The chances are many more that he may be mystified and confused, even to the point of losing confidence in Scripture as definite testimony to anything. Against its plainest declaration counter-statements and arguments are brought up which seem to nullify its meaning or so to modify it as to make it seem sometimes opposite of what it says on the face of it. A written discussion has some advantages over the oral. There is less likelihood of thoughtless or useless utterance. The personal element is not so prominent.
Arguments are apt to be clearer and more dispassionate.
The reader can go back, can compare, examine, think, at his leisure. Neither party to it is in position or mood to consider and weigh the possible truth and value of the other's teaching, but rather to oppose, to avoid, to break the force of, to parry, every point and argument advanced by the representation of the other side. And the outcome is rarely so decisive and obvious to all, as that of a boxing or a wrestling match. Rarely can the man in the pew see through the maze of syllogism and sophism, of argument and repartee, thrust and counter-thrust, so as to discern the real merits of the case. Often his favorable or unfavorable impression is derived from factors that have really nothing to do with the case.