Opposition Has Always Accompanied Faithful Witness

Christian faithfulness has never depended upon receiving the approval of the surrounding culture, because Scripture repeatedly presents loyalty to Jehovah as something maintained even when the believer stands under criticism, ridicule, misrepresentation, or social pressure. Jesus prepared His disciples for this reality when He said that people would reproach them, persecute them, and falsely say evil things against them because of their relationship with Him, as recorded in Matthew 5:11–12. His words do not encourage Christians to seek hostility, manufacture conflict, or interpret every disagreement as persecution, but they establish that sincere obedience to Christ will sometimes produce opposition. The apostles experienced that reality repeatedly when preaching the resurrection, confronting false worship, rejecting moral corruption, and proclaiming Jesus Christ as the appointed Savior and King. Acts of the Apostles 17:16–34 provides a clear example when Paul entered Athens, reasoned with people in the marketplace, addressed Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, proclaimed Jehovah as the Creator, called his hearers to repentance, and announced the resurrection of Jesus. When the resurrection was mentioned, Acts of the Apostles 17:32 reports that some began to mock, while others expressed a willingness to hear more, demonstrating that the same truthful proclamation can produce ridicule in one listener and serious consideration in another. Paul did not treat mockery as evidence that his message had failed, nor did he reshape the resurrection into something less offensive so that the intellectual culture of Athens would find Christianity respectable. He remained committed to revealed truth because the truthfulness of Christianity was not determined by the reaction of its audience, and the Christian who understands this distinction is far better prepared to withstand skeptical pressure without surrendering conviction.

Mockery Does Not Determine Whether a Belief Is True

Ridicule possesses emotional force, but it possesses no logical power to establish that Christianity is false, and mature Christian thinking must never confuse social embarrassment with rational refutation. A skeptic may laugh at creation, miracles, biblical morality, Christ’s resurrection, or the coming judgment, but laughter does not address evidence, examine the biblical text, establish a contradiction, or prove an alternative explanation. The believer must therefore learn to identify the difference between an argument and a reaction, because the two are frequently presented together as though they carried equal intellectual weight. When someone says that belief in the resurrection is absurd merely because modern people do not ordinarily observe dead persons returning to life, the Christian should recognize that the objection does not actually examine whether Jesus’ resurrection occurred as a unique historical act of God. Likewise, calling belief in Scripture “primitive” does not demonstrate that any biblical historical claim is inaccurate, that any manuscript evidence is defective, or that any specific biblical teaching contradicts reality. Proverbs 18:13 condemns answering before hearing, and that principle applies equally to Christians and skeptics because serious investigation requires understanding a claim before attempting to dismiss it. Acts of the Apostles 17:11 praises the Bereans for carefully examining the Scriptures to determine whether Paul’s message was correct, showing that biblical faith does not demand intellectual carelessness but welcomes disciplined examination. A Christian therefore does not need to become emotionally destabilized merely because an opponent delivers an objection confidently, sarcastically, or before an applauding audience, since truth is established by sound evidence and proper reasoning rather than social performance. Christian confidence becomes stronger when the believer stops asking whether an objection sounds impressive and begins asking what the objection actually proves.

The Christian Is Commanded to Be Ready With a Defense

The biblical answer to skeptical scrutiny is neither intellectual retreat nor aggressive argumentation, because 1 Peter 3:15 commands Christians to sanctify Christ as Lord in their hearts and always be prepared to make a defense to anyone asking for a reason for their hope. The Greek term behind the idea of a defense is apologia, which refers to giving a reasoned answer or defense rather than merely asserting a personal feeling. Peter therefore assumes that Christian hope possesses content that can be explained, defended, and presented intelligently before those who question it. This defense includes the existence and character of Jehovah, the authority and reliability of Scripture, the identity of Jesus Christ, His sacrificial death, His resurrection, the reality of judgment, and the hope God has placed before obedient believers. Yet 1 Peter 3:15 does not separate the substance of the answer from the manner in which it is delivered, because Peter requires mildness and respect rather than arrogance, hostility, or personal contempt. The following verse, 1 Peter 3:16, emphasizes maintaining a good conscience so that those speaking maliciously against Christian conduct may be put to shame by the believer’s honorable behavior. A Christian who demolishes an opponent personally while claiming to defend biblical truth has therefore failed to follow part of the very passage used to justify apologetics. Scriptural defense demands intellectual preparation joined with disciplined character, because the defender represents not merely an argument but the Christ whose teaching he claims to obey. The Christian who studies carefully, answers accurately, refuses exaggeration, admits what he does not know, and treats an opponent with dignity demonstrates that apologetics is service to truth rather than an instrument for personal superiority.

