Introduction
Christians are often confronted with accusations against their beliefs, practices, or character. Some accusers may cite 1 Peter 3:15–16, where believers are urged to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear; having a good conscience.” Yet the same passage also describes the hostile intent of those who “speak evil” and attempt to shame Christians. This white paper examines (1) the biblical duty to explain one’s faith and conduct, (2) the manner in which such explanations are to be offered, and (3) the point at which believers are no longer obligated to respond to critics who are not genuinely seeking truth.
1. The Duty to Give an Answer
1.1. Rooted in Hope, Not Argument
The command in 1 Peter 3:15 focuses not on defending every personal action but on explaining the hope within us—the gospel of Jesus Christ and the believer’s confidence in His promises. The believer is called to testify of the reason for faith, not to endlessly debate every charge or satisfy every demand for explanation.
1.2. Biblical Examples of Answering
Paul before Felix and Agrippa (Acts 24–26): Paul gave reasoned defenses of his faith, pointing consistently back to Christ. Jesus before Pilate (John 18:33–37): Jesus bore witness to the truth, but He did not attempt to argue Pilate into belief. Stephen before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7): He gave testimony rooted in Scripture, even though his audience remained hostile.
The pattern is consistent: testimony is offered, but belief remains the responsibility of the hearer.
1.3. Character of the Answer
The duty to answer is not simply about content but about manner:
With meekness and fear (1 Peter 3:15). The believer’s demeanor is to reflect humility before God and respect for truth. With a good conscience (v. 16). An answer must come from integrity, not hypocrisy.
Thus, the believer’s duty is fulfilled when the truth is faithfully and humbly shared, regardless of whether it is received.
2. The Limits of Obligation to Answer
2.1. When Critics Refuse to Hear
Scripture consistently limits the believer’s duty when facing those unwilling to listen:
Matthew 7:6: “Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before pigs.” This establishes that not all audiences are entitled to repeated explanations. Titus 3:10–11: After warning a divisive person once or twice, the believer is told to “have nothing more to do with him.” Proverbs 23:9: “Do not speak in the ears of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words.”
These passages show that once truth has been explained, the believer is not bound to continue answering those hardened against it.
2.2. Distinguishing Honest Seekers from Accusers
The believer must discern between:
Sincere inquirers who seek understanding (e.g., the Bereans in Acts 17:11). Hostile accusers who aim only to condemn (e.g., the Pharisees who continually tested Jesus).
The duty of explanation applies to the first; disengagement may be necessary with the second.
2.3. Guarding Against Endless Strife
Paul warns against “foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless” (Titus 3:9). Endless answering can itself become unfaithful if it distracts from genuine ministry and burdens the believer with fruitless disputes.
3. Practical Guidance for Believers
3.1. Fulfill the Obligation Once
A clear, faithful explanation of one’s faith and conduct, offered in humility and sincerity, fulfills the biblical duty. If the critic rejects it, the responsibility lies with them, not the believer.
3.2. Refuse to Be Manipulated by Accusations
Accusers may misuse 1 Peter 3:16 as a tool of coercion, demanding endless justifications. But the verse speaks to voluntary readiness, not compulsory argumentation. A believer is not bound to answer every repeated charge.
3.3. Set Boundaries with Critics
Following Christ’s own example, believers can:
Answer briefly, then remain silent (Matthew 27:14). Withdraw from fruitless debates (2 Timothy 2:23–24). Commit judgment to God (1 Peter 2:23).
3.4. Witness Through Conduct
Peter emphasizes that maintaining a good conscience and blameless behavior is itself a form of answer. Even if words are rejected, a faithful life will bear witness before God and man.
Conclusion
The biblical call to “be ready always to give an answer” does not mean submitting to endless accusations or fruitless arguments. It means testifying to the hope of the gospel with humility, integrity, and respect. Once the believer has faithfully explained the truth, the responsibility shifts to the hearer. If critics refuse to listen or believe, Scripture gives permission—even instruction—to disengage. The believer’s ultimate duty is not to persuade every opponent, but to remain faithful to Christ, keeping a good conscience and bearing witness in both word and deed.
Edge Induced Cohesion 
“Repeated” questioning: This does not really become a factor until the Christian has answered the question at least once. But then, refusal to answer is the way of Armstrongism.
LikeLike
Do you Odd. The rest of my reply did not go through before. Happened the time or two before, as I recall. So this is Part Two.
“Fools”: Who is the bigger fool — the former cultist warning a current cultist of his former religion with objective facts debunking the cult; or that cultist who follows a deceased cult-leader/failed “apostle,” despite disagreeing with much of the apostle’s ministerial theology and recognizing the facts presented demonstrating how the cult leader fails his own cult’s standards for a “true” minister?
Curious question, actually.
In any case, you do make a point that our discussions and sparring have produced all that they will produce. That said, YOU DID FINALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION, ALBEIT PASSIVELY (no rejection received), and so I will go with the following composed by yours truly as explaining why, despite what you know, you remain in your traditional Armstrongist fellowship:
“I believe and hold the traditional eschatological and soteriological theology of Armstrongism, along with a preponderance of traditional nuances thereof. Regarding my own disagreement with numerous specific theological and practitional teachings of UCG, including quite notably the traditional Armstrongist ‘True Church’ Apostolic Succession theory and eschewance of Civic Duty still held and practiced by UCG: 1. I will not at this time accept the case that the former specific disagreement (and attendant factors) ought to disqualify a church from being freely attended. And 2. Notwithstanding any concerns or patriotism which I may hold toward my country, etc., I will not at this time accept the case that the latter specific disagreement sufficiently compromises the ability to perform the biblical duty in that regard to compel separation, not even separation to a similar ACOG superior on that matter. Thus, I see no compelling reason to leave the Armstrong fellowship tradition, nor the WCG offshoot of my youth and my family.”
Again, let it be clear to all readers that the above was composed by me, and not by Nathan. This was emailed to him many hours prior to the posting of this blog post, and no objection to it was received.
Proverbs 20:3 says that it is honorable for a man to stop striving. And so, since I have indeed received my answer and left my message here, I will leave you and your other reader to your blog here. Kind of a shame. If I hadn’t already, I was going to suggest you address the “Tartarian Empire” conspiracy theory. I was curious if you could do so without resorting to Armstrongist prophetic schematics. But alas, it’s a small loss. (If you do address it, the associated “Vanilla Skies” factor can be quite thought-provoking.)
You have seen the facts about my former/your current religion — the succession fail and the 1960 and 1979 articles where Armstrong asserts control over your very beliefs. And so much more. I will offer no parting judgment here. Honest and objective people can do that for themselves. But ultimately, as with all of us, you will be accountable for what you know.
ARMSTRONGISM DEBUNKED: https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2025/03/reference-to-followers-of-armstrongism.html?m=1
LikeLike