By Spencer D Gear
Why is it necessary for us in the 21st century to have to address a topic such as, “Can You Trust Your Bible?” We’ve had the New Testament (NT) for close to 2,000 years and the first books of the Old Testament [OT] (Pentateuch, i.e. Genesis -Deuteronomy & Job) for about 3,500 years.  Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Malachi, 1 & 2 Chronicles concluded the OT canon in approx. 400-500BC]. We’ll consider some reasons soon.This is a 3-part series that will not deal with:
- Which English translation is the best? That would be an interesting topic. We’ll be considering the trustworthiness of the OT and NT in the original manuscripts.
- A discussion, except in passing, on how the books came to be selected for the OT and the NT. That’s the subject of the canonicity of the Bible and it will not be our focus.
A. What are some reasons why we need to defend the Bible today?
For me, these are prominent reasons, but they are not in order of priority:
1. There’s a prominent Western cultural reason. When you turn on the TV or radio, or read the newspaper at Easter and Christmas times particularly (but it could happen at other times), you will be fed loads of doubt about the Bible and its truthfulness. In fact, much of this doubt is being driven by some from within the church who do not believe what the Bible says. It’s the agenda of some liberal church men and women. We’ll look at examples as we go along.
2. This mass media message is impacting on regular people in the church and we must provide answers for all, but especially for young Christians. Shortly, I’ll raise an example of a person who came to me very distraught after one of those TV programs. We live in a mass media culture — and that includes the worldwide web.
Other worldviews can drown us and we need to provide reasons for the Christian faith, especially for our young people.
It was 500 years ago that the leader of the Protestant reformation, MARTIN LUTHER, said this:
“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every point of the Truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that point attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is tested. To be steady in all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if the soldier flinches at that point.” 
That observation is as relevant as if Luther preached it today. I’d rather be expounding the Scriptures for the people of God, but the Bible is under attack and we must provide answers for the people of God. It would be a disgrace if I flinched at this point.
3. There’s another very important reason why we must address a subject such as, “Can You Trust Your Bible?” The Bible requires that we provide a defence of the faith in every age of history. We desperately need it today, but we evangelicals (my commitment) have become lazy. Apologetics is not a prominent theological discipline in most of our Bible training colleges.
I Peter 3:15: “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (NIV).
That phrase in the NIV, “give an answer” is too weak. It is better translated as in the ESV, “make a defense.” Make an “apologia” for the Christian faith. It’s too bad that our English word “apology,” derived from this word, gives the wrong idea for what this wonderful Greek word means for all believers. “Give an answer”, means “give a defense” of the Christian faith — all of us need to be prepared to do that.
We need to follow Paul, the apostle’s, example on Mars Hill (the Areopagus), Athens, that is recorded in Acts 17:22ff. It was there that he used the Greek’s “unknown god” as a common ground (an identified starting point) for defending the faith (v. 23).
According to Acts 17:17, before Paul got to the Areopagus, he “reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.” How we need Christians to be equipped for that today.
“Thou shalt not think,” is not one of the 10 commandments. I hear Christian parents saying to their teenagers about the Bible: “Accept it by faith. God requires you to just believe it. Faith is the answer to your doubt. Quit asking questions about the Bible. Just accept it.”
It is my prayer that after this 4-part series, you will never say that again. Here’s why:
a. You are probably familiar with what the Bible says about its own inspiration, but let’s look at these verses again:
2 Timothy 3:16-17:
All Scripture is inspired by God and [is] profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (NASB)
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (NIV)
Psalm 119:142, 151
Your righteousness is righteous forever, and your law is true.
But you are near, O Lord, and all your commandments are true. (ESV)
Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your law is truth.
You are near, O Lord, and all Your commandments are truth. (NASB)
It will not do to say, “Accept the Bible by faith.” We need some verification to prove that the Bible is the trustworthy word from the Lord almighty.
