back
05 / 06
bird bird

Is Christianity Credible? | Assembly Buildings - Belfast, Northern Ireland

In March 2017 Dr. Craig traveled the island of Ireland on a speaking tour that included various debates, lectures, and meetings. On March 27th he gave a lecture at the Assembly Buildings in Belfast on the topic, "Is Christianity Credible?"


MODERATOR: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of Christian Union Ireland I want to welcome you to this final event of the first week of Reasons for Hope featuring the world-renowned philosopher and apologist Dr. William Lane Craig. We're here hot on the heels of a truly remarkable series of events in Dublin including a debate last Thursday at Trinity College which attracted in excess of 600 people to hear Dr. Craig debate with the University of Hull atheist professor Dr. Daniel Came. That debate and a lot of other resources are of course available through Dr. Craig's website ReasonableFaith.org. I'm sure he'll be mentioning that later in the evening. I'm David Montgomery, director of CUI, and I want to thank you, Dr. Craig, and welcome you to Belfast. And thank you for coming to participate in this event. Dr. Craig likes a good proportion of the evening to be devoted to audience questions, and so his lecture will be around 40 to 45 minutes after which he would hope to have time for about an hour of audience questions. I will explain how that will happen after the lecture. Dr. William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, and has been voted one of the 50 most influential living philosophers. He has probably done more than any other current thinker to demonstrate the intellectual credibility of the Christian faith. He has debated many leading atheists, and his books such as On Guard and his one on the cosmological argument for the existence of God have been extremely widely read and well received. It's my great pleasure this evening to welcome him to Belfast and to ask him to come now and address us. Dr. William Lane Craig.

DR. CRAIG: Thank you very much. It is a delight to be here with you, and such a privilege to be speaking in so august an assembly hall as this tonight. We have had a great tour over the last week which has taken Jan and me to Cork, to Dublin, and now to Belfast for this final public lecture. It's been years since Jan and I were last in Ireland. In fact, we first came to speak during the mid-1980s at Queen's University here in Belfast. At that time the students publicized the event by distributing a flier with my picture on it, and the caption “Who is this man?” The choices were Che Guevara, William Craig, Ronald Reagan, and somebody else. Well, the irony was at that time William Craig was apparently a firebrand right-wing Irish politician. So students looking at this flier said, “He's none of them! We don't know who he is!” But I'm glad that you came out this evening, and I look forward to our discussion tonight.

The great agnostic philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say if he found himself standing before God on the Judgment Day and God were to say to him, “Why didn’t you believe in me?” Russell replied, “I should say, ‘Not enough evidence, God; not enough evidence.’” As I travel around the North American continent and Europe speaking on university campuses, I find that most of the non-believing professors that I meet would say pretty much the same thing – there’s not enough evidence. And this attitude is in turn communicated to their students. In all probability, in an audience of this size, there are probably those of you who are  silently thinking in your minds exactly the same thing – there's not enough evidence.

But I want to invite you to think with me a little bit about that this evening. What do people mean when they say there’s “not enough evidence”? Not enough for what? Not enough to coerce belief? Not enough to compel someone to become a Christian? Well, I think a lot of people take it that way. I find that most people are spiritually apathetic. They're either too busy or too unconcerned to be bothered by looking into spiritual things. Or, if they are into spirituality, they may be pursuing some alternative spirituality as in the New Age movement. So I find that most people aren't even acquainted with the evidences for Christianity. And this is true in particular for university professors.

One of the most interesting aspects of the work that I do is the debates in which I engage on university campuses. Often I'll be invited onto a campus where a local professor will have a reputation for being especially abusive to Christian students in his classes, holding them up as objects of ridicule. And we’ll challenge him to a public debate on a topic like “Does God Exist?” or “Humanism versus Christianity” or what have you. And do you know what? I find that while most of these chaps are pretty good at beating up intellectually on an eighteen-year-old in one of their classes, they can't even go toe-to-toe when it comes to debating one of their peers. In their opening speech, they may trot out the traditional objections from their Intro to Philosophy class, and after I answer these then they're pretty much left with nothing more to say. So they either start repeating themselves or pushing the emotional hot buttons of the students to get them on their side. I find that they're especially ignorant of the evidence for the Gospels. Most of them, I think, have probably never even cracked a New Testament. Most of them turn out, in fact, to be just big, inflated intellectual blowhards who have no good reason for rejecting Christianity or for ridiculing the Christian students in their classes.

Now, in one sense this isn't really surprising. Because all of us in academia have to specialize in a certain field, and as a result we are ignorant of things in other fields. So, for example, I know something about philosophy, but I know nothing about chemical engineering or agriculture or business. Thus, it's possible to have a perfectly profound knowledge of one's area of specialization and yet have little better than a Sunday School knowledge when it comes to Christianity. To illustrate, several years ago I had a debate at the University of South Carolina on the question of God’s existence with a professor at USC. This man was a brilliant philosopher of quantum physics and the director of the graduate program in philosophy at USC. And yet the first words out of his mouth when he got up to speak were these: “I don't really feel qualified to be debating in tonight’s debate because I don't know anything about philosophy of religion.” And I thought to myself, well then why in the world are you getting up in front of 800 students trying to convince them not to believe in God when you admit that you don't know anything about the topic? It just doesn't compute!

When you read the biographies of the world's great atheists, what you discover is that they typically lost their faith around 11 or 12 years of age, and they've never studied it again since. Now think of what that means. That means that most of them reject Christianity based upon the objections of a 12-year-old. So when people say, “There's not enough evidence,” what they really mean is there's not enough evidence to coerce me out of my indifference and make me believe. If I choose to ignore it, the evidence isn't going to grab me by the lapels and force me to become a Christian. To which I say of course the evidence isn't coercive in that way. But why should it be? You see, the knowledge of God is unique in that the knowledge of God is conditioned by moral and spiritual factors. A spiritually indifferent person can have a perfectly profound knowledge of literature or history or sociology or economics or even of theology, but a spiritually indifferent person cannot know God. According to the Bible, the knowledge of God is promised to those who diligently seek him. Thus the prophet Jeremiah says, “you shall seek Me and you shall find Me, if you seek for Me with all your heart.”[1] And Jesus said, “seek, and you will find; knock, and the door shall be opened; ask, and it will be given you. For he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks the door shall be opened, and to him who asks it shall be given.”[2] In other words, God doesn’t force himself upon us. He has given evidence of himself which is sufficiently clear for those with an open heart and an open mind but which is sufficiently vague so as not to compel those whose hearts are closed.

The great French mathematical genius Blaise Pascal, who came to know God through Jesus Christ at the age of 31, put it in the following way. Pascal wrote:

Willing to appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart, [God] so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.[3]

In other words, the evidence is there for those who have eyes to see.

So, admittedly, there is not enough evidence to coerce you if your heart and mind are closed. But that's not the really interesting question, is it? The really interesting question is: Is there enough evidence to make faith rational? And the answer to that question is, yes, there certainly is! The traditional arguments for God's existence and the evidences of Christianity are not coercive, but they are certainly sufficient to ground faith rationally if you're willing to look at them with an open mind and an open heart.

Consider, for example, the question of the existence of God. There has been literally a revolution concerning this question in Anglo-American philosophy during the second half of the 20th century. Back in the 1940s and 50s it was widely believed among philosophers that questions of God’s existence were literally meaningless. They had no factual content whatsoever.

