A critic complains that if human beings have “free will,” they ought to be allowed to do anything they wish. How does the Christian respond to this foolish charge?

Bible critics allege that Matthew and Mark contradict one another in their Gospel accounts relating to the “cursing” of the fig tree and the cleansing of the temple. This week’s Q&A segment addresses this issue.

Bible critics charge Jesus with an unethical act when he gave permission for some demons to enter a herd of swine. A closer look, however, reveals that the accusation is baseless.

An associate editor of ChristianityToday.com has severely criticized the teaching methods of Jesus. In doing so, he has reflected upon himself far more than he has the Lord.

Some critics have accused the writer of the book of Hebrews with contradicting the Old Testament with reference to where the “altar of incense” was located. Is this an insurmountable difficulty?

Does the Old Testament provide precedent for “social” drinking today?

Every sensitive soul is troubled from time to time by regrets that linger regarding past deeds in his life. There is a wrong way and a right way to deal with regret. Think about this matter with us in this week’s Penpoints article.

A critic asserts that the three different records of Paul’s conversion, as recorded in the book of Acts, are irrelevantly repetitious and even contradictory? Does the charge really hold up? Consider this matter with us.

This is a response to those who may be critical of God for his command to Israel that they hock the horses taken in battle.

Matthew, in appealing to a prophecy, seems to attribute it to Jeremiah, whereas the Old Testament has it in the book of Zechariah. Critics, in characteristic fashion, have charged Matthew with an error.

The account of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead helps us to understand the significance of agape love.

Part two in a two-part series on Bertrand Russell’s reasons why he rejected Christianity

Did Jesus contradict himself as he approached the ordeal of the crucifixion? Some critics so allege, but what are the facts?

In response to a recent article in which we argued that instrumental music in Christian worship is without divine authority, a critic replied by suggesting that we practice many things in Christianity that are bereft of authority. One example he cited was the use of Bible translations. In this week’s Penpoints, we refute this baseless quibble.

Bible critics have charged the sacred book with mistakes in that the King James Version mentions both “unicorns” and “satyrs” — both of which are mythical creatures. How does the student of the Scriptures respond to this alleged difficulty?

While most people (according to polls) believe in “God,” many entertain a variety of false ideas relative to the Supreme Being. This article discusses some of these views.

A critic writes that if human beings have true “free agency,” then God could not punish them for their “sins.” He sees a conflict between the ideas of freedom and responsibility. Let us briefly consider this matter.

In an article published sometime back, we denied that Peter was the “rock” upon which Christ built his church, as alleged by Roman Catholicism. A kindly critic objects to this position. Wayne Jackson discusses the matter further.

A Christian lady has suggested that Paul was mistaken when he recommended benevolence, first to Christian, then to non-Christians. Is the criticism reasonable?