Religious diversity is a curse rather than a blessing.

This is a commentary over the battle currently taking place at Baylor University over the issue of creation science.

Another argument which denies the essential role baptism plays in our salvation is answered.

Study how the apostle John dealt with Diotrephes — who displayed an attitude that is still a problem in the church today.

Have you ever heard or read a statement that made you wonder how it ever could have been conceived? For example Bill O’Reilly, Fox News guru, said on national television that “the Catholic Church invented marriage” (WorldNetDaily, 2/10/2010). How does anyone that obtuse deserve a national audience? But he is not alone. Consider a few more quotes that are “simply outrageous.”

Did the first-century Christians employ mechanical instruments of music in their worship of God? If so, where is the evidence of such? If not, why did they refrain from such when instruments were readily available in that era?

In the July issue of the well-known protestant journal, Christianity Today, Dr. Timothy George responds to a question regarding the relationship of baptism to salvation. Wayne Jackson comments on this intriguing essay.

The doctrine of baptism, as set forth in the New Testament, is scarcely recognizable in the modern world of “Christendom.” How did this strange and unwarranted change come about? Study this issue with us.

Does this passage prove the Calvanistic doctrine of hereditary total depravity? Not in the least.

Carefully study Isaiah 2:2-4 and absorb the rich truths of this prophecy.

Although baptism is mentioned dozens of times in the New Testament, the rite has been so grossly misunderstood in a great variety of ways.

Does the Bible say that little babies are by nature born in sin?

Occasionally a book will appear among the people of God that is so fraught with error that it requires comment. Such is the case with the recently-published, Theology Simplified. This week’s Penpoints takes note of this volume.

In a new volume on Greek grammar, Dr. Daniel Wallace (of the Dallas Theological Seminary), has made a monumental concession which devastates a common denominational rationalization relative to the meaning of eis in Acts 2:38.

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.

Scholarly sources may be helpful, but good Bible students recognize any human source can be biased or flawed. God’s Word is the ultimate standard of faith and practice.

There is a terrible conflict between Christ’s “Great Commission” and the Calvinistic dogma of predestination. It has not been unnoticed even by the disciples of the Swiss reformer.

John Calvin wielded a great influence in the religious community on the subject of grace. His ideas are circulated in several denominations, and, tragically, have found their way into the thinking of many people.

Many have been deceived into believing that grace by definition excludes obedience. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In Acts 2:38 Peter contended that baptism is “for” (eis) the remission of sins. Since many religionists deny this biblical truth, they seek comfort in a supposed parallel that they imagine nullifies the force of eis in Acts 2:38. Some imagine they have found a solution to their theological problem in Matthew 12:41. But have they?