This movement reached its crescendo in the mid-1960s with the so-called “Death-of-God” theology. On April 8, 1966 Time magazine carried a cover story for which the cover was completely black except for three words emblazoned in bright red letters against the dark background. And the question read: “Is God Dead?” The article described the movement among contemporary theologians who proclaimed the death of God. But to paraphrase Mark Twain, it seems that the news of God’s death was greatly exaggerated. For at the same time that the theologians were writing God’s obituary, a new generation of young philosophers was rediscovering his vitality. Just a few years after its infamous Death-of-God issue, Time ran a similar cover story, only this time the question read, “Is God Coming Back to Life?” That is how it must have seemed to those theological morticians of the 1960s. During the 1970s, interest in philosophy of religion continued to gather momentum. In 1980, Time ran another major story entitled, “Modernizing the Case for God,” in which it described the movement among contemporary philosophers to refurbish and re-defend all of the traditional arguments for God’s existence. Time marveled,

In a quiet revolution in thought and argument that hardly anybody could have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback. Most intriguingly, this is happening not among theologians or ordinary believers, but in the crisp intellectual circles of academic philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from fruitful discourse.[4]

According to the article, the noted American philosopher, Roderick Chisholm, believed that the reason that atheism was so influential a generation ago is because the brightest philosophers at that time were atheists. But today, he says, many of the brightest philosophers are theists, and they are using a tough-minded intellectualism in defense of that belief that was formerly lacking on their side of the debate.

In the year 2001, the journal Philo carried an article[5] by a prominent atheist philosopher lamenting what he called the desecularization of academia that evolved in philosophy departments since the late 1960s. He complained,

Naturalists passively watched as realist versions of theism . . . began to sweep through the philosophical community, until today perhaps one-quarter or one-third of philosophy professors are theists, with most being orthodox Christians.

. . . in philosophy, it became, almost overnight, “academically respectable” to argue for theism, making philosophy a favored field of entry for the most intelligent and talented theists entering academia today.

He concludes,

God is not “dead” in academia; he returned to life in the late 1960s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments.

So I am very pleased to say this evening that today some of England and America's most prominent philosophers at our most prestigious universities are outspoken Christians. I think, for example, of Richard Swinburne and Brian Leftow at Oxford University, Robert Adams and Dean Zimmerman at Rutgers, Alvin Plantinga and Peter van Inwagen at Notre Dame, Eleonore Stump at St. Louis, Alex Pruss at Baylor. I could go on and on. The idea that Christians are intellectual losers and nincompoops is an idea that is simply rooted in ignorance and needs to be now once and for all decisively put behind us.

My own work as a philosopher has focused upon the implications of modern cosmology for theology. I believe that as physical science probes the natural world, we encounter, as it were, signposts of transcendence pointing beyond the physical world to its ground in a supernatural creator and designer of the universe. For example, the evidence for the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe points to the creation of the universe out of nothing. Most laymen do not understand that according to the standard Big Bang theory not just all matter and energy but physical space and time themselves came into existence at the Big Bang. In the words of the British physicist P. C. W. Davies, “the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.”[6] But this raises the inevitable question: How can the universe come into being out of nothing?

Notice that this is a philosophical, not a scientific, question. The claim of certain scientists like Stephen Hawking or Lawrence Krauss that physics can explain the origin of the universe out of nothing treats the word “nothing” not as literally nothing but rather as referring to empty space filled with vacuum energy or to quantum physical fields which are obviously not nothing. Properly speaking, out of nothing, nothing comes. So why did the universe come into being? The atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen gives the following illustration. He says, suppose you suddenly hear a loud “bang!” And you ask me, “What made that bang?” And I reply, “Nothing. It just happened.” He says, “You wouldn’t accept that. In fact, you would find my reply quite unintelligible.” Well, what is true of the little bang is also true of the Big Bang. There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being. And from the very nature of the case, as the cause of space and time, this cause would have to be uncaused, immaterial, changeless, timeless, and enormously powerful.

Moreover, and here we come to the second signpost I wanted to mention, the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life points to this cause’s being a personal, intelligent mind. During the last half century or so, scientists have been stunned by the discovery that the initial conditions of the universe present in the Big Bang itself were fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life with a delicacy and complexity that literally defies human comprehension. For example, P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which of course planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeros at least. He also estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the subatomic weak force by only one part out of 10 to the 100th power would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The cosmological constant which drives the early inflationary expansion of the universe must be fine-tuned to one part out of 10 to the power of 120. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang’s initial low entropy condition existing by chance alone are on the order of one chance out of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123. A number which is so incomprehensible that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. The inference to an intelligent designer of the cosmos seems far more plausible than the atheistic hypothesis of chance.

Some people have tried to avoid this conclusion by claiming that we shouldn’t really be surprised at the amazing fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life because, after all, if the universe were not fine-tuned then we wouldn't be here to be surprised about it. Given that we are here, we should expect the universe to be fine-tuned. But I think that the fallacy of this objection can be made clear by means of a parallel illustration. Imagine that you are traveling abroad and were arrested on trumped-up drug charges and dragged in front of a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all with rifles aimed at your heart to be executed. You hear the command given, “Ready! Aim! Fire!” And you hear the deafening roar of the guns. And then you observe that you're still alive! That all of the 100 marksmen missed. Now, what would you conclude? “Well, I guess I really shouldn't be surprised that they all missed. After all, if they hadn't all missed, I wouldn't be here to be surprised about it. Given that I am here, I should expect them all to miss.” Of course not. You would immediately suspect that they all missed on purpose – that the whole thing was a setup engineered for some reason by someone. And in exactly the same way, given the incomprehensible improbability of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life, it is rational to believe that this is not the result of chance but of design.

Now much more could and should be said about these matters. But I think this is sufficient to show that there is certainly enough evidence to make belief in God rational.

But what about belief in the Christian God? Is it rational to believe in Jesus as the Gospels portray him? Jesus of Nazareth has certainly become the storm center of controversy in our day, hasn't he? Every Easter and Christmas, you can count on the popular media to carry stories about some radical critic who thinks that Jesus of Nazareth was actually a leader of a hallucinogenic cult or a peasant cynic philosopher or a figment of the imagination derived from Egyptian mythology. When you check out the evidence, however, a very different picture emerges than the one painted by the radical critics. In fact, did you know that today the majority of New Testament historians agree that the historical Jesus deliberately stood and spoke in the place of God himself, that he claimed that in himself the Kingdom of God had come, and that he carried out a ministry of miracle working and exorcisms in vindication of that claim. According to the German theologian Horst Georg Pöhlmann,

Today there is virtually a consensus . . . that Jesus came on the scene with an unheard of authority, with the claim of the authority to stand in God’s place and speak to us and bring us to salvation. . . . With regard to Jesus there are only two possible modes of behavior: either to believe that in him God encounters us or to nail him to the cross as a blasphemer. Tertium non datur. [There is no third way.][7]

Thus, Jesus either was who he claimed to be, or else he was a blasphemous megalomaniac which just seems utterly implausible.

But there's more. For we have dramatic confirmation of the validity of Jesus’ radical claims about himself; namely, his resurrection from the dead. Again, during the second half of the 20th century, there was a dramatic reversal of scholarship on this issue. Back in the 1930s and 40s, it was widely believed the Gospel events like the discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb were legends and even an embarrassment for the Christian faith. Similarly, Jesus’ appearances alive after his death were widely taken to be hallucinations brought on by the disciples’ fervent faith in Jesus. This skepticism concerning the resurrection of Jesus also peaked somewhere in the late 1960s and then began very rapidly to recede. Today it still lingers on in liberal backwaters, but the majority of critics today agree: (1) after his crucifixion, Jesus of Nazareth was interred in a tomb by a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin named Joseph of Arimathea, (2) the tomb of Jesus was then found empty by a group of his women followers on the Sunday morning after the crucifixion, (3) various individuals and groups of people on multiple occasions and under a variety of circumstances saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death, and (4) the original disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection was not the result of their faith in him or of wishful thinking but quite the reverse – their faith in him was the result of their having come to believe that God raised him from the dead. These are the facts. The only question is: How do you best explain them?

Here the skeptical critic faces a somewhat awkward situation. To illustrate, several years ago I had a debate at the University of California, Irvine on the resurrection of Jesus with a professor who had written his doctoral thesis on the evidence for the resurrection.[8] He was thoroughly familiar with the evidence. And he could not deny the facts of Jesus’ internment in the tomb, of the discovery of the empty tomb, of the post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection. So his only recourse was to come up with some new theory to explain away these facts. So he argued that Jesus of Nazareth must have had an unknown identical twin brother who was separated from him as an infant, who grew up independently, came back to Jerusalem just at the time of the crucifixion, stole Jesus’ body out of the tomb, and presented himself to the disciples who mistakenly thought that it was Jesus risen from the dead. Now, I'm not going to go into how I went about refuting this theory, but I think that the example is instructive. Because it shows to what desperate lengths skepticism must go in order to explain away the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. In fact, did you know that one of the world's leading Jewish theologians (the late Pinchas Lapide who taught at Hebrew University in Israel) declared himself convinced on the basis of the evidence that the God of Israel raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.[9]

Again, much more deserves to be said about this. But, again, I think that enough has been shared to show that the Christian is certainly within his rational rights in believing that Jesus rose from the dead and therefore was who he claimed to be. So while the evidence is not enough to coerce you if your heart and mind are closed, it is certainly enough to ground faith rationally if you're just willing to look at it with an open heart and an open mind.

Our whole discussion up to this point this evening has just assumed that becoming a Christian is a matter of weighing the evidence pro and con and then making up your mind. But if you think about it, there's surely something wrong with that assumption. The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard gives the following illustration. He imagines a young man who is trying to decide to become a Christian. So, in order to make an informed decision, he decides to study philosophy so that he can grasp the arguments for and against the existence of God. He then turns to a study of comparative religions so that he can understand and contrast and compare the thought systems of the great religions of the world. He studies Christian theology so that he can grasp the body of Christian doctrine. He learns Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek so that he can read the Old and New Testament documents in their original languages. He studies Old Testament backgrounds and New Testament backgrounds so that he can read these documents in their cultural context. And so on and on and on it goes until finally he is convinced that Christianity is true, and so at the age of 70 he places his faith in Christ and becomes a Christian. Kierkegaard says that such a scenario is insane. Faith cannot be expected to hold its breath indefinitely while reason sifts and re-sifts through the evidence. A loving God would not abandon us to our own devices to work out by our own cleverness and ingenuity whether or not he exists. Rather, a loving God would himself pursue us and seek to draw us to himself. And this is exactly what the Bible says God has done. Jesus said, “No man comes to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”[10] And again Jesus said, “When I am lifted up, I will draw all men to myself.”[11]

So it wasn't quite accurate when I said earlier that in order to find God we must diligently seek him. From a human perspective, that's true. But from God's perspective, it's really God who is seeking us. And we must decide whether we will open our hearts to his love and forgiveness, or whether we will shut our hearts up against his grace.

If I might conclude on a personal note. I myself was not raised in a church-going family, though it was a good and loving home. But when I became a teenager, I began to ask what I call the big questions in life: Who am I? Why am I here? What's the meaning of my existence? And in this search for answers I began all on my own to attend a local church in our community. The only problem was, instead of answers, what I found was a sort of social club in which the dues were a dollar a week in the offering plate. The other high school students who pretended to be such good Christians on Sunday lived for their real god the rest of the week which was popularity. And this really bothered me because I thought, “Here I am so spiritually empty inside, and yet externally at least I'm leading a better life than they are. And they claim to be Christians. They must be just as empty as I am, but they're all putting up a false front pretending to be something they're not.” And so I grew very resentful toward the institutional church for the hypocrisy and the phoniness that I saw there.

Soon this attitude began to spread toward other people in general. Everybody, I said, is a hypocrite. Everybody is really holding up a plastic mask to the world while the real person is cowering down inside afraid to come out and be real. So I shunned relations with other people. I said, “I hate people. I don't need them. I don't want them.” And I threw myself into my studies. And yet, in moments of introspection and honesty, as I looked into my own heart, I knew that deep down inside I really did want to love and to be loved by others. I realized in that moment that I was just as much a phony as they were because here I was putting on this false front of not needing other people when deep down inside I knew that I really did.

So that anger turned in upon myself for my own phoniness and hypocrisy. I don't know if you understand what this is like, but this kind of inner-anger just gnaws away at your insides, day after day making every day miserable. Another day to get through.

Well, I remember one day I walked into my high school German class feeling particularly crummy, and I sat down behind a girl who's one of these types that is always so happy it just makes you sick. I tapped her on the shoulder, and she turned around and I said to her, “Sandy, what are you so happy about all the time anyway?” She said, “Well, Bill, it's because I know Jesus Christ as my personal Savior.” And I said, “Well, I go to church.” And she said, “That's not enough, Bill. You’ve got to have him really living in your heart.” And I said, “Well, what would he want to do a thing like that for?” And she said, “Because he loves you, Bill.” And that just hit me like a ton of bricks. Here I was so filled with anger and hatred inside, and she said there was someone who really loved me – and who was it but the God of the universe! That thought just staggered me – that the God of the universe could love that worm named Bill Craig down on that speck of dust called planet Earth. I just couldn't take it in.

I went home that night, and I found a New Testament that had been given to me in the fifth grade by the Gideons when they visited our school, and for the first time I opened it and began to read it. And as I did I was absolutely captivated by the person of Jesus of Nazareth. There was a wisdom about this man's teaching that I had never encountered before, and there was an authenticity about his life that wasn't characteristic of those people who claimed to be his followers in that local church that I was going to. I realized then I couldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As I read the New Testament I came to understand what my problem was. My own moral failures and wrongdoing – what the Bible calls sin – had rendered me morally guilty before God and therefore alienated from him. The relationship that I was created to have with God was ruptured, and therefore God seemed so distant and unreal to me. But the good news of the New Testament was that God had sent his son Jesus into the world to die for my sins so that I might find forgiveness and moral cleansing and new life and have that relationship with God that I was created to have.

Well, to make a long story short, I went through about six months of the most intense soul-searching that I have ever been through, and at the end of those six months one night I just cried out to God and released my life to him. I cried out all the anger and the bitterness that was inside, and at the same time I felt this tremendous infusion of joy like a balloon being blown up and blown up until it was ready to burst. I rushed outdoors. It was a clear midwestern September evening. As I looked up at the stars I could see the Milky Way from horizon to horizon and I thought, “God! I’ve come to know God!” And that moment changed my whole life because, you see, I had thought enough about this message during those six months to realize that if this were really the truth – if it were really the truth – then I could do nothing less than devote my entire life to spreading this message among mankind.

And so that's basically why we're in Belfast this evening. Because I love to share this message with students who are about the same age that I was when my life was so radically changed. So if you're here tonight and you're seeking to find God as a reality in your life, I would encourage you to look not only at the arguments and the evidence which are certainly sufficient to ground faith rationally, but also to do what I did. Pick up a New Testament and begin to read it and ask yourself, “Could this really be true? Could there really be a God who loves me and sent his Son to die for me?” I believe that it could change your life in the same way that it changed mine.

 

[1] Jeremiah 29.13

[2] cf. Matthew 7:7-8, Luke 11:9-10

[3] Blaise Pascal, Pensées, trans. W.F. Trotter (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1932), No. 430, p. 118.

[4] “Modernizing the Case for God,” Time, April 7, 1980, pp. 65-66.

[5] Quentin Smith, "The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism" Philo 4/2 (2001).

[6] P. C. W. Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,” in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser.

[7] Horst Georg Pöhlmann, Abriss der Dogmatik, 3d rev. ed. (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1980), p. 230.

[8] This was a 1995 debate with R. Gregory Cavin titled “Dead or Alive?” Audio of this debate can be purchased at http://apps.biola.edu/apologetics-store/products/audios/item/craig-vs-cavin-dead-or-alive_CD  (accessed December 3, 2022).

[9] See Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Augsburg Publishing, 1983).

[10] John 6:44

[11] John 12:32