Matt Dillahunty

How misused: Dillahunty frequently misinterprets this verse as a blanket promise for prayer's efficacy, arguing that its failure to yield immediate, tangible results disproves God or prayer's usefulness. He isolates it from its context of church discipline and God's sovereignty, using it to claim prayer is absurd.

Scripture's answer: Matthew 18:19 speaks of corporate prayer for specific matters of church discipline and spiritual authority, not a blank check for any request. Its efficacy is contextualized by God's will and the spiritual unity of believers. It does not promise that any two believers praying for anything will automatically receive it in a materialistic sense, but speaks to spiritual authority within the community of faith (Matthew 18:15-20, James 5:16).

How misused: Dillahunty dismisses the Christian theological claim that atheists 'know God' (as per Romans 1) as an accusation of conscious lying or an unfalsifiable assertion. He misrepresents it as an epistemological claim about propositional knowledge rather than a spiritual truth about suppressed innate knowledge.

Scripture's answer: Romans 1:20-21 states that God's invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived through what has been made, leaving humanity 'without excuse.' It speaks of a general revelation accessible to all, which, when suppressed, leads to a darkened mind and unrighteousness, not necessarily a conscious 'lie' about propositional knowledge of God but a spiritual resistance to truth (Romans 1:18, 28).

How misused: Dillahunty cites this passage regarding non-virgin brides and its associated penalties (stoning) to claim biblical laws are inherently misogynistic and unjust, reflecting an immoral God. He projects modern sensibilities onto an ancient text, failing to recognize its context within a patriarchal society where such laws offered protection against false accusations and upheld societal values (however imperfectly by modern standards).

Scripture's answer: Deuteronomy 22:13-21 addresses the legal process and consequences for a man falsely accusing his new wife of not being a virgin. While the penalties for proven deception are severe (stoning), the law also provides heavy penalties for false accusation (flogging, fine, inability to divorce her), offering protection for women against slander within its ancient context. It must be understood within the broader framework of a covenant community seeking justice and order in a pre-modern world, not as a universal endorsement of all its practices (Deuteronomy 22:13-29).

How misused: Dillahunty consistently defines faith as 'blind belief' or 'gullibility,' explicitly misinterpreting Hebrews 11:1 ('faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen'). He asserts that this verse promotes belief without evidence, equating it to an abandonment of reason.

Scripture's answer: Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as a conviction and assurance regarding realities unseen and hoped for. It is not 'blind belief' but a settled confidence grounded in God's character, promises, and past actions (Hebrews 11:3-40). It implies a trust that goes beyond empirical observation but is not irrational or devoid of reasons. The 'evidence of things not seen' refers to the conviction produced by God's testimony and experience, even when the object of faith is not physically present.

How misused: Dillahunty misinterprets 'the love of money is the root of all evil' as an unhelpful hyperbole or an inaccurate ontological statement about the universal origin of evil. He contrasts it with biblical accounts of sin (e.g., Genesis), suggesting a contradiction.

Scripture's answer: 1 Timothy 6:10 is a practical warning against greed's destructive power in one's life, leading to various sins and spiritual ruin. It is not an ontological statement claiming greed is the sole origin of all evil in the universe (which the Bible attributes to rebellion against God). It speaks to the pervasive moral danger of covetousness for individuals (1 Timothy 6:6-9, Matthew 6:24).

How misused: Dillahunty uses 'Judges 1:19' ('The Lord was with Judah, but he could not drive out the people living in the plains, because they had iron chariots') to argue for a contradiction in God's omnipotence. He claims it implies God's power is limited by material conditions.

Scripture's answer: Judges 1:19, when understood in context, highlights Israel's *failure of faith* in fully trusting God's power and promises, rather than a limitation of God's power itself. The preceding verses show God actively helping Judah in other conquests. The passage reveals human disobedience and lack of complete reliance on God, not a divine inability to overcome iron chariots (Joshua 17:16-18, Psalm 20:7).

How misused: Dillahunty misinterprets 'I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me' as a blanket promise for accomplishing any physical feat. He then contrasts it with Judges 1:19 to argue for biblical contradictions regarding God's power.

Scripture's answer: Philippians 4:13 speaks of spiritual strength to endure all circumstances ('I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances... I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty,' Philippians 4:11-12), not a guarantee of worldly success or ability to overcome physical limitations. It refers to inner spiritual capacity through Christ for Christian living, not physical prowess (2 Corinthians 12:9-10).

How misused: Dillahunty misinterprets this passage, particularly the penalty for causing a miscarriage, to argue that the Bible does not consider a fetus to be a human life or person equal to a woman, thereby supporting abortion. He focuses on the monetary fine rather than the potential 'life for life' principle.

Scripture's answer: Exodus 21:22-25, often called the 'Law of Retribution,' states that if men strike a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but 'no harm follows,' the men shall be fined. However, if 'harm follows,' then 'life for life.' The debate is whether 'harm' refers to the woman or the child. Many scholars argue 'harm' includes the death of the unborn child, indicating its high value, consistent with other biblical passages affirming the sanctity of life in the womb (Psalm 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:5, Isaiah 49:1). Even if the fine implies a lesser legal status than a fully formed adult, it certainly does not imply the fetus is worthless tissue or that abortion is permissible.