Grace Theological Journal 9.31 (1968) 12-23

          Copyright © 1968 by Grace Theological Seminary.  Cited with permission.



                                   AND APOLOGETIC VALUE


                                     WILLIAM R. EICHHORST

                               Chairman, Department of Theology

                                       Winnipeg Bible College


     Carnell has correctly analyzed the present secular attitude toward the

miraculous when he states that "...the conflict between Christianity and

 the scientific method shows itself no more perspicuously than in the latter's

unequivocal, uncompromising judgment against the possibility of miracles.1

The problem is not simply related to individual miracles. The controversy is

with the whole principle of the possibility of the supernatural.


            The purpose of this study is not to attempt a solution to every problem

raised by the critic. Even if this could be done, it would not necessarily demand

 the faith of the unbelieving sinner. The Bible does however record the

occurrence of many miracles and intends that they be recognized as an

evidence of supernatural revelation. The purpose of this article is to discover

 the true nature of the Biblical miracles and to find what evidential value was

intended in their occurrence. The study will attempt to find what positive self-

authentication can be found in the Scriptures themselves where miracles are

included in the revelation.


Because of the vastness of the subject and the limitations of this article,

references will be confined largely to the miracles recorded in the Gospels.


Before proceeding to the burden of the study, two matters must be briefly


The Meaning of the Word "Miracle"


The word "miracle," from the Latin word miraculum, is so translated in the

New Testament of the Authorized Version from two Greek words. On twenty-

two occasions the word semeion is translated "miracle." This designation is

employed to show that the supernatural event was a sign of divine authority.

On eight occasions the word dunamis is translated "miracle" and the emphasis

 is here on the inherent ability of the agent. Frequently, supernatural events are

also described as "wonders" through the use of the Greek words teras and thauma.


From the vocabulary of Scripture it can be observed that miracles are to be

distinguished from works of providence, which are wrought through secondary

causes, and from mere exotic occurrences of a "Believe It or Not" nature which

fall to be "signs” teaching a lesson.




Buswell's definition of a Biblical miracle is concise but comprehensive:

A miracle is (1) an extraordinary event, inexplicable in terms of ordinary

natural forces, (2) an event which causes the observers to postulate a super-

human personal cause, and (3) an event which constitutes evidence (a "sign")

of implications much wider than the event itself.2


While further discussion relating to the nature of miracles will follow,

the preceding definition will connote the author's use of the word "miracle" in

general usage.


                     The Historical Evidence for the Gospel Miracles


If the New Testament documents are accurate in their historical record, there

can be little question about  historical evidence for the miracles. It is for this reason

that those who question the validity of miracles must also deny the accuracy of

the record. Van Til, making reference to Barth, demonstrates how the denial of

miracle relates to the denial of history.


In a sermon of Matthew 14:22-23, he [Barth] treats of Jesus' walking on the

water to meet his frightened disciples. The same miracle that took place

then for the disciples, he argues, now takes place for us. Are we to say to

ourselves that this is an event in the past? No indeed! The same Jesus

comes to us now and in the same way that he did then, namely, through

a storm. Barth does not say that the physical event spoken of did not take

place, but in his exposition it has no unique position.3


Bultmann is more radical in his denial of the historical record. He believes

that Hellenistic miracles can be found everywhere. He does not doubt that Jesus

performed deeds which both in His eyes and in those of His contemporaries were

"miracles," but most of the accounts of miracles in the Gospels are the distillation

of legends or at least have a legendary trimming.  The course of their history in

tradition was one in which the motives changed, and exaggerations occurred.4


What Bultmann has attempted to do is to separate the “real" history of Jesus

 from the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life. If this can be done, the miraculous aspects

can be relegated to the "legendary trimming" found in the Gospels. To all such

attempts at denying the miraculous, Machen 's words of a past generation are still apropos:


The plain fact is that this "quest of the historical Jesus," as it has been

called--this effort to take the miracles out of the Gospels--has proved to be

a colossal failure. It is being increasingly recognized as being a failure even

by the skeptical historians themselves. The supernatural is found to be far

more deeply rooted in the Gospel account of Jesus than was formerly supposed.5


In a similar statement Machen affirms:


The outstanding result of a hundred years of effort to separate the natural

from the supernatural in the early Christian view of Jesus is that the thing

cannot be done. The two are inseparable. The very earliest Christian account

of Jesus is found to be supernaturalistic to the core.6


Accepting the Biblical record as reliable and the description of the miracles as

authentic study of the nature and evidential value of the miracles may now be pursued.


