adequate evidence provides the skeptical community plenty of fodder for their atheistic, anti-Bible cannons—and rightly so. If believing in God, or the divine inspiration of the Bible, or the deity of Jesus Christ is not established by rational, logical evidence, then those ideas are as unworthy of belief as the unprovable ideas of atheism and evolution. Knowing the inconsistency of such a false definition of faith, Sam Harris wrote: “In fact, every religion preaches the truth of propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable. This put the ‘leap’ in Kierkegaard’s leap of faith” (Harris, 2004, p. 23, italics in orig.). Christopher Hitchens, building on the “leap of faith” idea, opined:
Actually, the “leap of faith”—to give it the memorable name that Soren Kierkegaard bestowed on it—is an imposture. As he himself pointed out, it is not a “leap” that can be made once and for all. It is a leap that has to go on and on being performed, in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary (2007, p. 65).
In his analysis of religion, Richard Dawkins quipped: “The whole point of religious faith, its strength and chief glory, is that it does not depend on rational justification” (2006, p. 23, emp. added). Because of his belief that biblical faith is belief without rational justification, Dawkins concluded: “We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that” (p. 283). What Dawkins really means to say is that no fundamentalist who has adopted the concept that faith does not depend on rational justification would abandon his or her belief if evidence were provided to the contrary. But if his definition of faith is wrong, then he is incorrect to conclude that those who believe in God, the divine inspiration of the Bible, and the deity of Christ would not alter their views based on the evidence. In fact, according to a proper definition of biblical faith, it is only because of the rational justification and logical evidence available that true Christians hold to their beliefs.

When Dawkins states, “Christianity, just as much as Islam, teaches children that unquestioned faith is a virtue. You don’t have to make the case for what you believe” (p. 306), he manifests his lack of knowledge of what biblical faith is. Biblical faith is based completely and solely on truth and reason, as the apostle Paul succinctly stated in Acts 26:25. The prophet Isaiah underscored this fundamental truth about biblical faith when He recorded God’s invitation to the Israelites: “‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ says the Lord” (1:18). Luke, in his introduction to the book of Acts, pressed the point that Jesus’ resurrection was attested by “many infallible proofs” (1:3). For one to believe in the resurrection requires faith, based on infallible proofs.

Sam Harris wrote: “It is time that we admitted that faith is nothing more than the license religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail” (Harris, 2006, p. 67). Harris’ accusation is justified when it is applied to false religions, and to those who attempt to defend Christianity without providing a logical, rational justification for their belief. But his allegations, and similar sentiments from Dawkins, Hitchens, and other atheists, are wholly inadequate to attack true, biblical faith. Sadly, too many self-proclaimed Christians open the door for the skeptical community to bash Christian “faith,” when, in reality, the “faith” that is being destroyed was never biblical in the first place.


It is often the case that “Christianity” is abused by modern skeptics due to the tendency of many in Christendom to claim that the Holy Spirit continues to work miracles today just as He did during New Testament times. Atheist Dan Barker wrote about the time that he was thrown out of “Peter Popoff’s ‘miracle’ rally” (1992, p. 291). Barker wrote that Popoff “grabbed a woman’s head, deliberately mussed up her hair, shook her and pronounced her healed” (p. 293). During Popoff’s healing antics, Barker noted, “The audience punctuated his ‘healings’ by loudly speaking in tongues, raising their arms, shaking, crying, and hollering ‘Amen,’ ‘Thank you, Jesus!’ and ‘Hallelujah!’ It had the feel of one of those professional wrestling matches on TV” (p. 293).

Barker’s assessment of the event was, “It was comical; and it was sad. The man was practicing medicine without a license, raising false hopes and endangering lives. (Many of his believers have discarded medicine or cancelled doctor’s appointments.) I remember having participated in meetings just like this when I was a full-gospel evangelist, and I was ashamed” (p. 294). Barker’s caustic assessment of Popoff’s “faith healing scam” is accurate in many ways. As Barker admitted, he at one time in his past participated in many false-healing events, and thus he knows the inherent dishonesty involved in such deceptive shenanigans. Here again the skeptical community has logically and correctly concluded that such faith healings are not valid. As David Mills wrote: “If God has the power to miraculously cure others (though invariably in a vague and uncertain way), why doesn’t God ever help amputees?” (2006, p. 161).

Mills is right to surmise that if the miraculous power that was available during the time of the apostles is still available today, as many Christians erroneously teach and believe, then miracles that can be empirically verified like the healing of amputees should be documented. After all, even the enemies of the apostles had to admit that the miracles worked by the apostles were empirically verifiable: “For indeed, that a notable miracle has been done through them is evident to all who dwell in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it” (Acts 4:16).

In truth, the skeptical community does an excellent job of showing that such “faith healing” events are emotionally charged frenzies that do not produce legitimate medical results. The problem arises, however, when the skeptical community tries to lump all Christians into this mold, or attempts to use these verifiably false miracles to discount the possibility of any type of miracle at any time in history. The fact of the matter is, the Bible predicted that the miraculous power that was available to the apostles would come to an end, and would not continue throughout the ages until modern times (Miller, 2003). Furthermore, it has been repeatedly and definitively shown that such false miracles sustain no argumentative value against the historical legitimacy of true miracles recorded in the Bible, such as the resurrection of Christ (Butt, 2002).


