Every one uses the principles of “logic,” whether aware of it or not. Humans cannot function with some logical skill. When it comes to religion, however, many fling “logic” to the wind. No where is this more apparent that in considering the plan of divine salvation.

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.

When did the practice of infant sprinkling originate? Was it an apostolic practice? Or did it develop later? Let us look at the historical facts.

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.

Jesus said that unless you are born again you cannot see the kingdom of God. So, what does it mean to be born again? Let’s explore the Bible for an answer to this important question.

Were those disciples who were immersed by John the Baptizer required to be re-immersed on the day of Pentecost or thereafter? Some sincere Bible students maintain they were, but will the evidence really support that view?

Analogy is a legitimate method of reasoning. But it has its limitations. Unfortunately, many do not understand those limitations, hence abuse this form of logic.

The sacred historian Luke once declared that some of the Jews “justified God” when they accepted the immersion administered by John the Baptist (Lk. 7:29). How could this possibly be? Can a man “justify” God?

Peter affirmed that God “made no distinction” between Jews and Gentiles with reference to the matter of salvation. In other words, both Jews and Gentiles were to be redeemed in precisely the same fashion.

A recent news item highlighted a case where an inmate was refused the privilege of being immersed for the remission of his sins. A chorus of sectarian voices argued that “hard cases” like this negate the belief that baptism is a necessary condition for salvation. Is this quibble valid?

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

A Roman Catholic gentleman suggests that Ezekiel 36:25 contains a prophecy of sprinkling as an acceptable mode of baptism. What is the biblical response to this assertion?

All who wish to enjoy the remission of past sins will call on the name of the Lord by obeying the gospel plan of redemption. In no other way can one receive pardon.

Many sincere people labor under the illusion that “works” play no role whatever in Heaven’s plan of redemption? Is this a correct view? Actually, it is not. Study this theme with us in this week’s Penpoints article.

Those who teach that salvation is solely by faith, without further acts of obedience, have a difficult time reconciling Paul with himself. Study this matter with us.

In a previous article, I inadvertently mischaracterized Professor Daniel Wallace’s religious affiliation. He kindly corrected the matter. Here is my response.

The conversion of the persecutor, Saul of Tarsus, is one of the most significant events in the book of Acts. Tragically, the theme is frequently misunderstood. Study this case history with us.

What is the actual history of the Seven Sacraments?

Is justification from sin by faith or works? Does it result from neither, one as opposed to the other, or both?

Here are several important references to the church at Ephesus.