BiblicalInsights.net

Cold-Case Christianity was written by J. Warner Wallace and provides the reader with a unique approach to apologetics from the perspective of a cold-case homicide detective.  Wallace was a vocal atheist for many years.  Now, he uses his investigative skills to make the case for Christianity (used in the general sense).  The reader will be impressed with this approach to examination of the evidence for the reliability of the New Testament and the eyewitness accounts given therein of the life of Christ.  Wallace places the reader in the jury box.  He gives instructions on how to handle the evidence presented much as a judge would instruct the jury.  He asks you to weigh the evidence and come to a conclusion that is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  A review of this book is now on my “Book Reviews” page.

Wayne Jackson wrote an article for the Christian Courier titled, “The Assault Upon Mark 16:16” (online: www.christiancourier.com). In this article, bro. Jackson defends the authenticity of Mark 16:16.  Sometimes individuals remark that if we lost Mark 16:16 (it was not deemed authentic) then, it wouldn’t matter because everything taught in Mark 16:16 is found in other places in the New Testament.  Upon closer examination of this concept, it proves false.  Consider the following aspects of this important, authentic, passage of Scripture.
Its Simplicity.
The passages expresses in the simplest terms the requirements for salvation.  This simple truth needs to be understood by every single person who desires to be saved and go to heaven.  Jesus makes it clear that both belief and baptism are essential for salvation.  Read Mark 16:16 and see for yourself how easy it is to understand.
Its Authority.
The words in the passage are from the lips of Jesus Christ.  Jesus is Lord of lords and King of kings.  His authority is preeminent and unassailable.  Jesus said that His words would not pass away (Matt. 24:35) and that His words would judge us in the last day (John 12:48).  Who could affirm that the words of Jesus are unimportant and if lost would not be significant?
Its Lexical Import
This passage of Scripture is the only verse in the Bible where Jesus connects the words baptism and salvation in such a way as to affirm the essential nature of baptism.  If faith is essential for salvation, then, baptism is also essential.  Many deny that baptism is essential for salvation.  They contradict the plain words of Jesus. Faith is “taking God at His word.”  It is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen (Heb. 11:1).  Faith is trust in God.  We must believe that God is (Heb. 11:6) and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (John 8:24).  Baptism is an immersion in water for the remission of sins (John 3:3-5; Acts 2:38).  The purpose of baptism secures its role in our salvation.  We cannot be saved without the forgiveness of our sins.
Its Grammatical Construction
Mark 16:16 is the only passage in the New Testament where the words believe, baptism and salvation are syntactically connected in such a way as to show conclusively that baptism precedes salvation and does not follow salvation.  The words believeth and is baptized are aorist participles.  The words shall be saved constitute the main verb in the sentence.  The aorist participle indicates action that is completed before the action of the main verb (Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 230).  This shows that baptism precedes salvation.  Both faith and baptism preceded salvation.  This is why Peter commanded the multitudes on the day of Pentecost to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (by His authority) for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38).
Its Textual Authenticity
Mark 16:16 can successfully be defended in regards to its authenticity.  Bro. Jackson mentions several individuals who have shown the evidence for the authenticity of the passage:  Scrivener, Burgon, McGarvey, and Lenski. I might add Maurice Robinson and Dave Miller in Reason and Revelation (http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=704).  The works of these men are readily available to the reader.  Since the gospel of Mark is part of the history of the life of Christ and we are forbidden to preach any other gospel (Gal. 1:8-9), let us uphold this passage as part of the holy Scriptures that are able to make us wise unto salvation (II Tim. 3:15-16).
Its Historical Significance In Apologetics
Alexander Campbell used Mark 16:16 in his debate with W. L. McCalla in 1823.  In this debate, held Oct. 15, 1823, Alexander Campbell affirmed “immersion for the remission of sins.”  Douglas Foster remarks that this is “the most explicit statement he had ever made in public” on this topic.  Campbell declared, “The Lord saith, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” He does not say, he that believeth and keeps my commands, shall be saved: but he saith he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.  He places baptism on the right hand of faith.  Again, he tells Nicodemus, that “except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” — Peter on the day of Pentecost, places baptism in the same “exalted place”–“Repent,” says he, “and be baptized every one of you, FOR the remission of sins.” –Ananias saith to Paul “arise and be baptized and WASH AWAY your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord.” –Paul saith of the Corinthians, “Ye were once fornicators, idolators, adulterers, effeminate, thieves, covetous, drunkards, rioters, extortioners, but ye were WASHED in the name of the Lord Jesus,” doubtless referring to their baptism. He tells Titus, God our Savior saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. See again its dignified importance! Peter finishes the grand climax, in praise of baptism–“Baptism doth also now save us, by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.” I have thus, in the naked import of those testimonies, shown, that it is of vast import, of glorious design” (quoted by Douglas Foster in A Life of Alexander Campbell, 71-72).   Alexander Campbell included Mark 16:16 in the Living Oracles (a translation he was instrumental in producing in 1826) even though it was based primarily on the Greek text of Greisbach who, in the second edition of his Greek text (1806), omitted it.
