The Lord expects his disciples to demonstrate a loving disposition, while, at the same time, defending the truth vigorously. All of us to some extent, have made errors in both of these areas. And sometimes, we do more harm than good when attempting to defend truth with incorrect reasoning. This is part three in a three-part series, “Defending the Faith with a Broken Sword.”

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.

There is an exploding educational phenomenon in America. It is the accelerating practice of homeschooling. Some charge that homeschooled kids suffer from inadequate socialization. A new study disputes this allegation.

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?

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 writings of the so-called “Church Fathers” are valuable sources of information for that period known as the “post-apostolic” age. Unfortunately, the literature frequently is also abused.

Some claim that Matthew’s Gospel record (12:1-4) provides biblical precedent for the philosophy of situation ethics. They are wrong.

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

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?

The denominational community has long assaulted Mark 16:16 due to the simplicity of the passage in including baptism as a preliminary condition of salvation. Now, such attacks are coming even from certain “change agents” within the body of Christ. This article highlights one such recent effort.

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.

The revelation of God – from his mind to ours – is an intricate and inspiring process. Study it with us.

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.