Gentleness Must Never Be Confused With Weakness

Biblical mildness does not require the Christian to dilute truth, surrender a clear doctrine, or pretend that contradictory positions are equally sound, because gentleness concerns the manner of correction rather than the abandonment of correction. 2 Timothy 2:24–25 says that a slave of the Lord must not be quarrelsome but must be kind toward all, qualified to teach, patiently enduring wrong, and correcting opponents with gentleness. Those instructions reveal that firmness and gentleness can exist together, since Paul explicitly commands correction while simultaneously regulating the spirit in which correction occurs. Jesus Himself answered false teaching directly, exposed hypocrisy, corrected misunderstanding, and challenged misuse of Scripture without becoming morally corrupted by the hostility directed toward Him. Paul likewise reasoned from the Scriptures in Acts of the Apostles 17:2–3, explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead, which shows that Christian teaching includes argument, explanation, and evidence. Later, when Festus told Paul that his great learning was driving him mad, Paul answered in Acts of the Apostles 26:24–25 without retaliatory insult, affirming instead that he was speaking words of truth and soundness of mind. The modern Christian can follow the same pattern when a university student mocks biblical creation, a coworker ridicules Christian morality, or an online critic caricatures belief in Scripture as intellectually backward. The answer does not require timid silence, but neither does it permit insult, because Christian courage refuses both cowardice and quarrelsomeness. Strong apologetics therefore speaks plainly enough that the truth cannot be mistaken while remaining controlled enough that personal pride does not obscure the truth being defended.

Not Every Skeptic Is Asking the Same Kind of Question

Faithfulness under scrutiny requires discernment because people who raise objections to Christianity do not always possess the same motives, knowledge, emotional condition, or willingness to examine an answer. Some individuals sincerely want to understand why Christians believe the Bible has been preserved, why Jehovah allows human suffering, why the resurrection should be regarded as historical, or how an alleged contradiction should be resolved. Other individuals use questions rhetorically, having already decided that no answer will be accepted because the purpose of the exchange is ridicule rather than investigation. Jude 22 instructs Christians to show mercy toward those who doubt, establishing that uncertainty must not automatically be treated as deliberate rebellion against God. Thomas illustrates an important distinction because John 20:25–28 records his demand for evidence of Jesus’ resurrection, followed by Jesus providing the necessary evidence and Thomas responding with recognition of the risen Christ. Jesus did not commend unbelief, but the account demonstrates that Christianity rests upon realities that were open to examination rather than upon a command to believe without evidence. Proverbs 18:13 likewise warns against answering before hearing, so a Christian should understand what an objector actually means before delivering a memorized answer to a question that was never asked. A teenager struggling with a classroom objection about biblical history requires different handling from an internet provocateur who repeatedly shifts arguments after each objection is answered. The Christian defender therefore listens carefully, clarifies the issue, identifies whether the objection concerns evidence, interpretation, morality, or personal resistance, and then answers the actual question rather than fighting an imagined opponent.

Opposition Must Drive the Christian Deeper Into Scripture

The most dangerous effect of skeptical criticism is not that questions are asked but that an unprepared believer may discover that his convictions were inherited socially rather than established through careful study of Jehovah’s Word. Romans 10:17 connects faith with hearing the word concerning Christ, while Psalms 119:105 portrays God’s Word as a lamp for the feet and a light for the path, emphasizing the directing power of revealed truth. A Christian who rarely studies Scripture will naturally find it more difficult to respond when someone isolates a difficult verse, alleges a contradiction, attacks biblical morality, or misrepresents a doctrine. By contrast, disciplined study teaches the believer to read passages within their historical setting, grammatical structure, literary form, immediate context, and relationship to the rest of Scripture. 2 Timothy 2:15 commands the Christian worker to handle the word of truth accurately, a requirement incompatible with careless proof-texting or explanations invented merely to escape an uncomfortable objection. The historical-grammatical approach is especially valuable under skeptical scrutiny because it asks what the inspired writer communicated through the actual words of the text rather than allowing either critic or defender to impose a preferred meaning upon Scripture. For example, an apparent contradiction between two Gospel accounts must first be examined to determine whether the writers are actually making mutually exclusive claims, whether one account supplies details omitted by another, and whether modern assumptions have been inserted into the passages. The believer who has learned to examine context does not panic when presented with a difficult text, because a difficulty demanding study is not automatically an error demanding surrender. Confidence rooted in careful interpretation is much stronger than confidence dependent upon never encountering a hard question.