Thomas Warren defended and used Mark 16:16 in his public debate with L. S. Ballard.  In this debate (held July 23-26, 1952), Warren defended Mark 16:16 with the Washingtonian Manuscript housed at the Freer Gallery in Washington D.C.  The Washingtonian manuscript is a fourth century manuscript and so matches, in age, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts that are used to assault the authenticity of Mark 16:16. It contains the verses in dispute and is part of the overall evidence for the defense of these passages.
Garland Elkins used Mark 16:16 in a public debate with Bob Ross that was held in Parkersburg, WV (April, 1979).  Elkins made the grammatical argument on Mark 16:16 noted above about the aorist participles.  This proved an effective means of conveying the truth that baptism is essential for salvation.  These are just a few examples of how Mark 16:16 has been used in public debate to defend the truth about baptism.  It is an apologetic passage of Scripture that refutes the doctrine of faith only.
These observations on Mark 16:16 show that it is a unique passage of Scripture, spoken by the Lord, an authentic passage that has merit as an apologetic against false doctrine.  The loss of this passage would be significant.  Yet, many of the modern translations in use today either omit the passage or cast doubt upon its authenticity.  Perhaps we should reconsider which translation is truly upholding God’s Word in the English language.

J. S. Howson wrote, Horae Petrinae (Studies in the Life of St. Peter) with the same goal as William Paley’s Horae Paulinae which emphasized undesigned coincidences in the life of Paul.  Howson’s work was written in 1883.  In chapter two, Howson develops the significance of the use of the phrase, “Simon, whose surname is Peter.”  This involves comparison of the two accounts given in Acts of the conversion of the first Gentile converts (Cornelius and his household).  In Acts 10, Luke gives the historical account and in Acts 11, Peter recounts these events in an apologetic before Jews in Jerusalem.  Howson states, “This existence of two narratives of the same great event gives occasion for critical inquiry as to whether the variations which we find in the two ways of telling the story are natural and in harmony with the circumstances of the case, so as to confirm our impression of consistency and truth” (p. 14). In Acts 10, we have Luke’s account of the vision of Cornelius and the trance of Peter and in Acts 11, we have Peter’s account of these things.  Intermediate to them is the relation of the vision of Cornelius by the messengers whom he sent to Peter, and likewise the relation given by the centurion himself to Peter when he arrived at Caesarea. This gives great opportunity to check the “artless reality and perfect truthfulness” (p. 15) of the accounts.
The Name of the Apostle
The utmost significance is given to the name of the apostle Peter.  In this sacred account of the first Gentile convert, the name by which Peter is called is made remarkably conspicuous.  Four times the phrase, “Simon, whose surname is Peter” occurs in this short history.  First, Cornelius, a devout man and a God-fearer, engaged in prayer about the ninth hour of the day (about 3:00 o’clock our time), saw a vision during which an angel of God directed him to send men to Joppa and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter” (Acts 10:5).  The designation is exact and the location is carefully described.  The person with whom Peter was lodged was also named Simon (Simon the tanner).  Second, the messengers proceed to Joppa and inquire as to the location of Simon the tanner’s house.  They stood before the gate and called and asked whether “Simon, which was surnamed Peter,” were lodged there (Acts 10:18).  Third, when Peter arrives at Caesarea and seeks to hear from Cornelius about the reason that he was summoned, the Centurion relates the story of the vision he had seen and is quite explicit in stating that he was directed to summon from Joppa one “Simon, whose surname is Peter” (Acts 10:32).  Fourth, once again, when Peter makes his apologetic before the Jews at Jerusalem, he tells his hearers that Cornelius instructed him that he was directed to call for “Simon, whose surname is Peter” (Acts 11:13).
The Significance of This Phrase
First, the exactness of the description given to Cornelius was meant to avert all possibility of mistake as to the identity of the person to whom was entrusted the duty of communicating the gospel to Cornelius (Howson, p. 16).  Simon Peter, and, no one else was to bring the first Gentile converts to Christ.
Second, Peter must be able to discern the divine intent involved in the request.  The request came immediately upon Peter’s own vision whereby God communicated to him that the distinctions regarding what is common or unclean that had been in force under the Law of Moses would no longer be applicable under the gospel of Christ.  While this applied to the eating of meats, it also applied to the distinctions between Jew and Gentile.  In addition, Peter was directed by an angel of the Lord to go with the messengers Cornelius sent “nothing doubting” (Acts 10:20) “for I have sent them.”  The name, Simon, surnamed Peter, was a specific designation received by the apostle from Jesus Christ upon the very first meeting between them.  The account of which is given by the apostle John in John 1:42, “And he brought him to Jesus.  And when Jesus beheld him, he said, “Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.”  Cephas is the Aramaic word for Peter (a stone) the Greek term.  Howson remarks, “The natural explanation surely is that the Lord saw in the young fisherman an expression of energy and force which marked him out as fit, under Divine grace, for a great destiny” (p. 19).  The second time that Peter’s name figures prominently in the gospels is found in Matthew 16:18.  In response to Jesus’ question, “But whom say ye that I am?” Peter declared, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” To which Jesus responded, “Blessed art thou, Simon, Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:16-19).  The rock upon which the Lord would build His church was not Peter, either personally or officially, but the truth that Peter acknowledged–or rather Christ, who is the Truth.  This fact can be further ascertained by the Lord’s statement given in severity to the Jews, “Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?” (Matt. 21:42).  In saying this, Jesus spoke of Himself.  The event must have impressed Peter.  In an early part of the history which succeeded Pentecost, Peter, summoned before the High Priest and Council, to answer for his allegiance to Jesus Christ, employed the very words: “This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner” (Acs 4:11).  And once more, Peter references this statement in I Peter 2:4-7, “To Christ coming, as unto a living stone, ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house…Unto you which believe He is precious; but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner.”  The words of the 118th Psalm (118:22), become a link, which, through Peter’s use of them, bind together the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles.  In the apprehension of the apostle Peter, Jesus Christ, and no other, is the “chief corner-stone”.
The Keys of the Kingdom
Peter possessed the keys of the kingdom.  The keys of the kingdom is a phrase that denotes the central role of Peter in the proclamation of the gospel to the Jews first and then, to the Gentiles.  Peter uses these keys on two historical occasions.  The first is on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (Acts 2).  Here, Peter preaches the gospel, along with the other apostles, and significantly, Peter’s sermon is recorded in Acts 2.  There was a great response to the preaching of Peter and the apostles in that city and three thousand obeyed the gospel (Acts 2:41).  The second significant historical occasion in which Peter used these keys was when he preached to Cornelius and his household and they obeyed the gospel (Acts 10:48).  Thus, when Peter was in Jerusalem at the Jerusalem Council, Luke could write, “And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe” (Acts 15:7).
Summary
The specific designation of Peter in the account by Luke in Acts 10 and in the apologetic given by Peter in Acts 11, fulfills the Lord’s words given in Matthew 16:16-19.  The Lord named Simon, Cephas, which by interpretation is, a stone (Peter). He promised Peter the keys of the kingdom.  On two historical occasions, Peter used those keys to open up the wonderful blessings of the gospel of Christ to Jews and Gentiles.  Thus, the gospel of Christ is the message of salvation for all of mankind.  All nations must hear it, believe it and obey it (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16).

Lydia McGrew has written a book titled, Hidden In Plain View, in which she describes undesigned coincidences in the Gospels and Acts.  This book was published in 2017 and draws on two previous books that explore undesigned coincidences as proof of the veracity of the writers of the Old and New Testaments.  The previous two books are:  William Paley’s work, Horae Paulinae first published in 1790 and John James Blunt who wrote, Undesigned Coincidences, in 1847.  Blunt shows undesigned coincidences in both the Old and New Testaments.  I have written a book review of his work which can be accessed on the Book Reviews page.  McGrew gives a broad definition of an undesigned coincidence, “An undesigned coincidence is a notable connection between two or more accounts or texts that doesn’t seem to have been planned by the person or people giving the accounts.  Despite their apparent independence, the items fit together like pieces of a puzzle” (Hidden in Plain View, p. 12).  Undesigned coincidences in the Bible are evidence not only of the truthfulness of the accounts of the men who wrote them, but also, of the inspiration of the Scriptures.  They are a testimony to the fact that the Bible has one author: God, the Holy Spirit (II Tim. 3:16-17).  The argument regarding undesigned coincidences needs to be utilized more today among Christian apologists simply because it refutes the skepticism of many who claim that the Bible is full of contradictions or contains statements that are contrary to facts. Let’s consider a few examples.
He Was Before Me
John records the words of John the baptist in John 1:15, 30, “John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, “This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.”  “This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.”  The phrase “he was before me” spoken by John the baptist is illuminated by the fact that in Luke 1:23-26 we learn that Elizabeth, John the baptist’s mother, was with child six months prior to Mary, the mother of Jesus’ becoming pregnant.  This means that John the baptist was six months older than Jesus in the human sense.  But, Jesus was “before” John the baptist referring to the eternal existence of Jesus.  John in his gospel is emphasizing the eternality of Jesus (John 1:1-14) and the statement by John the baptist that Jesus was “before” him indicates that John the baptist realizes who Jesus is.  He is the Son of God and existed prior to His physical birth.  Luke records the historical information about the births of both John the baptist and Jesus.  John uses John the baptist’s statement about Jesus as proof of Jesus’ eternality and includes that information in his gospel.  Luke wrote before John.  However, both the historical information and the theological information fit together perfectly.
How Did John the Baptist Know that Jesus was the Son of God?
In John 1:34, John the baptist declares, “And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.”   How did John the baptist know that Jesus was the Son of God?  John does not tell us in his gospel.  Matthew, Mark and Luke record the historical account of the baptism of Jesus.  Matthew writes, “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And, lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”  John the baptist and all who witnessed the scene at the baptism of Jesus had reason to think that Jesus was the Son of God because a voice from heaven said that He was the Son of God.  John in his gospel never mentions the voice from heaven.  John the baptist had been given a sign.  This is the sign, “Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptized with the Holy Ghost” (John 1:33).  John the baptist is able to put all of this information together and correctly conclude that Jesus is the Son of God.  John uses John the baptist’s testimony as a witness to this important spiritual truth.  Later, in John 5:33-35, Jesus Himself uses John the baptist as a witness to His true identity and adds John the baptist’s testimony to the works; God, the Father; the Scriptures; and Moses to give irrefutable evidence by many witnesses to His identity as God’s Son.  This information adds strength to the apostle John’s apologetic in John 1.  Those who deny that Jesus is the Son of God must affirm that John the baptist and all of the other witnesses given in John 5 including God, are liars!
There are many such undesigned coincidences in both the Old and New Testaments.  This field of study is very important and should not be overlooked by Christian apologists today.  All three of the books mentioned in the beginning of this blog are available from various sources and can be secured, read, and studied.

The analogy drawn between Galileo (geokineticism or heliocentricism) and young earth creationists (YEC’s) is a false analogy.  This fallacy of analogy is made by John Lennox in Seven Days That Divide the World and Nobie Stone in Genesis 1 and Lessons From Space (published by the Warren Christian Apologetics Center).
The following information is taken from Answers in Genesis (answersingenesis.org, 7/17/18).  Under the title, The Galileo Canard, we find, “In the Middle Ages and well into the Renaissance, the Roman Catholic Church did teach geocentrism, but was that based upon the Bible?  The Church’s response to Galileo (1564-1642) was primarily from the works of Aristotle (384-322 BC) and other Ancient Greek philosophers.  It was Augustine (AD 354-430), Thomas Aquinas (124-1274), and others who ‘baptized’ the work of these pagans and termed them ‘pre-Christian Christians.’ This mingling of pagan science and the Bible was a fundamental error for which the Church eventually paid a tremendous price.  Confusion persists today in that nearly every textbook that discusses the Galileo affair claims that it was a matter of religion vs. science, when it actually was a matter of science vs. science.  Unfortunately, Church leaders interpreted certain Biblical passages as geocentric to bolster the argument for what science of the day was claiming.  This mistake is identical to those today who interpret the Bible to support things such as the Big Bang, billions of years, or biological evolution.”
Jonathan Sarfati states, “Galileo has become the poster child for the alleged battle between religion and science, and the favorite example of those who believe that religion should be subservient to science” (Refuting Compromise, pp. 53-54). He continues, “The first to oppose Galileo was the scientific establishment. The prevailing “scientific” wisdom of his day was the Aristotelian Ptolemaic theory.  This was an unwieldy geocentric system, with the earth at the center of the universe and other heavenly bodies in highly complex orbits around the earth. And it had its origins in a pagan philosophical system. Conversely, the four leading pioneers of geokineticism–Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton,–were all young-earth creationists (p. 52).  Sarfati continues, “The church affirmed geocentrism because it was the prevailing science of the day and re-interpreted biblical passages accordingly.  Ironically, many people castigate YEC’s for supposedly making the same mistake as the church in Galieo’s day.  Yet the opposite is true–it’s the long-age’ compromisers and theistic evolutionists who are the true heirs of Galileo’s opponents, because both are making the same mistake of using current scientific ideas magisterially over Scripture” (pp. 53-54).