Here is a student’s posting on a Christian seminary’s cyber bulletin board:
Dear Tom, 
I agree that they were fallible humans, but can an infallible God speak to us, give us a message to give to others, and still keep that message infallible. The whole question of infallibility of scripture is one of faith.
I won’t speak for anyone but me. If the outcome of eternity is based on the relationship I have with God, [it] requires that God give me the message in a way I can understand, and trust. If you look at other historical writings, and how the OT and NT were written over thousands of years, by so many different writers, God’s hand must have been on it. Greater minds than mine have argued this question, and I have to stand with those who hold to infallibility.
For me, when the church Canonized the scripture, it wasn’t so we would worship, but so would have a final authority. Something that we could all agree on. As I look on every church body that has pulled away for scripture as final authority, they have fallen away from belief, till the point that some do not believe in God at all (Bishop Pike). The struggle to canonize scripture, was long and hard, yes man did it but I believe God’s hand [was] there helping. Now can I prove anything I just said? No! But that’s the wonderful thing about faith, I don’t have to. If you don’t hold to scripture as the final authority, than you have to look to the mind, a logic. Logic will lead you to humanism or to a God who wants to speak to us. Francis A. Schaeffer’s book, He is there and He is not silent, is a very good book explaining this process.
“The whole question of infallibility of scripture is one of faith,” says this seminary student. He even believes that by accepting the Bible as infallible by faith, one does not need to “prove anything.” Really? What is this student up to? Is this leap of faith what God requires of any Christian believer to believe the authoritative Bible? Surely not!
B.The focus of this 3-part series
I’m grateful for the short period of time I studied under one of the world’s leading Christian apologists, Dr John Warwick Montgomery. I am deeply indebted to his approach to defending the faith and establishing the trustworthiness of the Bible, especially the Gospel records. He taught me this outline (with some changes) and this is where we are going in this series.
A criticism that is often made against the Bible is that Christians argue in circles. The charge goes like this: Christians claim that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and to prove it, they quote a passage from the Bible that says so. This kind of argumentation is known as begging the question or circular reasoning. Nothing is proved by it. It is based on assuming something is true, but using that assumption as fact to prove another assumption.
But there is no need to do this. Instead of assuming the Bible to be the Word of God, we can begin by:
1. Demonstrating that the Scriptures are reliable historical documents.
2. In these documents, Jesus claims to be God in human flesh, and he bases His claim on His forthcoming resurrection.
3. We examine the evidence for the resurrection in this historic document and find that the arguments overwhelmingly support the fact that Christ actually rose from the dead. This demonstrates that He is the unique Son of God that He claimed to be. If He is God, then He speaks with authority on all matters.
4. Since Christ is God, then He speaks the truth concerning the absolute divine authority of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17-18; 15:1-3) and the soon-to-be written New Testament.
[Jesus “promised His disciples, who either wrote or had control over the writing of the New Testament books, that the Holy Spirit would bring all things back to their remembrance (John 14:26).” So, “we can insist, with sound and accurate logic, that the Bible is God’s word. This is not circular reasoning. It is establishing certain facts and basing conclusions on the sound logical outcome of these facts. The case for Christianity can be established by ordinary means of historical investigation.” 
Let’s follow this method.
C.By way of explanation, I need to say that I will be using tests to establish the trustworthiness of Scripture from within the Bible and from outside the Bible.
Don’t be alarmed by this suggestion. I have not sold out to theological liberalism in my view of the authority of Scripture. I have known Christians to get quite upset with me when I say that I will be using tests from outside of the Bible to prove the accuracy and trustworthiness of the Bible. It’s necessary to do it this way.
Consider this: Those who study the original languages of the Bible (Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew) have to do this all the time. Nowhere in the Bible do you find the rules of grammar and syntax for understanding Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek — the original languages of the Bible. I had to learn my Greek grammar to interpret the Bible from outside of the Bible.
For example, we know that the Bible says, “God so loved the world” (John 3:16) and not “the world so loved God” because of the Greek grammar that dictates this translation into English. The Bible in the original language has to be interpreted by learning Greek grammar and syntax from outside the Bible.
