The only way one will savingly turn to receive the resurrected and ascended Christ is if the Holy Spirit grants increase to the work of the cross as explicated in the context of God’s revealed remedy for man’s dire dilemma. Accordingly, we need an apologetic methodology that upholds the self-attesting word of God so that we might skillfully undress the deceitfulness of sin and defend the righteous demands of God through the hope of the gospel. After exposing the futility of unbelief, our desire for the unbeliever is that he might attend and submit to the claims of Christ as it comes to us from the very voice of God in Scripture.

Induction, the basis for all scientific inference, presupposes the uniformity of nature, which is to say it operates under the expectation that the future will be like the past. From a Christian perspective, it is ordinary providence that explains how the scientific method is possible. Therefore, to argue for the miracle of the resurrection according to evidence and human experience is foolishness (Proverbs 26:4). Resurrection is a phenomenon that contemplates an exchange of ordinary providence for the miraculous, which pertains to God working without, above, or against the ordinary (WCF 5.3).

The resurrection of Christ from the dead is contra-uniform. It does not comport with experience. Our experience is that people die and are not raised three days later. Also, we have all met plenty of liars and those deceived into embracing false beliefs (even dying for false beliefs!) but nobody living has ever observed a single resurrection of the body. Given the uniformity of nature coupled with personal experience without remainder, a more probable explanation for the empty tomb is a hoax put on by liars rather than a miracle put on by God. (The same reasoning applies to the virgin birth.)

Since scientific inference consists of making generalizations based upon specific observations, the principle of induction isn’t terribly useful in trying to draw rational inferences about the miraculous. That is why we do not come to know the Savior lives by examining evidence according to an alleged neutral posture, for the un-exegeted facts do not lead us to the conclusion that Christ is risen. So, at the very least, Christians should not argue evidentially for the resurrection lest we deceive the lost by implying that we ourselves know Christ lives based upon evidence upon which our saving faith does not rest. Besides, even if one were to become persuaded that Jesus probably rose from the dead, saving faith entails believing what is revealed in the Word based upon the authority of God himself speaking therein (WCF 14.2). Moreover, on what authority should one embrace not just the resurrection of Christ but, also, its soteriological significance coupled with the gospel truths that Jesus is both Christ and Lord? In a word, when does God’s voice in Scripture become authoritative in biblically informed evangelism?

True believers have heard from God. As it is written:

[Jesus] said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven”  Matthew 16:15-17

An improper (yet popular) use of evidence:

In that misogynistic culture, women were regarded as second-rate eyewitnesses. If the Gospels are pious fiction, why would the narrators invent inferior witnesses rather than more culturally credible witnesses?

That argument gets a bit of traction around Easter. One rejoinder is the narrators weren’t clever enough to recognize that they were inventing inferior witnesses. Another is that the narrators were extremely clever and did recognize that they were inventing inferior witnesses! After calculating the risk of using seemingly inferior witnesses, the narrators concluded that there is significant persuasive force in using such witnesses. The logic being, if inferior witnesses would not likely be invented intentionally, then people might naturally conclude the inferior witnesses were not invented and, therefore, are all the more credible. (I’m sure I must have seen such reverse psychology on a Columbo episode.)

Law-Gospel – the KISS method for fellow sinners:

When well-meaning Christians remove the extraordinary claim of the resurrection from its salvific context, the resurrection is anything but credible. Yet, the resurrection is sufficiently explanatory within the context of things we know by nature and are awakened to by the Holy Spirit working in conjunction with Scripture. Namely, God’s wrath abides upon all men and God is patient, merciful and loving toward sinners. In the context of man’s plight and God’s character, the preaching of the cross can be apprehended as not just credible but the very wisdom of God. Only the gospel can reconcile mercy, grace and love with alienation, justice and wrath. Revelation, not autonomous reason, is profound!

Our full persuasion of the resurrection unto knowledge of the truth is revelatory and law-gospel centric. The good news of John 3:16 is intelligible only in the context of the bad news of Romans 1:18-20 and Romans 3:10-20. The former presupposes the latter. Sinners come to know their Savior lives not by being offered a savior who might have come back from the dead. Rather, sinners come to a saving knowledge of Christ when awakened to the unmistakably authoritative gospel reality of God’s remedy for uncleanness and unrighteousness.

Read More