Mortimer J. Adler once stated, “Christianity is the only logical, consistent faith in the world” (as quoted in Sharp and Bergman, 2008, p. 288). Unfortunately, the truth of his statement is often obscured by the copious, false philosophies and inaccurate biblical interpretations that masquerade as Christianity. Calvinism, theistic evolution, inherited sin, misdefined faith, and a belief in modern-day miraculous healings are just a few of the obstacles standing in the way of a proper understanding of New Testament Christianity. To this list could be added hundreds of similar ideas fraught with error such as the unscriptural concepts of purgatory, limbo, modern-day Divine inspiration, the perseverance of the saints, and a plethora of ridiculous “predictions” supposedly rooted in the biblical text of Revelation. Those who genuinely wish to defend the validity of New Testament Christianity must be willing and able to assess the writings of modern skeptics, separating the wheat from the chaff. By acknowledging the mistakes that are inherent in false concepts of “Christianity,” the honest-hearted truth seeker can be led to see that such foibles and errors do not mar authentic, defensible Christianity.


American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom From Religion).

Butt, Kyle (2002), “Jesus Christ—Dead or Alive?” Reason & Revelation,

Butt, Kyle (2003), “Do Babies Go to Hell When They Die?”

Butt, Kyle (2004), “Do Children Inherit the Sins of the Parents?”

Dawkins, Richard (2006), The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin).

Harris, Sam (2004), The End of Faith (New York: W.W. Norton).

Harris, Sam (2006), Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).

Hitchens, Christopher (2007), god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: The Twelve).

Jackson, Wayne, Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt (2008), Surveying the Evidence (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking and Holy Spirit Baptism—A Refutation,” Reason & Revelation

Mills, David (2006), Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism(Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).

Sharp, Doug and Jerry Bergman, eds. (2008), Persuaded by the Evidence (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Sztanyo, Dick (1996), Faith and Reason (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1988), (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster).

Copyright © 2010 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
Phone (334) 272-8558


Genesis 3:1-13....13 The the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." (NASB)

Eve had two choices, one, believe what God said or two, believe the serpent. Men today can either believe God or the serpent.


1. GOD'S WORD: Mark 16:16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. (NASB)

2. SERPENT'S WORD: He who has believed will be saved without being baptized in water.

1. GOD'S WORD: Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (NASB)

2. SERPENT'S WORD: All are sinners at birth because they have inherited the sin of Adam.

1. GOD'S WORD: Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, (NASB)

2. SERPENT'S WORD: God's grace is only for a select few, whom have been chosen by God.

1. GOD'S WORD: 1 Corinthians 15:50 Now I say this brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.(NASB)

2. SERPENT'S WORD: The assumption is that the Virgin Mary was bodily resurrected into heaven.

1. GOD'S WORD: Acts 4:10-12 ..Jesus Christ...12 And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." (NASB)

2. SERPENT'S WORD: Jesus is one of many names by which we may be saved.



Is it possible for Christians to read the Bible and comprehend it without church leaders interpreting it for them? Did God intend for the clergy to search the Scriptures; then write their private interpretation in a creed book so the laity could understand His doctrines?

Colossians 4:16 When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.

The apostle Paul instructed that his letters be read to the churches. Paul did not tell the church leaders to interpret his letters and write them in a creed book so the common church member could understand them. NOTE: PAUL'S LETTERS WERE SCRIPTURES.

Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hears the words of the prophecy, and heeds the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

The apostle John said blessed is he who reads the things written, he did not say interpret my letters, then write them in a catechism so the laity can understand them.

2 Timothy 3:15 and that from childhood  you have know  the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

The apostle Paul told Timothy that the Holy Scriptures were able to give him wisdom that leads to salvation. Paul did not mention anything about the church hierarchy writing their opinions of Scripture in a creed book, catechism, or statement of faith, so he could understand the Scriptures.

God wrote the Bible so all men might know and understand His doctrines.


Sunday, October 16, 2016


According to Matthew 26:28  what was the purpose of of Jesus shedding His Blood?

According to Acts 2:38 what was the purpose of being immersed in water?

Matthew 26:28 "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (NKJV)

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(NKJV)

The same Greek word "eis" is translated as for in Matthew 26:28 and Acts 2:38.

What does for the remission of sins not mean?

For the remission of sins does not mean Jesus shed His blood because men already had been forgiven of their sins.

For the remission of sins does not mean that men should be baptized because they had already had their sins forgiven.

Jesus did not shed His blood simply as an act of obedience.

Men are not baptized in water simply an an act of obedience.

Jesus did not shed His blood as a testimony of faith.

Men are not baptized as a testimony of their faith to the community.

Jesus shed His blood for the remission of sins.
Men are immersed in water for the remission of sins.

For does not mean because of, it means in order to.

It takes a skilled professional to convince men that baptism is not essential for the forgiveness of their sins.