Tag: Southern Gospel Radio

DAVID INGRAM

In the last article, I responded to the first point a Muslim raised after he approached me in a spirit of dawah, the Islamic practice of inviting others to consider Islam. That first point questioned whether Paul had any real connection to Jesus’s teachings since he never met Jesus in person before the crucifixion. Now I want to move to his second argument.

His point was that before he became known as Paul, he was called Saul, and Saul was a man who hunted down and hurt early followers of Jesus. Some were even killed because of his actions. He used this history to suggest that Paul’s past disqualifies him from being trusted as a genuine teacher of the faith.

This is worth taking seriously, so let me respond honestly.

It’s true. Saul persecuted the early church before he became Paul. The book of Acts does not hide this or soften it. Acts 8:3 says Saul was “ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.” Acts 9:1 describes him as “breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord.” Paul himself admits this openly in his own letters. In Galatians 1:13, he writes that he “persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it.” In 1 Timothy 1:13, he calls himself “a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent.”

Here is why this history does not disqualify Paul. It actually supports the truth of what happened to him.

Paul never hides his past or tries to rewrite it to look better. A person inventing a religious story to gain followers or power would likely try to present himself with a clean record, not openly confess to being a violent persecutor of the very people he later joined. The fact that Paul repeatedly brings up his own guilt, without being forced to do so, points toward honesty rather than deception.

More importantly, Christianity does not teach that a person’s past determines whether God can use them. It teaches the opposite. The core message of the Christian faith is that all people fall short and are in need of grace, and that God’s mercy is bigger than anyone’s failures. Paul’s transformation from a violent enemy of the church into one of its most sacrifice-filled leaders is not a weakness in the story. It is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that something real happened to him on that road to Damascus. Do people typically suffer and die for a cause they know is a lie? Especially one they once fought against?

So rather than disqualifying Paul, his past actually strengthens the case that his conversion was genuine. Paul’s story is about a dramatic change from persecutor to persecuted.

By the way, though the Muslim didn’t raise this specific comparison, a stronger version of his argument might point to how Islam treats its own early opponents. Abu Jahl was a powerful leader in Mecca who fiercely opposed and persecuted Muhammad and his early followers. He is remembered in Islamic tradition as one of the clearest villains of that era. He is known as a man whose past left him with no credibility in Islamic teaching. Someone could argue that if Islam judges Abu Jahl this way because of his persecution of believers, then consistency would require Christians to view Paul with the same suspicion. Perhaps from an Islamic perspective this makes sense. But isn’t forgiveness and remission of sin why Jesus died on the Cross? Islam’s Abu Jahl died opposing the faith he persecuted, while Paul was transformed. Though Paul suffered greatly for following Jesus, he rejoiced!

This is the second point my acquaintance raised, and I hope this response shows the same respect and honesty I intend to bring to each one. In the next article, I will address his claim about the differences in how the Damascus road vision is described across different verses in Acts.

DAVID INGRAM

Not long ago, a Muslim reached out to me after seeing a comment I made opposing Islamic teachings. He approached me in a spirit of dawah, which is the Islamic practice of inviting others to learn about and accept Islam. Dawah is considered an important duty for many Muslims. I am not saying they could convince me to abandon our Lord. I’m being real here. Their belief is that sharing Islam’s message is a form of care for others. Yes, he was polite. He asked about my beliefs, and invited me to talk about his faith with respect and openness. I was, and still am, skeptical about him being up front with me, but perhaps I’m wrong? I spoke with him as honesty and respectful as I could, but did not backdown down from what I know to be true.

Over the course of our conversation, he raised several arguments meant to cast doubt on the reliability of the apostle Paul, and by extension, a large portion of the New Testament. I want to work through these points one at a time, starting with his very first argument. I’ll limit myself to that point only, and address others in the future.

He claimed Paul never met Jesus in person during Jesus’s earthly life. And since Paul had no direct, in-person relationship with Jesus while he walked the earth, he argued that Paul has no real connection to Jesus’s true teachings and should not be trusted as a source of Christian doctrine.

It’s a fair question to raise, and it deserves a real answer rather than a dismissal. I suggest Christians should learn to do this. When those opposed to our faith bring up questions, it is either an opportunity to show someone where they are in error, or a way to find areas of scripture we need to study up on. I say this because spreading the Gospel isn’t about winning argument. It is about spreading the message of Jesus. Saying, “I don’t know” isn’t the same as losing an argument. It is a way of finding holes in our Biblical knowledge. But, let’s not get off the path here. Back to his point. What’s the answer to his challenge?

It’s true that Paul did not walk with Jesus during his earthly ministry the way Peter, James, and John did. Paul says this himself. But the New Testament also records that Paul encountered the risen Jesus directly, on the road to Damascus. This wasn’t a rumor or a secondhand story Paul invented. It’s described in Acts and referenced by Paul in his own letters, including 1 Corinthians 9:1, where he asks, “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?”

This matters because Christianity has never claimed that only people who knew Jesus before his death and resurrection could speak with authority about him. In fact, the resurrection is the center of the Christian message. Paul met the resurrected Christ, and he says this encounter transformed him from a persecutor of the church into one of its most committed messengers. If the resurrection happened the way the Gospels describe it, then meeting Jesus after he rose is not a lesser encounter. It may be the most important one!

There’s also the matter of consistency. Paul’s letters were not accepted into Scripture on a whim. The early church recognized them as trustworthy because they lined up with what the apostles who did walk with Jesus were already teaching. Peter himself refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15 to 16. That agreement matters.

So the argument that Paul has no link to Jesus’s true teachings does not hold up when we look at what Paul claimed and how the rest of the early church responded to him. A personal encounter with the risen Jesus, confirmed by the very apostles who walked with him in life.

This is just the first point the man raised. He had questions about Paul’s past, the details of his conversion story, and alleged claims about deception. I intend to address each of these in future articles. I hope my writings show respect and honesty. I believe truth can stand up to scrutiny. In fact, truth shines brightest when placed against a lie. I also want to make clear that I am not watering down his arguments. To do so would be to fight a straw man. God’s word stands on its own.