                                  THE NATURE OF THE GOSPEL MIRACLES


The word "miracle" in modern usage has received so many connotations

that its meaning has become almost ambiguous. When the meaning is broadened

so that every unusual happening is a "miracle," the Gospel miracles lose their

distinctiveness. When the meaning is narrowed by antisupernatural scientism,

Biblical miracles become impossible. The miracles of the Gospels will not allow

for either explanation.


                                    The Gospel Miracles and Pagan Similarities


Saintyves, as quoted by Van Der Loos, states:


Comparative religion reveals that belief in miracles is universal. In every

religion we find miracles resembling those of Judaism, Christianity and

 Catholicism. They are all acts through faith and for faith, with the sole

difference that they relate to varied deities.7


The implication of the above statement is that because there are certain

similarities to be found in all miracle accounts, we must conclude they are all also

of the same nature.


 A study of the miracles reveals that the New Testament accounts do have

much in common with the pagan stories, both in material and in form. One can

expect such similarities where there is a logical literary consequence of a certain

situation. The question to be answered however is:  Do the accounts of miracles

 in the New Testament and the pagan miracle stories resemble one another so

closely that the conclusion must be reached that there is not only analogy of

form but also a real dependence?8


The evidence from the Gospels presents a negative answer. It is the

differences are significant. 


Van Der Loos, in answer to Saintyves, is careful to observe that the New

 Testament miracles have nothing to do with sorcery or magic. They happen

by the Word of Jesus or his disciples.  The stress falls on the necessity of faith

for Jesus blinds man to His person. The place occupied by miracles in the

whole of the proclamation of the gospel must always be borne




in mind.9  Form, style and type, which are common to both pagan and Christian

miracles, do not go much farther than to point to analogies. One must explain

the origin and existence of miracles from their own environment and situation.

The nature of the Gospel miracles is different.


                   The Gospel Miracles and Psychosomatic Healings


In an effort to deny the supernatural nature of the Gospel miracles, many

have sought to give "natural" explanations for them. It has been fashionable,

in particular, to explain the miraculous healings in terms of psychosomatic

response. Thus Ritschl has stated: "Miracle" is the religious name for an

event which awakens in us a powerful impression of the help of God, but is

not to be held as interfering with the scientific doctrine of the unbroken

connection of nature.10


Schleiermacher likewise asserts Christ was able to deliver people from

their sufferings by virtue of His moral purity, that is to say, His great spiritual

powers and His dominating will acted on a depressed will, something which

our experience allows us to understand.11


It is not denied that many physical ailments have a psychosomatic

base. Often when the mental condition is corrected, the physical condition

rights itself. Little notes, "Some medical authorities estimate that upwards

of eighty percent of the illnesses in our pressurized society are psychosomatic.”12


A closer look at the Gospel miracles, however, shows that a psychosomatic

explanation will not suffice. The resurrection of Lazarus from the dead (John 11)

certainly involves a supernatural outside force. The various cleansings from

leprosy are out of the psychosomatic category. The man born blind (John 9)

needed more than the comfort of a "depressed will."


Exponents of the above view should also be made aware of the

implications of their theories. If miracles are to be denied or "reinterpreted"

because they interfere with nature's laws, Christianity has little to offer.

If Jesus could not raise the dead or cleanse the leper, what comfort is there

 for a human race that knows the reality of death and disease? Jesus

becomes a mere man and faith in Him nothing more than a delusion. "If

in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable"

(I Cor.15: 19).


                              The Gospel Miracles and Natural Law


For those who have a mechanically conceived world-view, miracles

are considered impossible. They are a transgression of the laws of

nature in a world-view that will not allow for outside interference.

Christians have reacted to this denial of miracle with various answers.

Some suggest that it is misrepresentative to define miracles as

a "transgression" of the laws of nature. Miracles, they say, simply

employ a higher natural law, which at present is unknown to us.

Thus Carnell states: ". ..since laws

yet unknown and unplotted may be called


16                                            GRACE JOURNAL


into account for some areas of experience which have not yet been

mastered, they may be called in to explain all.”13


Carnell has silenced the critic with this answer, but in the

process he has also destroyed the very point he has set out to make.