We have to do the same kind of thing when we set out to prove the trustworthiness of any historical document, including the Bible.
D.An examination of some writings from history
Take the biography of John Macarthur (John Macarthur , M. H. Ellis), not the American preacher, but a famous Australian (1767-1834). MacArthur was the “squire” responsible for bringing “to Australia the first authenticated pure merinos [sheep] and persuaded the British Privy Council that wool would be the basis of future greatness of the colony of New South Wales,” that became Australia.  The author of the biography says, “Though the author has worked as far as possible from original documents, he has applied his reference notes wherever it has been feasible to a source more accessible to the ordinary student.” How do I know these original documents by John MacArthur are reliable and trustworthy?
In the book, The Five Gospels, we read:
“Beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you . . . Eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him.” How do we decide if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are 82% wrong with the words of Jesus OR the 4 Gospels provide an accurate picture of the life and death of Jesus Christ? 
In The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus , we read that Josephus was a wealthy Jew who wrote this history in which he “tried to justify Judaism to the cultured Romans by his writings.”  He also mentioned James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ. . .”  Is Josephus writing reliable history? If so, how do we know?
Then I pick up my Bible and read, “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17). Also, “All Scripture is God-breathed . . .” (2 Tim. 3:16).
Is God’s Word truth and reliable OR are we dealing with mythmaking where 82% of what Jesus said is WRONG, as the Jesus Seminar claims? How can be test these documents to see if they are trustworthy?
Most of you will never read these books by the Fellows of the Jesus Seminary, but the content of them is driving what you are hearing on the mass media today about Jesus.
If I say that I believe the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God, and without error in all that it affirms, no news reporter will show up to interview me. But the response is totally different if a group of high profile theologians rolls the coloured beads to decide which of the words of Jesus are true. They come up with only 18% of his words in the Gospels are what he said and the rest are inventions by the early church. You guessed it — the mass media people are there in droves. And that’s exactly what is happening. You watch what happens around Easter and Christmas!
We must have answers. Our young people must not be allowed to drown in this sea of attack on the word of God at school and university. We have good answers and we must provide them.
E.Let’s Vote on Jesus
Starting in 1985, a group of Bible scholars got together to decide if the words of Jesus in the Gospels were authentic. “At the close of debate on each agenda item, Fellows of the Seminar [that’s what they were called themselves –Fellows, male & female] voted, using colored beads to indicate the degree of authenticity of Jesus’ words. Dropping colored beads into a box became the trademark of the [Jesus] Seminar . . .”
This is what they found:
The Jesus Seminar colour code roughly translates to:
Red bead: That’s Jesus!
Pink bead: Sure sounds like Jesus.
Grey bead: Well, maybe.
Black bead: There’s been some mistake.
[Funk and Hoover, The Five Gospels (Macmillan, 1993, p. 37)]
- A Red slip meant that “Jesus undoubtedly said this or something like it.” In brief: “That’s Jesus.”
- A Pink slip indicated that “Jesus probably said something like this.” In brief: “Sure sounds like Jesus.”
- Grey: “Jesus did not say this, but the ideas contained in it are close to his own.” In brief: “Well, maybe.”
- A Black slip meant “Jesus did not say this; it represents the perspective or content of a later or different tradition.” In brief: “There’s been some mistake.”
After tabulating the results of their voting, the Jesus Seminar asserts, “Eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him.”
The Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount [Matthew chs. 5-7] took a hiding in the balloting.
- “Blessed are the peacemakers” was given a miss.
- “Blessed are the meek” received “six timid red and pink votes out of 30 cast.”
- Overall, only three out of twelve of the blessings and woes of the Beatitudes from Matthew’s Gospel were accepted as authentic.
We could ignore this as a party game by liberal scholars, but it is an attitude that is often found in evangelical churches and assemblies. We have to battle a tendency to accept the Scriptures on our terms and not on God’s.
If we are to be Christians of substance, I am convinced that we need to accept the Bible in its entirety as the Word of God. How can we do that? Listen to some thinking from those associated with the church.
F.What some theologians are saying
Some theologians are leading the push to make Jesus fit into the trendy modern mold of what our secular, postmodern culture wants.
1.Former Episcopalian (Anglican) Bishop John Shelby Spong (USA)
In his book, Born of a Woman [please note, the book is not titled, Born of a Virgin, and that is deliberate], Spong makes the outlandish suggestion that Mary, the mother of Jesus, conceived Jesus illegitimately. The early church as a cover-up invented the virgin birth.]
In talking about the birth story of Jesus in Luke 2, Spong asks: “Is it true? . . The answer is, of course, no! . . There was no biologically literal virgin birth. . . In all probability Jesus was born in Nazareth in a very normal way either as the child of Mary and Joseph, or else he was an illegitimate child that Joseph validated by acknowledging him as Joseph’s son. All that can be stated definitely is that the echoes of the status of illegitimacy appear to be far stronger in the text then the suggestion that Jesus was Mary’s child by Joseph.”
a Barbara Thiering, lecturer emeritus, Sydney University School of Divinity, Sydney, Australia, in her book, Jesus: The Man [16a], claims that Jesus didn’t die on the cross. He was poisoned and then revived. He married and raised three children.
A website supporting Dr. Thiering’s writings, states that she “has interpreted the New Testament using her expertise derived from the Dead Sea Scrolls to prove that Jesus
- lived to around 76 (last reference to him was in Ephesus, AD 70)”;
- “had three children: Tamar (a girl), Jesus (Justus) (his heir), and a second son”;
- “was married to Mary Magdalene and, after a divorce, later to Lydia”;
- “with Lydia, he had a second daughter.”
“Joseph, the king of the Jewish David line, and Mary conceived their son Joshua (Jesus) before their first wedding. This was outside the strict rules of the Qumran group at that time and, as such, Jesus would be regarded as an illegitimate child to be brought up as an orphan. He wasn’t” [16b].
3. Former Roman Catholic professor, John Dominic Crossan
John Dominic Crossan (courtesy Wikimedia Commons)
In Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, Crossan (pictured) states that Jesus’ “body [was] left on the cross or in a shallow grave, barely covered with dirt and stones, the dogs were waiting”  So, Jesus’ body was buried in a shallow grave and the body was dug up and eaten by dogs. Please understand that when these liberal theologians like Crossan speak of “the historical Jesus,” they are:
- Not speaking about Jesus as he lived in history;
- They are using a technical term, a reconstruction of Jesus;
- The “historical Jesus” is the one who can be explained in scientific, historical, purely human categories;
- Anything miraculous is myth because supernatural events defy history and cannot be called history. They are mythological.So, in reality, their so-called historical Jesus is the unhistorical invention of these critics. They are creating Jesus in their own image and calling him “the historical Jesus.”
I am convinced that Charles Colson is correct when he states that:
“Taken together, books like these can create a widespread climate of opinion that the Bible is simply a collection of myths and errors. Even evangelical Christians may gradually accept the same principle and begin to separate faith from facts. The Bible is true in its spiritual message, they say, but full of errors in its history.” 
There was an SBS television series here in Australia in 1999. It was called, “From Jesus to Christ,” and presented the views of people like those from the Jesus Seminar. After watching one episode of that program, a Christian came to me, utterly devastated. She said something like:
- “Have I been deceived?
- Have I believed a lie all this time?
- The biblical scholars on that program said that the words of Jesus couldn’t be trusted as accurate or truthful.
- In fact, they are saying that about 80% of the words that the NT puts in Jesus’ mouth did not come from him at all. The early church inserted them in the Bible because the church wanted us to believe that.
- I need some answers. Is this true that the early church put words in Jesus’ mouth? These scholars say it is.”
In the Bible, faith can never be separated from historical facts. To talk about the “Jesus of faith” vs. “the Jesus of history” is nonsensical. Remember what Paul said in I Corinthians 15? “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so it your faith . . . And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (vv. 14, 17). If Jesus was not raised from the dead–historical fact–your faith is worthless.
Besides, if we accept the premise that the Bible is wrong, we become butchers. We start the chopping job. How are we going to decide what is believable and what is to be chucked out? If we start tampering with the Bible, we will be trying to make Jesus to fit what we want. Our prejudices will make Jesus into the image we want him to be.
I’d like to introduce you to a rather different approach to judo.
G.The Judo Technique
I learned this when I was studying James Kennedy’s gospel presentation in Evangelism Explosion. 
Often as you begin presenting the gospel, the person will say something like, “I don’t believe the Bible. You’ll have to convince me some other way than referring to the Scriptures.” Many people are devastated by this objection. Their attempt to share Christ fizzles.
This need not be the case. I want to encourage you to use this objection as a springboard into the gospel itself. The Apostle Paul, when he preached in Greek cities that had no background in the Bible, appealed to the Scriptures even though the people who listened to him did not believe the Bible.
He proclaimed to them and the Holy Spirit used the proclamation to save some who then came to believe the Bible to be true. When we witness, our primary function is to proclaim the gospel; it is not a defense of the Bible. But when people object to the Bible, we do need good answers to respond to them. And there are excellent answers.
The judo technique works like this. The objection, “I don’t believe the Bible,” is quite an easy one to deal with. Don’t use the approach of a boxer who meets the blow head on and tries to overwhelm the opponent with counter punches. Instead, use the technique of the judo expert . The force of the opponent’s blow is used to throw the opponent.
Here’s how it works in presenting the gospel. The person who objects, “I don’t believe the Bible,” usually has some university education, or has been exposed to some course in the Bible, or biblical criticism or something similar.
There is often some intellectual pride that says or infers something like this: “I used to believe those fairy tales when I was in kindy, but now I am an educated person and am far above believing those things.” It is this intellectual pride that can be used to turn this objection into an opportunity for presenting the gospel. I suggest this kind of dialogue with the person who objects.
“You don’t believe the Bible, John? That’s very interesting and it certainly is your privilege not to believe it, and I would fight for that right on your part in this free country of Australia. However, if the Bible is true then obviously you must accept the consequences.
“But I would like to ask you a question. The main message of the Bible, which has been unquestionably the most important literary work in human history, is how a person may have eternal life. So what I would like to know is: What do you understand that the Bible teaches about how a person may have eternal life and go to heaven?”
He may say that he does not believe in eternal life. To this you might say, “I’m not asking you what you believe, but I am asking you what you understand. It would be a rather unintellectual approach to reject the world’s most important book without understanding even its main message, would it not? What do you understand that the Bible teaches as to how a person may have eternal life? What is your understanding about what the Bible teaches on this subject?”
My experience is that a high percentage will respond by saying that it is by keeping the Ten Commandments or following the Golden Rule or imitating the example of Christ, doing good, or something like that.
You might respond something like this: “That is just what I was afraid of, John. You have rejected the Bible without even understanding its main message, for your answer is not only incorrect, but it is diametrically opposite to what the Bible teaches. Now, don’t you think that the more intellectual approach would be to let me share with you what the Scriptures teach on this subject and then you can make an intelligent decision whether to reject or accept it?”
Now the tables have been completely turned. Instead of being superior to the Scripture and even above listening to it, he now finds himself ignorant of even its basic message. Now he must decide whether to listen to the message of the Scriptures or be found to be not only ignorant but also some obscure person who opposes intellectual advancement — and wants to remain in his ignorance.
This is the last thing in the world that his intellectual pride will allow him to be. So, very often he will give you permission to tell him the gospel. It is at this point that you pray with vigour that the Holy Spirit will take the gospel, which is the power of God to salvation, and use it to awaken him from his deadness because of sin.
If he persists that he will not discuss anything further with you until you deal with his objection I suggest the following pre-evangelism approach (apologetics):
H.You need to begin with the existence of God
Hebrews 11:6 (NIV): And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Please think through how you could present a case for the existence of the Almighty God who is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ — to somebody who doesn’t know the Lord?
A suitable hymn to go with this message could be:
The Bible Stands
The Bible stands like a rock undaunted
‘Mid the raging storms of time;
Its pages burn with the truth eternal,
And they glow with a light sublime.
The Bible stands tho the hills may tumble,
It will firmly stand when the earth shall crumble;
I will plant my feet on its firm foundation,
For the Bible stands.
The Bible stands like a mountain tow’ring
Far above the works of men;
Its truth by none ever was refuted,
And destroy it they never can.
The Bible Stands (continued)
The Bible stands, and it will forever
When the world has passed away;
By inspiration it has been given
All its precepts I will obey.
The Bible stands ev’ry test we give it
For its Author is divine;
By grace alone I expect to live it
And to prove it and make it mine.
Words & music: Haldor Lillenas, ? 1917, Renewal 1945 by H. Lillenas. Assigned to Hope Publishing Co.
2. See “History of the Old Testament Canon,” in Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (rev. & expanded). Chicago: Moody Press, 1986, pp. 238-239.
3. In Michael P. Green (Ed.), Illustrations for Biblical Preaching (#1065). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1982, p. 285.
4. The names of the people have been changed.
5. Josh McDowell & Don Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions. San Bernardino, California: Here’s Life Publishers, 1980, pp. 147-148.
Note: The four points in McDowell & Stewart seem to be an abbreviated version, taken from John W. Montgomery’s points for the “crux validation” of the New Testament:
1. On the basis of accepted principles of textual and historical analysis, the Gospel records are found to be trustworthy historical documents — primary source evidence for the life of Christ,
2. In these records, Jesus exercises divine prerogatives and claims to be God in human flesh; and He rests His claims on His forthcoming resurrection.
3. In all four Gospels, Christ’s bodily resurrection is described in minute detail; Christ’s resurrection evidences His deity.
4. The fact of the resurrection cannot be discounted on a priori, philosophical grounds; miracles are impossible only if one so defines them — but such definition rules out proper historical investigation.
5. If Christ is God, then He speaks the truth concerning the absolute divine authority of the Old Testament and of the soon-to-be-written New Testament. [John Warwick Montgomery, The Suicide of Christian Theology. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany Fellowship Inc., 1970, n. 58, p. 306. Montgomery writes that this summary is based on his book, Shape of the Past, n. 26, pp. 138-39.]
6. London: Angus & Robertson Publishers, 1973 (3rd Ed.).
7. Ibid., back cover.
8. Ibid., p. vii.
9. Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company (A Polebridge Press Book), 1993, p. 5.
10. Josephus: Complete Works (William Whiston, trans.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1960.
11. Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981, p. 46.
12. Josephus, 20.9.1, p. 423.
13. R. W. Funk, R. W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company (A Polebridge Press Book), 1993, p. 34.
14. Ibid., pp. 36-37.
15. Ibid., p. 5.
16. John Shelby Spong, Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992, pp. 157-158.
16a. Barbara E. Thiering 1992, Jesus the Man, Doubleday, New York (1993, Bantam, New York).
16b. Moral Right 2003, a Barbara Thiering support website, available from: http://thiering.net/
17. John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco, 1994, p. 154.
18. Charles Colson with Nancy R. Pearcey, A Dangerous Grace: Daily Readings. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1994, p. 15.
19. Based on ibid., pp. 15-16.
20. An Australian Edition published by Evangelism Explosion Ministries Australia, PO Box 1686, Wollongong 2500, 1983, pp. 84-85.
Copyright (c) 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document is free content. You can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the OpenContent License (OPL) version 1.0, or (at your option) any later version. This document last updated at Date: 5 September 2013.