The false analogy involves this:  The Catholic Church interpreted Scriptures to prove a geocentric view and was wrong for doing so.  Young earth creationists are committing the same sin by interpreting the Scriptures to prove a young earth when in fact science shows that the earth is billions of years old.  The Catholic Church interpreted the Scriptures to harmonize with the science of the day (geocentrism).  Young earth creationists are not interpreting Scriptures to harmonize with the science of the day (Big Bang theory, evolution).  The analogy between the two is false!
Perhaps some clarification needs to be made since it is easy to equivocate on the word “science.”  Geocentrism can be falsified by observational science.  The Big Bang and evolution are based on origin science which is inferential science.  There are two different types of science involved.  Geocentricism gave way to heliocentrism due to observational science.  The Big Bang theory is based on inferential science and has never been observed (it is not subject to the scientific method).  Those who attempt to use the Galileo affair against young earth creationists are committing the fallacy of analogy (a logical fallacy).
Since this is true, then both works by Lennox and Stone are falsified.  The Warren Christian Apologetics Center whose director is Charles Pugh III, continues to distribute Stone’s book worldwide through the internet.  This book teaches theistic evolution, agnosticism, violates sound logic and is permeated with self-contradictions.  We have now been informed that Nobie Stone is a staff writer for Sufficient Evidence, the journal published by the Warren Christian Apologetics Center.  How can any faithful Christian support the WCAC when they continue to use false teachers?  Please read my review of Nobie Stone’s book posted under the Book Reviews page on this blog.

Medical malpractice occurs whenever a doctor fails to provide a patient with proper medical care.  This could involve, among other things, failing to give the proper information and treatment to a patient causing physical or psychological harm or even death.  Spiritual malpractice occurs whenever a person in a spiritual leadership position gives false or misleading information in the guidance of a human soul that leads to the destruction of that soul in eternity.  With that in mind, we can confidently affirm that all false teachers are guilty of spiritual malpractice.  False doctrine cannot save.  Only the truth saves.  “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (II Tim 3:15).  “Who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (I Tim. 2:4).  “Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls” (James 1:21).  “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).
There are many warnings in the Scriptures of false teachers and false doctrine.  Jesus said, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matt. 7:15).  Paul warned the elders at Ephesus, “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30).  While Timothy was at Ephesus, Paul warned him in the following words, “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmising, Perverse disputing of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself” (I Tim. 6:3-6).  Paul actually did what he told Timothy to do, namely, withdrew from those who spoke against God, “Holding faith, and a good conscience: which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme” (I Tim. 1:19-20).  Peter also predicted, “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves  swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of” (II Pet. 2:1-2).
The Warren Christian Apologetics Center is guilty of publishing and promoting false doctrine in the book by Nobie Stone, Genesis 1 and Lessons From Space (both the 2014 and the 2017-revised edition).  This book affirms, Theistic Evolution, mitigated skepticism (a form of agnosticism) and promotes false science (the inflation theory (now falsified) used in support of the Big Bang theory).  The book violates the law of rationality by affirming self-contradictory statements such as: “…because it is rarely, if ever, possible to hold any truth with absolute certainty” (p. 18).  This statement affirms an absolute.  If Stone believes it absolutely then he contradicts himself. It amounts to saying, “I know absolutely that you cannot know anything absolutely.”   The statement is irrational.  The false teaching in this book qualifies it as another act of spiritual malpractice.  A full review of the book by Nobie Stone is posted as a PDF under the book reviews page on this blog.

I have uploaded a response to Matthew Sokoloski’s review of Nobie Stone’s book, Genesis 1 and Lessons From Space.  Sokoloski teaches in the Humanities department of Faulkner University.  He wrote a book review of Nobie Stone’s book for Sufficient Evidence, a journal published by the Warren Christian Apologetics Center.  The review appeared in the Fall, 2017 issue.  Sokoloski’s review exposes one of the major weaknesses of Nobie Stone’s book (also published by the Warren Christian Apologetics Center) which is its skepticism (agnosticism).  However, Sokoloski fails to point out some of the other errors contained in the book.  You will find my response to Sokoloski’s review under my Book Reviews page on this blog.  Please take the time to read it.  Then, for more background information, please read my book reviews of both the first edition and revised edition of Nobie Stone’s book.  The publishing of Stone’s book utterly destroys the integrity of the Warren Christian Apologetics Center and brings shame and reproach on the name of Thomas B. Warren.