Little has well observed in relation to this issue,


A "law," In the modern scientific sense, is that which is regular

and acts uniformly. To say that a miracle is a result of a higher "law,"

then, is to use the term in a way that is different from its customary

usage and meaning.14


If miracles are the result of a higher law, scientists may yet discover

 this law. The gospel miracles would then not be unique. They would

simply be the evidence of a superior intelligence or prior discovery.

They would not evidence the power of a sovereign God.


To say that miracles are not simply the employment of a higher

natural law, however, is not to say they are a "transgression" of natural law.

They are rather acts of creation--sovereign, transcendent acts of God's

supernatural power. They may involve an interference with nature, but they

do not contradict nature. Gerstner explains, ".. .the argument for miracle rests

on the regularity of nature generally. There is no such thing as supernatural

events except as they are seen in relation to the natural.”15


Indeed, the Gospel miracles show a wonderful harmony of miracle

with natural law. This is as it would be expected from the Maker of natural law.

Explaining this harmony Lewis states:


If events ever come from beyond Nature altogether, she will be no more

incommoded by them. Be sure she will rush to the point where she is

invaded, as the defensive forces rush to a cut in our finger, and there hasten

to accommodate the newcomer. The moment it enters her realm it obeys all

her laws.  Miraculous wine will intoxicate, miraculous conception will lead

to pregnancy, inspired books will suffer all the ordinary processes of textual

corruption, miraculous bread will be digested. The divine act of miracle is

not an act of suspending the pattern to which events conform but of feeding

new events into that pattern.16


The Gospel miracles, thus, are neither incompatible with natural law nor

subject to the limitations of natural law. They are the works of the creator and

sustainer of nature and evidence of His sovereign will over nature and her laws.


                                The Gospel Miracles and Divine Providence

A subtle denial of the true nature of the Gospel miracles is to be found in the

 theology of inmanence.  The reasoning is as follows: What we call miracles are

in the New Testament called “signs” and “wonders.”  But are not other events

which we call non–miraculous or natural also viewed as signs and wonders in

the Bible? In the Biblical view is not God behind




everything, the usual and the unusual, the common and the strange, and is He

not behind them equally? If God is the soul of history are not all miracles

simply natural events seen through consecrated eyes?


Pious as this view may sound, it fails to do justice to the Biblical

record and becomes a denial of the miracles of Scripture.


 It is true that God's providential care is evident in all the world. Nature

is no stranger to his hand. It is governed by laws ordained by Him and thereby

provides us with a determinate universe. But to apply the word "miracle" as it

 is used in the Biblical sense to all acts of God's providence is to deny nature

 its reality. Such a universe would make science impossible. 


The Biblical miracles are clearly an interference with the existing laws

of nature. To identify them with providence generally is also to deny their



                                The Gospel Miracles and Jesus Christ


Jesus fully recognized the existence and function of the laws of nature.

 To deny them would have involved a denial of his own creative power

(John 1:3). His life was lived amid the function of natural law. Because a

lack of food produces hunger, Jesus hungered (Matt. 4:2); atmospheric

forces which created a stomy sea, involved his comfort as well. The

relationship between Jesus Christ and natural law is best seen when we

recognize He was not "against" natural law but sovereign "over" it.


Two things may be noted about the relationship of Jesus to the

Gospel miracles which He performed.


First, with Van Der Loos, we observe that " point on which

the Evangelists are unanimous is that Jesus acted with ‘power.'"17

Luke states that "...Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into

Galilee. .." (Luke 4:14). And further, "they were all amazed, and

spake among themselves, saying, What a word is this! For with

authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they

come out" (Luke 4:36). Clearly Jesus' miracles evidence the interference

of supernatural power with an environment governed by natural law.


Second, we observe, "...the aim of Jesus' miracles was in all

cases the salvation of mankind."18 This means that Jesus did not

perform a single punitive miracle. Thus, when the disciples wished

to call fire from heaven upon Jesus' enemies, he rebuked them and

said, "the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save

them" (Luke 9:56). It is not unlikely that even John the Baptist expected

punitive miracles. His question, "Art thou he that should come or do

we look for another?" (Matt. 11:3), may well have been asked because

 he expected Jesus to baptize also "with fire" (Matt. 3:11-12).


Thus the true nature of the Gospel miracles must be seen in

relation to the person and mission of Jesus Christ. In Him are found

their source, their purpose and their impact.


18                                            GRACE JOURNAL




Everyone who reads the Gospels must be struck by the fact that

 the Jewish leaders do not seem to be in the least affected by the

miracles of Jesus. It is not because they know Jesus' miracles only

 through hearsay, for they were often eyewitnesses to them (Matt. 9:1-8).


The same indifference can also be observed by the populace.

After the five thousand were fed Jesus said to those who sought Him,

"Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles but because ye did eat

of the loaves, and were filled" (John 6:26).


If miracles could not demand the faith of those who saw them,

should we expect them to do so of people today? What is the evidential

value of the Gospel miracles? Will they command the intellectual man's

assent? These and similar questions now receive our attention.


                                The Validity of Scriptural Testimony


It is necessary to recognize the validity of the historical record before

proceeding to the evidential value of miracles. It must be made clear that

the miracle accounts are not a matter of myth or folklore but are accounts

of real happenings. Their evidential value depends upon this. 


Ramm has listed several reasons for belief in the historical reliability

of the miracles.


First, there were many miracles performed before the public eye.

No effort is made to suppress investigation.19


Second, some miracles were performed in the company of

unbelievers. The presence of critics had no influence on Jesus' power.20


Third, Jesus performed His miracles over a period of time and

in great variety.  He was not limited in his repertory.21


Fourth, we have the testimony of the cured. Frequently the

healed person is said to have gone proclaiming that he was healed.22  

Unless the whole Gospel record can be proven false, the miracles

must be accepted as historically real.


                          The Nature of the Evidential Value


The problem which confronts us next is: If the evidence is

convincing that Christ did work miracles, what do these miracles prove?


We have already observed that neither the Jewish leaders nor

the Palestinian populace were necessarily affected by Jesus' miracles

although they saw and believed them.  Obviously,




if there is an evidential value to miracles, it must involve more than

rational assent. Several observations can be made.


The Gospel miracles are not isolated events. They form a part

of the message of Christ which must be accepted or rejected but

which cannot of itself produce faith.


Inseparably linked with the message of Christ is the person of

 Christ. The miracles are not simply works wrought by Christ but "

are rather a constitutive element of the revelation of God in Christ.”.23

A recognition of the miracles of Christ was to be accompanied with a

recognition of the commission of Christ. Therefore Jesus said to the

unbelieving Pharisees, "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God,

then the kingdom of God is come unto you" (Matt. 12:28).

Nicodemus seems to have recognized this fact when he said to Jesus,

"We know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do

these miracles that thou doest, except God be with Him” (John 3:2).


Nor can we separate the evidential value of miracles from the

subject of personal faith. When Mark states that Jesus could do no

mighty work in Nazareth, "save that he laid his hands upon a few sick

folk, and healed them" (Mark 6:5), there seems to be a suggestion of

inability on the part of Jesus. However, Matthew's rendering of the

same account tells us the inability was "because of their unbelief"

(Matt. 13:58). It is significant, as Van Der Loos observes, that the

censure of the Jewish leaders nowhere falls on the miracles of Jesus

as such, but on attendant circumstances. He is reproached with

healing on the sabbath (Matt. 12:10-14). They resent Jesus saying

 that He can forgive sins (Matt. 9:3).24 Even at Jesus' trial the miracles

were not discussed although the Old Testament spoke against any

magic in Israel (Exod. 22: 18). The reason evidential value was lacking

in the miracles is not because they were unreal but because unbelief

stood in the way.


One further observation needs to be made. Closely related to

the rejection in unbelief is the cause of unbelief, namely, the spiritual

blindness of the human heart.25  As "the heavens declare the glory

of God" (Ps. 19: 1) but darkened hearts fail to see, so the miracles

manifest the power of Christ but blinded minds fail to understand.

To the Christian the evidential value is obvious, but to the unregenerated

heart it is unconvincing.


The evidential value of miracles is therefore not of such a nature

 that the "rational" mind must give assent and faith must follow. It is

rather a part of the witness concerning the person and message of

Christ that may be accepted or rejected. The miracles are simply a

part of the larger evidence of the whole testimony of Christ--and

beyond this, of the whole Bible. They were never intended to be a

separate and unrelated proof of Christianity. They are a part of the



                   The Apologetic Content of the Gospel Miracles

When miracles are recognized as a part of the self-vindicating

aspect of divine revelation, they supply a powerful apologetic value

to the Christian witness.


20                                            GRACE JOURNAL


A revelation of Christ’s glory.  After Jesus performed his first

miracle at Cana of Galilee John writes, “The beginning of

miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his

glory, and his disciples believed on him (John 2: 1). It is most fitting

that the revelational aspect of Jesus' first miracle is thus emphasized.

Thus Garvie writes:


...a Christ who being Son of God, and seeking to become

Saviour of men, wrought no miracle, would be less intelligible

and credible than the Jesus whom the Gospel records so

consistently present to us.”26


A study of the Gospel miracles reveals how well they do

manifest the glory of Christ.  They are, as Garvie states, altogether

congruous with His Person, His mission, and His message. He is Himself

supernatural in His sinless, perfect, moral character, and in His religious

consciousness of representing God to man as Messiah and Son of God.27


The reason Christ's glory was recognized by some and not by

others has already been stated. Spiritual blindness hindered the

unbelieving from seeing it. Bruce elaborates on this point by observing,


The Pharisaic method was to begin at the outside. Starting from the

data of miraculous signs viewed abstractly as mere wonders,

they tried to read the heart, and they failed. The method of the

disciples was to start from within and reason outwards. Discerning

 the spirit of Jesus with the clear vision of an honest heart, they

read in the light of it all His outward conduct, and saw in all His acts,

 miraculous or otherwise, the self-manifestation of the Christ, the

Son of the living God.28


As a revelation of Christ's glory, the miracles relate to His offices

of Messiah, Prophet and Priest.


When John the Baptist, through his disciples, asked Jesus, "Art

 thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" (Matt. 11:3), the

answer was, "Go and show John again those things which ye do hear

and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk. .." (Matt. 11:4-5). 

The coming of Christ and the miracles he performed meant that the

Messianic era had dawned. 


After the death of Moses, the Old Testament record states:


And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom

 the Lord knew face to face, in all the signs and the wonders, which the

Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt to Pharoah. (Deut. 34: 10-11).


As the organ of revelation of God, the prophet was able to perform

            miracles and signs.  Jesus demonstrated that He also came in the

             ministry of a prophet.  As a priest, Jesus was moved with pity on

             multitudes and individuals. In Galilee, when He saw the multitudes,

              "he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted

             and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd" (Matt. 9:36).



Thus the Gospel records make the point perfectly clear: The miracles

were a part of the revelation of the glory of Christ.


A confirmation of Christ's doctrine. The nature of the Gospel miracles

demonstrates that the purpose is not simply the proof of doctrine. What they

do claim for Christ first of all "is a right to be listened to: [putting] him in the

alternative of being from heaven or from hell.”29


But this is not their most significant purpose. They are also vehicles of

revelation and as such possess characteristics congruous to the nature of the

 revelation with which they are associated.30  Bruce further explains that, "If the

sole purpose of miracles were to serve as evidences of a doctrinal revelation, all

miracles would be alike good, provided only they were miraculous.”31


But, the raising of Lazarus (John 11) revealed Jesus as the Resurrection

and the Life; the feeding of the five thousand revealed Him to be the Bread of

Life. The true relationship between the miracles and doctrine " one of mutual

 interdependence, the miracles proving the doctrines and the doctrines approving

 the miracles.”32  Garvie further states that the miracles "...were not primarily

credentials of His mission, but only secondarily so as constituents of that

mission to reveal God, not only as enlightening truth, but as saving grace.”33


This interdependence of miracle and doctrine further evidences the self-

authenticating nature of the Scriptures. Jesus would not overcome unbelief by

any display of His power. No sign was given to a "wicked and adulterous

generation" (Matt. 16:4). Jesus depreciated the faith in Himself that rested

only upon His miracles (John 4:48). He desired faith wrought in a conception

of His whole person.


In this sense miracles are a confirmation of Christ's doctrine. His power

evidences the origin of His doctrine. The signs illustrate the truth of His

doctrine. And the spiritual discernment needed to appreciate the miracles

is indicative of the nature of His doctrine.


A stimulation to Christian faith.  Assuming that Jesus' purpose in

performing miracles was the same as John's purpose for recording them,

one of the purposes of the miracles was to arouse faith. John states:


And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples,

which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye might

believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing

ye might have life through His name (John 20:30-31).


The above assumption regarding the purpose of miracles appears

valid, for concerning Jesus' first miracle, John writes that Jesus "manifested

forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him" (John 2:11).


This stimulation to faith arises, not so much because the miracles

prove the authority of Christ, (for the Pharisees did not accept them

as such proof), but because the miracles are


22                                            GRACE JOURNAL


a part of the whole supernatural revelation of God. Because the

Word of God is "alive" and "active" (Heb. 4:12), the miracles, as

a part of divine revelation, partake of a similar character. As a part

of divine revelation they become a part of divine witness to the

truth (Heb. 2:4).


When any divine revelation is given, man is called upon to

repent and believe. Thus Jesus reproaches the Galilean cities that

had had many miracles because they "repented not" (Matt. 11:20-21).

 Peter reminds the people of Israel at Pentecost that Jesus of Nazareth

was "approved of God" among them by "miracles and wonders and

signs" (Acts 2:22). He had a right to claim the allegiance of these

people to Christ. The revelation maybe rejected but not without the

verdict that light has been ignored and repudiated.


As a revelation of God, therefore, the miracles function as a

powerful stimulation to faith in Christ.




The Gospel accounts were accepted at face value and as such

have demonstrated miracles therein to be supernatural occurrences

 imbedded in the history of the first century.  They are distinguished

from the pagan miracles because they go beyond the realm of magic

and must be explained in relation to the character and doctrines of

Christ. Their occurrence cannot

be explained as being the result of psychosomatic healings or feats

of superior knowledge. The nature of the miracles defies such an explanation.


While the miracles are not opposed to natural law, nevertheless,

they are interfere with it, being above and beyond its limitations and

controls. They are the direct results of the power of Christ who

performed them as an expression of His Lordship and Saviourhood.


Thus, as an evidence for the truth of Christianity, the miracles

form a part of Christ’s self-revelation. Only when He is accepted by

an act of personal faith can they be properly appreciated. But when

they are accepted on that basis, they reveal His eternal Glory as the

Creator-God; they confirm His doctrines as the words of a heavenly

messenger; and they arouse a faith that is rooted in His incomparable






1. Edward J. Carnell, An Introduction to Christian  Apologetics (Grand Rapids,          

    Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1948), p. 243.

2. James Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand    

     Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), I, p. 176.

3. Cornelius VanTil, The New Modernism (London: James Clarke &Co., Ltd.,

            1946), p.302.



4. R. Bultmann, Die Geschichte der Synoptischen Tradition (Gottingen,

         1957), p. 244.

5. J. Gresham Machen, The Christian Faith in the Modern World (Grand Rapids,        

         Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1947), p. 193.

I6. Ibid., p. 199.

7. H. VanDer Loos, The Miracles of Jesus (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965), p.4.

8. Ibid., p. 117.

9. Ibid., p. 137.

10. A. Ritschl, Unterricht in der Christlichen Religion (Bonn, 1875), pp. 14-15.

11. F. Schleiermacher, Das Leben Jesu (Berlin: K. A. Rutenik, 1864), pp. 219-227.

12. Paul E. Little, Know Why You Believe (Wheaton, Ill: Scripture Press       

       Publications, Inc., 1967), p. 57.

13. Carnell, op. cit., p.257.

14. Little, op.cit., p. 58.

15. John H. Gerstner, Reasons for Faith (New York: Harper and Row

       Publishers, n.d.), p.90.

16. C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1947), p. 72.

17. Van Der Loos, op. cit., p. 180.

18. Ibid., p195. 

19. Bernard Ramm, Protestant Christian Evidences (Chicago: Moody Press, 1953),

            p. 141.

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid., p.142.

23. Richard Chenevix Trench, Notes on the Miracles of our Lord (London:    

       Fleming H. Revell Co., 1953), p. 102.

24. Van Der Loos, op. cit., p. 146.

25. Trench, op. cit., pp. 100-102.

26. Alfred Ernest Garvie, A Handbook of Christian Apologetics (New York:

            Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913), p. 73.

27. Ibid., p. 71.

28. A. B. Bruce. The Miraculous Element in the Gospels (London: Hodder and

            Stoughton, 1886), p. 289.

29. Carnell, op. cit., p. 271.

30. Bruce, op. cit., p. 290.

31. Ibid.

32. Trench, op. cit., p. 104.

33. Garvie, op. cit., p.71. 


This material is cited with gracious permission from:

            Grace Theological Seminary

            200 Seminary Dr.

            Winona Lake,  IN   46590

Please report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: