Paul's Case for Christianity

The conversion of Saul of Tarsus provides an unanswerable argument for Christianity. Charles R. Erdman says, “The conversion of Saul of Tarsus . . . forms, indeed, one of the strongest arguments in support of belief in . . . the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (100). This affirmation that the conversion of Saul (Paul) “forms one of the strongest arguments” in support of the historic resurrection of Jesus and, as a result, is itself proof of the Christian faith was the thesis of George Lyttleton in his classic volume on the conversion of Paul first published anonymously in 1747 when Lyttleton was thirty-eight years of age. Lyttleton was educated at Oxford, entered Parliament, and advanced to the position of lord, commissioner of the treasury. He admitted there were those who tried to shake his faith in the Christian religion, and T. T. Biddolph said that he, along with Gilbert West, had imbibed the principle of skepticism (Campbell 353-54). However, Lyttleton examined the reality of Christianity, and he deserted his unbelief because of a thorough examination which terminated in the production of his well-known dissertation on Saul’s conversion (Mitchell 341-42).

Writing to Gilbert West, Lyttleton addressed his apologetical work on the conversion and apostleship of Paul. The opening words read as follows:

Sir,
In a late conversation we had together upon the subject of the Christian religion, I told you, that besides all the proofs of it which may be drawn from the prophecies of the Old Testament, from the necessary connection it has with the whole system of the Jewish religion, from the miracles of Christ, and from the evidence given of his resurrection by all the other Apostles; I thought the conversion and the Apostleship of St. Paul alone, duly considered, was of itself a demonstration sufficient to prove Christianity to be a Divine Revelation. (1-2)

   More recently, in his book, There Is a God, the late atheist- turned-theist, Antony Flew, wrote a fascinating record of how he changed his position on the greatest of all questions—Does God exist? He also addressed the question of whether God has provided any special revelation for humans. He wrote:

   Where do I go from here? . . . I am entirely open to learning more about the divine Reality. . . . [T]he question of whether the Divine has revealed itself in human history remains a valid topic of discussion. You cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence. . . . In both my antitheological books and various debates, I have taken issue with many of the claims of divine revelation or intervention.

   My current position . . . is more open to at least certain of these claims. In point of fact, I think that the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored and respected. . . . There is nothing like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. . . . If you’re wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat. (156-57, 185-86)

   The conversion of the person, Saul, as well as the content of the presentation of Christianity by Paul, provide sufficient evidence that Christianity is the one true religion. The historian Luke records the factual clarity of Saul’s conversion (Acts 9, 22, 26). Luke also provides historical information from which one can learn about the nature of the case for Christianity presented by Paul. It is this information from which one learns the implications concerning the case for the Christian faith, set forth by Paul, with which we are concerned in the following. Luke summarizes: “And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, ‘This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ’” (Acts 17:2-3, NASV). In this brief statement, one may infer that Paul’s case for Christianity was (1) rational, (2) biblical, (3) historical, and (4) Christological.

   Appearing before Agrippa, prior to embarking on his journey to Rome, where he presented his case in appeal to Caesar (cf. Acts 25:6-12, 21; 27:23-24; 28:16-19), Paul, himself, presented a remarkable summation of the case for Christianity. His presentation is called his “defense” (Acts 26:1, 24). The word is apelogeito. Robertson says, “This is the fullest of all Paul’s defenses. . . . [H]e refused to be silent and chose this opportunity, slim as it seemed, to get a fresh hearing for his own case and to present the claims of Christ to this influential man. His address is a masterpiece of noble apologetic” (Word Pictures 442-43, emp. added).

After reviewing the events that resulted in the cataclysmic change that took place in his life (Acts 26:9-18; cf. 22:3-21; 9:1- 20), Paul declared:

   Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance. For these reasons the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me. Therefore, having obtained help from God, to this day I stand, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come—“that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.” Now as he thus made his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are beside yourself! Much learning is driving you mad!” But he said, “I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak the words of truth and reason. For the king, before whom I also speak freely, knows these things; for I am convinced that none of these things escapes his attention, since this thing was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you do believe.” Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.” And Paul said, “I would to God that not only you, but also all who hear me today, might become both almost and altogether such as I am, except for these chains.” (Acts 26:19-29)

A Biblically Based Case

   The first foundational characteristic implied in the above passage concerning the truth of Christianity is that the case is a biblically based case. Paul said, “. . . I stand . . . saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come” (Acts 26:22). The authority of Christianity ultimately rests in the authority of the written Word—the Holy Scriptures. The knowledge of the authority of the incarnate Word (cf. John 1:1-3, 14) is essentially and absolutely connected to the authority of the biblical documents. The following statement from a 1960’s volume edited by Tenney well explains this aspect of the case for Christianity:

   . . . [T]he knowledge of Christ is derived only from the written Scriptures. While there is plain evidence that the record concerning Christ is “His story,” and has as much natural credence as any other sayings attributed to men who lived in the ancient world, the question of the reliability of the record is inseparable from the doctrine of inspiration.
. . . Apart from the doctrine of inspiration, an interpreter of the sayings of Christ would be without a genuinely authoritative text. Again and again in His teachings there are both direct statements and implications which assert the infallibility and divine origin of the Scriptures of the Old Testament and predict as well the inspiration of the New Testament. . . . The integrity of the Scriptures and the integrity of the person of Christ are inseparable. It is for this reason that denial of the inspiration of the Scripture when carried to its logical conclusion has led historically to the denial of the person of Jesus Christ and the reduction of His deity in some measure below the infinite standard attributed to Him in the Scriptures. (Walvoord 186-88)

   Paul’s case for Christianity rested in the Scriptures and their complete inspiration (cf. Acts 17:1-3; Romans 1:1-4; 16:25-27; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 4:6; 14:37; Ephesians 3:1-5; 1 Timothy 5:17-18; 2 Timothy 3:14-17, et al). The case stands or falls on this issue of the nature of the Bible. Is it the inspired and infallible Word of God or not? Paul did not set forth a detailed argument for the Bible being a production of God as he affirmed to Agrippa that he was “saying nothing but what the [Old Testament] prophets and Moses” had said would occur. However, he later implied the case for Christianity entails just such a sound argument (cf. Acts 26:25).

   Inspiration guarantees the veracity of the content of revelation. “It must be clearly understood that the battle being waged against the inspiration of the Bible is . . . an assault upon historic Christianity and its foundation, Jesus Christ. . . . Scripture is recognized to be the supreme bulwark of the historic Christian Faith” (Finlayson 234). The case for the truthfulness of Christianity must ultimately be made from the Bible itself. The closing words of Paul in his epistle to the Romans implies that he claimed the case for Christianity presented by him is biblically based: “Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation . . . made manifest . . . by the prophetic Scriptures” (Romans 16:25-26).

A Christologically Centered Case

   In the second place, Paul’s presentation of the case for Christianity included at its center “that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:23). The Expositor’s Greek Testament connects verses 22 and 23 with the explanation that Paul’s message was that which is “most certain from the authority of Scripture, ‘how that Christ’ . . . ‘must suffer’ . . . ‘that he first by the resurrection of the dead,’ . . . [would give] assurance . . . that in Him . . . all the O.T. prophecies of the blessings of light and life, to Jew and Gentile alike, were to be fulfilled” (Knowling 509-10). Here are the facts of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ “like three piers supporting a wonderful bridge, that spans the arch from the shores of time to the shores of eternity” (Hardeman 40).

   The notable thing about the Christian exegesis of the Scriptures is that they began with the person of Jesus himself, who, they were convinced, was God’s final Word to man, and sought in the Scriptures (the acknowledged oracles of God) ways of understanding his significance and relating it to the whole of redemptive history. . . . They preached a person. Their message was frankly Christocentric. Indeed, often enough the gospel is referred to simply as Jesus or Christ: “He preached Jesus to him.”

To the Jews Jesus was the fulfillment of God’s work in history: to the Gentiles Jesus marked the end of God’s apparent disinterest. Jesus the man, Jesus crucified, Jesus risen, Jesus exalted to the place of power in the universe from which he would return in judgment at the end of the age, Jesus who meantime was present among his people in the Spirit . . . This, it seems, was the main burden of what they taught about Jesus. There was little about his life, if we may judge from the Pauline epistles and the speeches in Acts; little about his teaching and his miracles. The stress all fell on his cross and resurrection and his present power and significance. The risen Christ was unambiguously central in their message. (Green 86, 150)

   This single evidence of the presentation of Jesus Christ—His person and His work—within the pages of the Bible is sufficient to warrant the deduction the Bible is a production of God, and the deduction that Jesus Christ is beyond human invention and, therefore, is divine or deity (God).

   It was utterly impossible that the Christ of these pages could have been . . . the literary invention of His contemporaries. . . . The resurrection of Christ . . . clinches the . . . argument . . . [the resurrection] was the central point . . . the edge of their appeal. Without the all-embracing truth Christianity cannot stand. (Blaiklock and Blaiklock 58, 70)

   Paul’s presentation of Christianity included that “He [Jesus] would be the first to rise from the dead” (Acts 26:23). He “having been raised from the dead, dies no more” (Romans 6:9). This claim was (is) unique. N. T. Wright wrote,

. . .[I]nstead of resurrection being something that was simply going to happen to all God’s people at the end, the early Christians said it had happened to one person in advance. Now, no first-century Jew, as far as we know, believed there would be one person raised ahead of everybody else. So that’s a radical innovation, but they all believed that. (199)

An Intellectually Sound Case

   Luke continues his account of these events by saying, “Now as he [Paul] thus made his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, ‘Paul, you are beside yourself! Much learning is driving you mad!’ But he [Paul] said, “I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak the words of truth and reason” (Acts 26:24-25). Paul was a good thinker having been taught by a great teacher, Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Professor Flew called Paul “a first-class intellectual” (157, 185-86). Paul “gained a thoroughly trained mind. He was all in all the most gifted man of his time, leaving out of view, of course, Jesus of Nazareth. [H]is brilliant intellect had received really magnificent training.” (Robertson, Epochs 19).

   It appears that Festus believed Paul had received a rather extensive education (cf. Acts 26:24). The word translated learning refers to “the body of information acquired in school or from the study of writing, learning, education, elementary knowledge and higher education” (Rogers and Rogers 304-05). Furthermore, Paul was honest. Swinburne says, “It is difficult to read those [Paul’s] letters without getting the impression that he was a very honest and conscientious person” (92).

   “Paul was very concerned with being rational. He defended his commitment to Jesus Christ and the Christian faith with the affirmation that his position was rational. . . . What he meant was that the Christian faith is ‘intellectually sound’” (Pugh, Joy 62). The word translated reason (v. 25, NKJV) “denotes . . . ‘the rational’ in the sense of what is intellectually sound . . .” (Luck 1097). The case for Christianity does not fetter thought. It invites investigation. It honors the law of rationality (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:21).

The following is taken from my book, Life’s Greatest Acclamation (2006). Documentation provided is from the original sources consulted:

   Professor George John Romanes (1848-1894) was a passionate biological scientist. He was a student and friend of Charles Darwin and a professor at Oxford. Through the influence of Darwinism he lost his faith in God and, as Gore observed, “his mind moved rapidly and sharply into a position of reasoned skepticism about the existence of God at all” (Thoughts 9). In 1876, he published anonymously a work entitled A Candid Examination of Theism in which he denied the existence of God. The authorship of this work did not become known until after Romanes’ death in 1894. Nearly two years following Romanes’ death (May 23, 1894), J. W. McGarvey wrote an essay, “The Darkness of Atheism” (April 11, 1896) in which he cited a passage from Romanes that he (McGarvey) said “reads like the wail of a lost soul” (140).

   I am not ashamed to confess that with this virtual negation of God the universe to me has lost its soul of loveliness. . . . [W]hen at times I think, as think at times I must, of the appalling contrast between the hallowed glory of that creed which once was mine, and the lonely mystery of existence as now I find it,--at such times I shall ever feel it impossible to avoid the sharpest pang of which my nature is susceptible. (Thoughts 28)

   Sometime before 1889, Romanes wrote three essays that were unpublished at the time of writing. One of these was A Candid Examination of Religion, which was a critique of his former work, A Candid Examination of Theism. In the later work (Religion), he says, “It will be shown that in many respects the negative conclusions reached in the former essay have been greatly modified by the results of maturer thought as now presented in the second” (99). Romanes had reclaimed his faith in God, and wrote:

   I know from experience the intellectual distractions of scientific research, philosophical speculation, and artistic pleasures; but am also aware that even when all are taken together and well sweetened to taste . . . the whole concoction is but as high confectionery to a starving man . . . take it then as unquestionably true that this whole negative side of the subject proves a vacuum in the soul of man which nothing can fill save faith in God. (Thoughts 150-52)

   In The Life and Letters of George John Romanes, written and edited by his wife E. Romanes, there is the following significant statement that speaks volumes concerning the intellectual failure of unbelief: “When the Shadow of Death lay on him, and the dread messenger was drawing near, and he looked back on his short life, he could reproach himself only for what he called sins of the intellect, mental arrogance, undue regard for intellectual supremacy” (352).

  Romanes died on Wednesday, May 23, 1894, at the young age of 46. On the preceding Thursday he had said, “I have now come to see that faith is intellectually justifiable. It is Christianity or nothing” (349).

  There is a real sense in which these words sum up the intellectual soundness of Paul’s case for Christianity.

An Historically Evaluated Case

  Continuing the response to Festus and his defense of Christianity, Paul says, “For the king [Agrippa], before whom I also speak freely, knows these things. . . . [N]one of these things escapes his attention, since this thing was not done in a corner” (Acts 26:26). Since the case for Christianity is based on historical events, and not solely on religious ideas, the case can be investigated and evaluated as history.

  E. M. Blaiklock, the classical historian, who held the Chair of Classics at the University of Auckland for twenty-one years, called the resurrection of Christ “perhaps the best authenticated fact in ancient history” (70). F. F. Bruce wrote that in the “summary of the evidence for the reality of Christ’s resurrection, Paul shows a sound instinct for the necessity of marshalling personal testimony in support of what might well appear an incredible assertion” (19). Commenting on this very situation of Paul’s defense before Agrippa, Wilbur Smith wrote:

  Paul asked Agrippa, “Why should it be thought incredible that God should raise the dead?” and then in that powerful apologetic he dwells more on the fact of and evidence for the Resurrection than on any other aspect of the Christian faith, even declaring it was prophesied in the Old Testament (Acts 26:6-8, 22-23). The preaching of this truth established the Christian faith. This is what shook the world; this is what won great multitudes of Jews to Christianity; this is what brought about the conversion of St. Paul. On the Damascus road he saw the ascended Lord and he knew God had raised Him from the dead, and therefore he declared Him to be God’s only begotten Son. Obviously, then, one cannot explain away the Resurrection by saying the Jews didn’t believe it. Many of them did. Indeed, it is the very thing to which those who became Christians tenaciously clung, the miracle which they spoke of incessantly. Where did they get this conviction? From historical fact. (29-30)

An Evangelistically Purposed Case

  Finally, Paul made a personal appeal to King Agrippa that evidences the ultimate purpose of his defense. Paul said, “King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you do believe” (Acts 26:27). What was Paul seeking to do? Robertson says Paul “was the man of action whirling over the Roman Empire . . . with no less a purpose than to bring the Roman Empire to the feet of Christ” (Epochs 1). Agrippa responded to Paul in such fashion that implies he knew what the purpose of Paul was. “Then Agrippa said to Paul, ‘You almost persuade me to become a Christian” (Acts 26:28, NKJV). Whether one follows the preceding translation, or accepts other recent renderings of verse 28 such as the English Standard Version (2001), the purpose of Paul remains obvious. The ESV renders Agrippa’s response as “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” Paul defended the case for Christianity as reported in Acts 26:19-29, because he knew it to be true. However, his ultimate purpose was to present the case in such fashion that all who heard him would also come to acknowledge the truth of Christianity and be obedient to the same. That such was Paul’s motive is clearly seen to be the case from verse 29. Here he implies that his desire is that each one who heard him would become a Christian. In response to Agrippa Paul said, “. . . I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains” (Acts 26:29).

   There is a crucial relationship between apologetics (the defense of Christianity) and evangelism (soul winning). As Paul made his defense (apelogeito) his goal was to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God . . .” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5, ESV) so that individuals (Agrippa included) would bring their thinking captive to the obedience of Christ. Since “those who do not know God and . . . do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus . . . will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord” (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9, NASV), it surely is the case that a true presentation of the case for Christianity, like that set forth by Paul, ultimately seeks to see people delivered (saved) from the awesome fate of eternal lostness. One may observe this in the various speeches or sermons delivered by the apostles and other early evangelists and recorded in Acts. There is a sense in which each of these speeches, or sermons, is apologetical in its basic approach. The ultimate aim was evangelistic—convert the hearers—but the means to this end was apologetical—the rational presentation of evidence that led to the conclusion that Jesus is both Lord and Christ (cf. Acts 2:22-36; 17:1-3; 26:22-29, et al.).

   “Primitive evangelism was by no means mere proclamation and exhortation; it included able intellectual argument, skillful study of the scriptures, careful, closely reasoned teaching and patient argument. . . . If it had had an inadequate intellectual basis it would not have last long” (Green 160). And, seeing all of this so wonderfully balanced in the case for Christianity set forth by Paul, it is then measured out with a spirit of genuine love and concern for all who heard it. Can we not feel the passion in Paul’s heart as we read the words he spoke with his voice?—“I would to God that . . . all who hear me . . . might become such as I am—except for these chains” (emp. added). And how did he ultimately become what he was? He answers, “But by the grace of God I am what I am . . .” (1 Corinthians 15:10). A proper defense of the Christian faith does not entail any element of a mean or unkind spirit. Rather, it has been said that the apologist needs a lump in the throat and a tear in the eye (cf. Jeremiah 9:1; Luke 19:41).

   For more than forty years, I have tried hard to study the case for Christianity. During this time, I have not heard, or read after anyone who lived during the twentieth century, or thus far in the twenty-first century, whom I thought was more skillful as a Christian apologist than the late Thomas B. Warren (1920-2000). Warren was an extremely gifted thinker, and yet his intellectual abilities did not, in my judgment, exceed the loving concern and kindness he manifested in presentation of the case for Christianity. As an example of this, I cite from his 1978 debate on the existence of God with atheistic professor, Dr. Wallace I. Matson, from the University of California at Berkeley. In the conclusion to this debate, I heard Dr. Warren make one of the kindest, most loving appeals on behalf of Christianity, which I have heard (or read). Before thousands in attendance, he addressed Dr. Matson and said:

. . . I assure you, Dr. Matson, that . . . I try to preach that every man ought to love every other man on this earth; that if there is any answer to the racism we find in the world, it is in the religion of Jesus Christ; that the gospel has the great purpose of drawing all men into one body, that we may all be one in Christ, no matter whether you are from Africa, Europe, China, South America, or wherever. Paul makes this clear in Ephesians 2:13-16. And to intimate that we Christians do not love those who live in adultery or in homosexuality or that we do not love those who are even guilty of murder is to simply and flagrantly misrepresent us. The fact that we point out that these things are sin and that those who live in willful disobedience and who die in that condition will be lost, does not mean that we do not love them!

   It was the same Lord who said to the woman taken in adultery, “Go thy way and sin no more,” who said in Matthew 7: 14, 15, “Enter ye in at the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth unto destruction and many are there that enter in thereby. But narrow is the gate and strait the way that leadeth unto life and few there be that find it.”

   . . . And the Lord Jesus Christ who loved every person, even Wallace Matson, who was aware of his unhappy childhood, is aware of his problems even today, who loves him in spite of all that he has said against Him and who would forgive him—even as he would have forgiven Judas, if Judas had come to Jesus in penitence and, in effect, fallen down and said, “O Lord forgive me, I know I have been wrong.” Our Lord would have been as willing to put His arm around Judas, in loving kindness and forgiveness, as He did around Peter. Peter denied Him; Judas betrayed Him. But Peter repented! And whose sermon do we have recorded in the second chapter of Acts but that of Peter? Dr. Matson, that’s Christianity!

   We are brought together in one body, to love each other, because we love Christ. . . . There is no way that two people can come nearer to Christ without coming nearer to each other! How deeply sorry I feel for every person who has rejected God, for every person who has rejected the gift of God, for every person who in spite of the fact that Jesus said “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart and ye shall find rest unto your souls.”

   I have had a great deal of tragedy happen in my life, but I’m not here to tell you about me, but about Him who died for you, that you might live forever. (343-45)

   Here is the case for Christianity presented after the pattern of that seen in Paul: Biblically based, Christologically centered, intellectually sound, historically evaluated, and evangelistically purposed. Its base is firm. Its center is beyond human invention. Its soundness is unanswerable. Its facts are incontrovertible. Its purpose involves the incomparable. Here is truth and rationality in beautiful balance. “But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him . . .” (2 Timothy 1:12). Blessed assurance! The case for Christianity will never fly from its firm base. The solid foundation of God stands (2 Timothy 2:19). Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8).

~

   Charles C. Pugh III is Executive Director of Warren Christian Apologetics Center. He received his training in Philosophy of Religion and Apologetics studying under Thomas B. Warren at Harding Graduate School of Religion. He has studied, taught and written in the field of Apologetics for 40 years. Mr. Pugh may be contacted at director@ warrenapologetics.org.

Works Cited

Blaiklock, E. M., and D. A. Blaiklock. Is It-Or Isn’t It? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1968.

Bruce, F. F. Paul & Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974.

Campbell, J. W. “Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul.” The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. 1917. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970.

Erdman, Charles R. The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1932.

Finlayson, R. A. “Contemporary Ideas of Inspiration.” Revelation and the Bible. Ed. Carl F. H. Henry. 1954. Grand Rapids: 1974.

Flew, Antony. There Is a God. New York: HarperOne, 2007.

Green, Michael. Evangelism in the Early Church. 1970. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

Hardeman, N. B. One Dozen Sermons. N.p.: Hardeman, 1956.

Knowling, R. J. “The Acts of the Apostles.” The Expositor’s Greek Testament. Vol. 2. New York: Doran, n.d.

Luck, Ulrich. “ .” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Ed. Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 7. 1971. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Lyttleton, George Lord. Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul in a Letter to Gilbert West, Esq. London: Rivington, 1799.

McGarvey, John William. Short Essays in Biblical Criticism. 1910. Erlanger: Faith and Facts, reprint.

Mitchell, Graham. The Young Man’s Guide against Infidelity. Edinburgh: Whyte, 1848.

Pugh, Charles C. III. Life’s Greatest Acclamation. New Martinsville: Threefold, 2006.

- - -. That Your Joy May Be Full. New Martinsville: Threefold, 2007.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Epochs in the Life of Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2nd printing 1976.

- - -. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1930.

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr., and Cleon L. Rogers III. The New Linguistic  and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

Romanes, E. The Life and Letters of George John Romanes. London: Longmans, 1896.

Romanes, George John. Thoughts on Religion. 5th ed. London: Longmans, 1895.

Smith, Wilbur M. Chats from a Minister’s Library. Boston: Wilde, 1951.

Swinburne, Richard. Was Jesus God? Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008.

Walvoord, John F. “The Pragmatic Confirmation of Scriptural Authority.” The Bible—The Living Word of Revelation. Ed. Merrill C. Tenney.

1968. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.

Warren, Thomas B., and Wallace I. Matson. The Warren-Matson Debate on the Existence of God. Jonesboro: National Christian, 1978.

Wright, N. T. “The Self-Revelation of God in Human History: A Dialogue on Jesus with N. T. Wright.” There Is a God. New York: HarperOne, 2007.