Biblical Difficulties Should Be Examined Rather Than Feared

Skeptics frequently gain rhetorical advantage by presenting a difficult passage as though merely identifying a question were equivalent to demonstrating that Scripture contains an error, but those are entirely different intellectual achievements. A genuine contradiction requires affirming and denying the same proposition at the same time and in the same sense, whereas many alleged biblical contradictions involve different circumstances, perspectives, chronological arrangements, or levels of detail. The Christian therefore does not need to deny that some passages demand careful investigation, since difficult questions arise naturally when modern readers examine ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek writings produced in historical settings far removed from contemporary experience. Differences in language, customs, geography, chronology, literary conventions, and ancient methods of description can create apparent problems for readers who approach the Bible with assumptions taken from modern Western writing. Scripture itself deserves the same careful reading that would be granted to any serious historical document, rather than being declared erroneous because the reader does not immediately possess the information necessary to resolve a question. A responsible defender asks whether the translation accurately reflects the original language, whether the immediate context has been considered, whether two passages actually address the same event, and whether information omitted by one writer has incorrectly been treated as information denied by that writer. The principle is especially important because an incomplete account is not a false account, just as one eyewitness can truthfully report details another eyewitness does not mention. Christian confidence should therefore rest upon patient investigation rather than the unrealistic expectation that every passage must yield its full historical and linguistic background within seconds. A skeptic’s unanswered question today may remain a question requiring further study, but intellectual honesty forbids transforming the absence of an immediate answer into proof that the inspired text is mistaken.

Daniel Demonstrates Principled Faithfulness Under Pressure

Daniel provides a powerful biblical picture of faithful conduct when a servant of Jehovah lives within an environment capable of reshaping identity, loyalty, education, and behavior. Daniel 1 describes Judean youths taken into Babylonian service, taught the language and literature of the Chaldeans, given Babylonian names, and supplied provisions from the royal court as part of their preparation for government service. Daniel 1:8 states that Daniel resolved in his heart that he would not defile himself with the king’s food and wine, revealing that his outward decision arose from an inward determination to remain loyal to Jehovah. His conduct is especially instructive because he did not reject everything associated with Babylon merely because it originated in a pagan culture, since he learned its language and received administrative training without treating education itself as spiritual defilement. He drew the line where participation violated conscience governed by Jehovah’s requirements, demonstrating the difference between unavoidable cultural contact and religious compromise. Daniel also did not transform his refusal into theatrical rebellion, because he respectfully requested an arrangement that allowed him to maintain faithfulness without creating unnecessary confrontation. This combination of conviction and restraint provides an important model for Christians who find themselves mocked at school, pressured at work, challenged in academic settings, or surrounded by social expectations contrary to Scripture. The Christian does not need to attack everyone who disagrees with biblical standards, but he must know beforehand where obedience requires refusal and must be prepared to accept the social consequences of that refusal. Daniel’s example demonstrates that faithfulness under pressure is strongest when convictions have already been established before the moment of confrontation arrives.

A Good Conscience Is Part of the Christian Defense

Apologetics becomes seriously weakened when the person defending Christianity behaves in a manner that contradicts the moral teaching being defended, which explains why 1 Peter 3:15–16 connects reasoned defense with a good conscience and good conduct. A Christian may possess excellent arguments for the resurrection yet damage his witness by dishonesty, cruelty, sexual immorality, uncontrolled anger, or deliberate misrepresentation of an opponent. Matthew 5:11 specifically describes evil being spoken falsely against Christ’s disciples, and the word “falsely” prevents Christians from claiming spiritual credit whenever criticism follows actual misconduct. If an employee is disciplined for falsifying records, a student is corrected for plagiarism, or a Christian speaker is exposed for knowingly quoting an opponent inaccurately, those consequences cannot legitimately be called persecution for righteousness. 1 Peter 2:20 distinguishes suffering for wrongdoing from enduring undeserved suffering while doing good, demonstrating that biblical endurance requires honest moral self-examination. This becomes particularly important online, where Christian defenders may feel justified in spreading an unverified accusation, mocking an opponent, editing a quotation unfairly, or assigning corrupt motives to someone whose motives they cannot know. Ephesians 4:25 requires Christians to put away falsehood and speak truth, so apologetic defense must be committed to factual accuracy even when an inaccurate claim would appear useful to the Christian position. The defender of Scripture should therefore verify quotations, distinguish facts from interpretations, correct his own factual errors when discovered, and refuse to preserve a false claim simply because admitting correction feels embarrassing. A clean conscience does not remove opposition, but it prevents the Christian’s own misconduct from giving legitimate grounds for the very accusations he is attempting to answer.

The Christian Must Refuse the Demand to Know Everything

Skeptical encounters can tempt Christians into pretending to possess answers they do not have, but intellectual faithfulness requires recognizing the difference between defending the faith and claiming exhaustive knowledge. Deuteronomy 29:29 distinguishes the secret things belonging to Jehovah from the revealed things given to His people, establishing that human knowledge has legitimate limits even within a worldview grounded in divine revelation. The Christian therefore loses nothing by saying that a particular historical detail requires additional study when Scripture itself does not provide enough information for a dogmatic answer. Inventing an explanation is far more damaging because an unsupported answer may later collapse and give the critic an opportunity to mistake human speculation for biblical teaching. This principle applies especially to chronology, archaeological questions, difficult textual variants, unidentified ancient persons, and passages where Scripture records an event without supplying every background detail modern readers desire. The Christian’s responsibility is to defend what the evidence supports rather than filling every silence with imaginative reconstruction. Proverbs 18:15 describes the understanding heart as acquiring knowledge and the ear of the wise as seeking knowledge, portraying learning as an ongoing responsibility rather than an embarrassment. Intellectual humility also allows the believer to distinguish central Christian claims from peripheral questions, since uncertainty about the precise location of an ancient site does not overturn the inspiration of Scripture or the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Mature confidence can therefore say both “there is substantial evidence for this belief” and “the available information does not establish that particular detail,” because biblical apologetics seeks truth rather than the appearance of invulnerability.

Christians Must Learn to Recognize Moving Objections

Some skeptical conversations remain productive, while others become endless because the critic repeatedly changes the objection after each previous objection has been answered, and wisdom requires recognizing the difference. A discussion may begin with the claim that the Bible has been hopelessly corrupted, move to an alleged contradiction after manuscript evidence is explained, shift to the morality of an Old Testament event when the contradiction is addressed, and finally end with the assertion that miracles are impossible by definition. Such movement reveals that several distinct issues are being combined, and answering them all simultaneously often produces confusion rather than clarity. Proverbs 26:4–5 contains two statements about answering a foolish person that must be understood according to circumstance, teaching that wisdom sometimes requires answering an error so that it does not appear unchallenged while at other times refusing to imitate the foolish manner of the opponent. Jesus likewise did not respond to every hostile question in precisely the same way, because He sometimes answered directly, sometimes asked a counterquestion, and sometimes refused to cooperate with dishonest demands. A Christian dealing with repeated skeptical objections should therefore keep the discussion focused by completing one question before allowing several unrelated accusations to replace it. If the topic is the textual preservation of the New Testament, evidence concerning manuscripts should be examined before the discussion suddenly moves to the age of the earth, church history, or the behavior of a particular professing Christian. Maintaining focus prevents rhetoric from substituting for analysis and also exposes whether the objector genuinely wants an answer or simply wants an unlimited supply of accusations. Christian patience does not require remaining indefinitely inside an unproductive argument, because time and speech are resources that Scripture expects believers to use wisely.

Mockery Online Requires Exceptional Self-Control

Digital communication intensifies many weaknesses already present in human conversation because people can ridicule strangers instantly, gather approving audiences, circulate incomplete quotations, and answer emotionally before reflection has restrained their words. James 1:19 instructs Christians to be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger, principles that become particularly valuable when a hostile comment is designed to provoke an immediate reaction. Proverbs 15:1 states that a gentle answer turns away wrath, while a harsh word stirs up anger, identifying the practical effect that tone can have even when substantive disagreement remains. The Christian should therefore resist the urge to answer every insult, because responding merely to protect personal pride can turn an opportunity for witness into an exchange of contempt. When a skeptic claims that “no intelligent person believes the Bible,” the useful question is not how sharply the Christian can retaliate but what actual argument has been offered and whether there is anything substantive requiring an answer. When an opponent presents a genuine textual or historical objection, the Christian can address the evidence directly while ignoring personal mockery that contributes nothing to the issue. Colossians 4:6 instructs Christians to let their speech always be gracious and seasoned with salt so that they may know how to answer each person, which requires both discernment and restraint. A carefully written response explaining context, manuscript evidence, or the logic of a Christian claim often serves silent readers who never participate in the discussion but are observing how each side handles the evidence. Online apologetics therefore becomes most useful when the Christian remembers that the loudest skeptic may not be the only person being addressed.

Skeptical Scrutiny Can Strengthen Well-Grounded Faith

Hostile questions do not need to weaken Christian conviction when they drive the believer toward disciplined study, accurate interpretation, and a clearer understanding of the evidence supporting Scripture. The Christian who encounters an allegation concerning textual corruption can study the manuscript tradition and discover that the abundance of textual witnesses allows variants to be identified and evaluated rather than leaving the wording of the New Testament unknowable. The existence of textual variants should not be concealed, because copying by hand naturally produced differences, while comparison among manuscripts provides the means for determining the earlier readings with extremely high confidence. The preservation of numerous manuscripts, ancient versions, quotations, papyri, majuscules, minuscules, and lectionary evidence gives textual scholars an extensive body of material with which to examine the transmission history of the New Testament. Similarly, a Christian challenged concerning historical reliability can learn to examine geography, political titles, named rulers, customs, travel routes, and other details embedded throughout biblical narrative. 2 Peter 1:19 directs attention toward the prophetic word as something to which Christians do well to pay attention, reinforcing the principle that biblical faith remains anchored in objective revelation rather than unstable private impressions. The believer who has worked carefully through a serious objection often emerges better equipped to help another person facing the same question, turning a moment of discomfort into deeper preparation for Christian service. This does not mean every skeptical claim deserves equal attention, because weak assertions should not be granted the status of strong evidence merely because they are repeatedly circulated. It means that the Christian need not fear investigation, since truth has nothing to gain from carelessness and nothing to lose from honest examination.

The Example of Paul Shows How to Stand Before Intellectual Critics

Paul’s encounter with the philosophers of Athens demonstrates that Christian witness can enter an intellectually hostile setting without either surrendering biblical truth or refusing meaningful engagement with the audience. Acts of the Apostles 17:22–23 records Paul beginning with an observation drawn from the religious environment of Athens, including an altar associated with an unknown god, and using that point of contact to expose rather than endorse Athenian religious ignorance. He proceeded in Acts of the Apostles 17:24–25 to proclaim the Creator of the world who does not depend upon human temples or human service, directly challenging assumptions embedded within pagan worship. Paul understood enough about his audience to communicate intelligibly, yet he never allowed their philosophical commitments to determine which Christian truths he was permitted to proclaim. He spoke about creation, human dependence upon God, repentance, coming judgment, Jesus Christ, and resurrection, even though several of those teachings collided directly with the intellectual assumptions of his hearers. Acts of the Apostles 17:32 then records the divided response: some mocked, others postponed judgment, and others eventually believed. This outcome is instructive because Paul’s responsibility was faithful proclamation and sound reasoning rather than control over the reaction of every listener. The Christian therefore does not measure an apologetic encounter solely by whether the skeptic concedes the argument, because a truthful answer can remain valuable even when pride, prior commitments, or moral resistance prevent immediate acceptance. Paul’s example teaches that intellectual engagement should be informed enough to understand the audience, biblical enough to preserve the message, courageous enough to state unpopular truths, and disciplined enough to withstand mockery without abandoning the task.

Social Rejection Must Not Become the Christian’s Master

Many Christians will never stand before a formal tribunal or face physical violence for their faith, yet they may experience another powerful form of pressure through exclusion, laughter, damaged reputation, workplace discomfort, classroom ridicule, or the fear of being regarded as intellectually inferior. Proverbs 29:25 warns that fear of man lays a snare, identifying the spiritual danger created when human approval becomes powerful enough to govern conduct. A student who believes biblical morality but remains silent whenever classmates mock it may gradually learn to value acceptance more than conviction, even without formally renouncing Christianity. An employee who knows that dishonest business conduct violates Ephesians 4:25 may face pressure to alter a report, conceal information, or repeat a misleading claim because everyone else treats the practice as harmless. A young Christian may be ridiculed for refusing intoxication, pornography, sexual immorality, occult practices, or degrading entertainment, yet 1 Peter 4:3–4 specifically describes unbelievers as being surprised when Christians no longer run with them into the same excesses and consequently speaking abusively of them. Scripture therefore recognizes social ridicule as one method by which conformity is enforced, and the Christian must prepare mentally before such moments arrive. Romans 12:18 still commands believers, as far as it depends upon them, to live peaceably with all, so biblical separation from wrongdoing must never become an excuse for needless hostility or cultivated eccentricity. Christian distinctiveness should arise because obedience to Jehovah creates a real moral boundary, not because a believer enjoys shocking other people or provoking confrontation. The person who knows why he believes, knows where Scripture draws moral lines, and has already determined whom he intends to obey is far less vulnerable when mockery makes compromise temporarily attractive.

False Accusations Require Truthful Endurance

Mockery sometimes develops into misrepresentation, and Jesus specifically prepared His followers for false accusations when He spoke in Matthew 5:11 about people saying all kinds of evil things falsely against His disciples because of Him. Jesus Himself experienced malicious distortion, including the accusation in Matthew 12:24 that His expulsion of demons was accomplished through Beelzebul, demonstrating that even perfect conduct does not prevent determined opponents from constructing false explanations. Matthew 26:59–60 further records efforts to obtain false testimony against Jesus, showing that accusation can acquire formal appearance without thereby becoming truthful. A Christian confronted by such treatment must resist two opposite mistakes: surrendering to despair because others believe the accusation, or answering falsehood with retaliatory falsehood. Proverbs 12:19 contrasts truthful lips that endure with a lying tongue that is momentary, directing the Christian toward the long-term moral durability of truth rather than the temporary advantage of manipulation. Documentation, accurate statements, trustworthy witnesses, consistent conduct, and calm correction may all have legitimate places when reputation or factual claims must be defended. Yet Romans 12:17 forbids repaying evil for evil and directs Christians to consider what is honorable before all, preventing self-defense from becoming permission for vengeance. The Christian may firmly say that a claim is false, provide evidence establishing the facts, and correct a public misrepresentation without developing hatred toward the person responsible. Endurance under false accusation therefore involves more than remaining silent; it means remaining truthful when pressure makes sinful retaliation emotionally attractive.

Faithfulness Before Jehovah Matters More Than Applause

The deepest protection against skeptical mockery is a settled recognition that human approval is temporary while accountability before Jehovah is ultimate. Galatians 1:10 asks whether the servant of Christ is seeking to please men, exposing the incompatibility between absolute allegiance to Christ and allowing public approval to determine truth. 1 Corinthians 4:3–5 likewise shows Paul refusing to make human judgment the final measure of his faithfulness, while still recognizing that Jehovah knows motives and will bring hidden things to light. This perspective prevents both insecurity and arrogance because the Christian neither requires applause to remain convinced nor assumes that opposition automatically proves him righteous. He continues examining himself through the Spirit-inspired Word, correcting genuine errors, strengthening weak arguments, abandoning unsupported claims, and holding firmly to truths clearly established by Scripture. Jude 3 calls Christians to contend for the faith delivered once for all to the holy ones, which means Christian teaching is preserved and defended rather than reshaped whenever cultural approval changes. 2 Timothy 3:16–17 identifies Scripture as breathed out by God and useful for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, providing the objective standard through which both Christian and critic must ultimately be evaluated. The believer who remains close to that Word gains something more substantial than the ability to win debates: he develops the discernment to recognize error, the courage to resist compromise, the patience to answer sincere questions, and the humility to correct himself when necessary. Such faithfulness can endure scrutiny and mockery because it rests not upon intellectual vanity or social protection but upon a reasoned confidence that Jehovah has spoken, that His Word is trustworthy, and that obedience to Him remains right regardless of how many voices laugh.

You May Also Enjoy

The Conversion You Keep Postponing — Tomorrow as a Permanent Address

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS