This article aims to expand upon and clarify Greg Bahnsen's renowned work, "The Impropriety of Evidentially Arguing for the Resurrection."

The resurrection is universally acknowledged by Christians as central to their faith. Without it, their belief system loses all significance.

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

1 Corinthians 15:14, ESV

Before delving into the resurrection itself, it's crucial to understand what distinguishes it from other instances of resurrection. The Bible documents several resurrections besides that of Jesus, with the raising of Lazarus being among the most notable.

Why specifically the resurrection of Jesus?

Paul answers the question in the next few verses of the same passage in 1 Corinthians:

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

1 Corinthians 15:17, ESV

The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ hold profound significance due to the extraordinary circumstances that accompany them. Christ's death was not merely a human death; it was a sacrificial act where He endured the full wrath of God the Father on the cross, serving as atonement for the sins of all believers. Furthermore, the resurrection of Jesus is pivotal because it is the foundation of our justification.

He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Romans 4:25, ESV

A dead Savior cannot offer salvation, yet we are empowered by a living Savior who justifies us and intercedes on our behalf. Through His resurrection, Christ triumphed over death. This victory allows us to anticipate our resurrection without fearing death in this life. Should Jesus not have risen, it would imply that He, too, was subject to sin’s consequences, failing to conquer it and fully atone for our sins.

Preliminary remarks on the resurrection proof

An important text to discuss before we set out to prove the resurrection is Luke 16.

He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

Luke 16:31, ESV

In the parable featuring Lazarus (distinct from the previously mentioned Lazarus) and the rich man, we find the rich man, now in torment, desiring to return to earth to warn his relatives against facing a similar destiny. This request is founded on the belief that additional information would lead his family to repentance, thus avoiding his grim fate. However, Abraham's response presents a profound challenge to an evidential approach in apologetics, suggesting a deeper issue at play. Jesus's implicit message through this parable is that the availability of irrefutable proof of the resurrection, even if presented at this moment, would not alter the current state of disbelief. The root problem with the sceptic isn't a lack of evidence but rather a moral incapacity to turn away from sin and embrace their Creator.

Given this perspective, one might wonder about the objectives of Christian apologists in their efforts to prove the resurrection. It becomes clear that apologetics, including the defence of the resurrection, isn't primarily aimed at converting non-believers to the Christian faith. Instead, apologetics serves two key purposes:

1. To challenge non-believers, highlighting the contradictions and illogical conclusions within their worldviews.

2. To bolster the faith of believers, providing them with reasoned confidence in their beliefs.
   

Philosophy of facts

If you were anticipating a presentation of historical evidence for the resurrection in this section, I must correct that expectation. Instead, our discussion begins with an exploration of what is termed the "philosophy of facts." A fact is defined as something that aligns with objective reality and whose truth can be substantiated through evidence.

Before delving into facts, it's imperative to address preliminary questions: How do we ascertain consistency with objective reality, and how do we verify something as true? These foundational inquiries often go unaddressed, with the assumption being prematurely conceded to sceptics.

As explored in prior discussions on this website, acknowledging our capacity for knowledge is a prerequisite to any proof. This recognition involves understanding epistemology, the study of how we acquire knowledge. Various approaches have been proposed, including rationalism, which asserts knowledge is derived from reasoning, and empiricism, which claims knowledge comes through sensory experience. Yet, secular approaches to epistemology are frequently shown to be based on arbitrary assumptions and lead to self-contradictory conclusions. Consequently, one must question how sceptics can meaningfully discuss resurrection facts without an epistemological framework that provides a solid basis for understanding.

For the Christian, the situation is different.

All facts are created facts which can be properly understood only when given the interpretation the Creator intends: as such, all facts demonstrate the truth of Christianity.

Greg Bahnsen, The Impropriety of Evidentially Arguing for the Resurrection

Christians possess a revelational epistemology based on divine revelation that is not subject to fallacies and can adequately account for facts and knowledge.

An insightful aspect underscored by Bahnsen is the inseparability of the epistemological repercussions of humanity's fall from the soteriological outcomes. To clarify, as we have previously defined epistemology as the study of how we come to know things, soteriology refers to the doctrine concerning salvation.

However, a serious difficulty arises when the epistemological significance of the resurrection is separated from its soteriological [salvific] function. It is correct to hold that God’s raising of Jesus from the dead saves us both from sin and agnosticism, but it would be mistaken to understand by this that the epistemological problem could be handled independently of the (broader) moral problem which is at its base. It is with regret that one notices neo-evangelicals severing the justifying efficacy of Christ’s resurrection from its truth-accrediting function. In reality, the latter is dependent upon the former. Only as Christ’s resurrection (with its ensuing regeneration by the Holy Spirit of Christ) saves a sinner from his rebellion against God and God’s Word, can it properly function to exhibit evidence for God’s truthfulness.

Greg Bahnsen, The Impropriety of Evidentially Arguing for the Resurrection

It is only through Christ's atonement for our sins, followed by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit within each believer's heart, that we can truly perceive facts as they are. Non-believers are unable to interpret the facts of the resurrection accurately because their pre-existing biases preclude the resurrection's possibility. These biases, upon examination, reveal themselves to be arbitrary and inconsistent, leaving sceptics without a stable foundation from which to meaningfully consider the facts.

The transformative work of Christ and the renewal of the heart enable believers to anchor their understanding in divine revelation. This foundational belief allows for an objective analysis of the facts surrounding the resurrection, thereby reinforcing the Christian stance.

Presuppositions

After exploring the notion of facts and examining the presuppositions held by non-believers, our discussion now shifts towards understanding how these presuppositions influence our interpretation of Scripture and its accounts.

Let's address the matter directly. Christians accept as truth that an axehead floated, a donkey spoke, and a man was resurrected. Presenting such claims in contemporary times might invite ridicule. So, why do we, without reservation, affirm these events occurred? The answer lies in our trust in the authority of the One who disclosed these truths to us.

Balaam and the Talking Donkey, Numbers 22

Beginning with the presupposition that the Triune God, as revealed in Scripture, is the ultimate authority, we are compelled to accept His declarations as truth.

Conversely, adopting the presupposition of methodological naturalism leads to an automatic dismissal of biblical miracles: axeheads do not float, donkeys do not speak, and the dead do not return to life. These phenomena can be consistently disproven through empirical testing at any moment. Before addressing the challenges unbelievers face by disregarding Scriptural authority, let's delve deeper into this line of reasoning.

According to our empirical experiences, the dead remain dead. Sceptics, operating from this standpoint, seek to interpret the evidence surrounding the resurrection in ways that align with this belief. Various theories have been proposed by sceptics in an attempt to rationalize the resurrection account without accepting its miraculous nature:

• The theory that Jesus's body was stolen.

• The hypothesis that the disciples fabricated the story.

• The swoon theory, suggesting Jesus survived the crucifixion and later convinced his followers he had been resurrected.
  

Sye Ten Bruggencate offers a compelling example to illustrate how deeply presuppositions influence our thought processes. While I can't locate the exact quotation, here's a paraphrase of his analogy:

A man was utterly convinced he was deceased. Despite everyone's efforts, he couldn't be persuaded otherwise. Seeking a solution, his family consulted a doctor. After much contemplation, the doctor queried, "Do dead men bleed?" Confidently, the man replied, "No, dead men don't bleed." The doctor then pricked the man's finger with a pin, causing him to bleed. Observing the unexpected bleeding, the man was initially baffled. However, he soon declared in astonishment, "Well, it turns out dead men do bleed after all!"

This story poignantly highlights how individuals tailor their interpretations to align with their underlying assumptions. If sceptics preemptively dismiss the possibility of supernatural phenomena, convincing them of any such occurrences becomes virtually impossible.

Addressing this challenge involves adopting a strategy familiar to any presuppositional apologist:

1. Internal Critique of Non-Christian Presuppositions: This involves examining and critiquing the foundational beliefs of non-Christians from within their worldview. By highlighting inconsistencies and contradictions, one can demonstrate the inadequacy of such presuppositions to fully account for reality.
   

2. Presentation of the Christian Worldview as the Sole Coherent Alternative: After exposing the flaws within non-Christian worldviews, the Christian worldview is presented as the only framework that consistently makes sense of reality. This step involves illustrating how Christian presuppositions provide a coherent and unified understanding of the world.
   

3. Utilizing Evidence Within a Christian Context: Evidence is then reinterpreted within the framework of the Christian worldview. This approach shows how Christianity can coherently explain both the concept of facts and the facts themselves, thereby offering a persuasive argument for the truth of the Christian faith.
   

The internal critique

The scepticism of non-believers towards biblical accounts of talking donkeys, floating axeheads, and resurrecting the dead stems from the fact that such phenomena are not observed in the present day.

Why do sceptics conclude that donkeys cannot talk, axeheads cannot float, and the dead cannot rise? They inherently rely on the assumption of nature's uniformity, which they take for granted without realizing that this uniformity itself cannot be explained without reference to divine revelation.

This observation leads to an intriguing assertion: the Christian worldview uniquely provides a rationale for why axeheads do not float, donkeys do not speak, and people do not routinely rise from the dead. However, the same divine revelation that underpins our expectation for uniformity in nature also affirms that the Creator has the sovereign authority to alter this uniformity as He sees fit, including the performance of miracles. Thus, miracles are termed as such precisely because they deviate from the ordinary course of nature.

Consequently, the burden of proof shifts to the sceptic. It falls upon them to justify their expectation of perpetual uniformity in natural phenomena and to account for their disbelief in miracles, given that their worldview lacks a foundational basis to expect such uniformity without divine revelation.

The Christian worldview

Grounded in the authority of God's revelation, we have a framework that not only accounts for the resurrection of Jesus but also explains why such resurrections are not a common occurrence today. This is tied back to our earlier discussion on the uniformity of nature, a concept that finds its justification within the context of divine revelation.

He made the moon to mark the seasons; the sun knows its time for setting.

Psalm 104:19, ESV

Thus says the Lord: If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth...

Jeremiah 33:25, ESV

God reigns as sovereign over all creation, maintaining the universe consistently and logically. Because God is unchanging, He sustains the universe with uniformity and consistency across time.

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Hebrews 1:3, ESV

While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.

Genesis 8:22, ESV

To reiterate, only the Christian worldview offers the foundational premises necessary to critique Christian claims in the first place. However, to employ these premises in argument against Christianity would be self-defeating, akin to sawing off the branch one is perched upon.

Rather, starting with Christian presuppositions we can echo the apostle Paul in saying:

Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?

Acts 26:8, ESV

The discussion thus far should instill in Christians a confident assurance in the veracity and incontrovertibility of Scripture's claims about Jesus's resurrection. Armed with this conviction, let's now examine some of the key facts related to the resurrection.

Looking at the facts

Evangelicals are often prone to generate inductive arguments for the veracity of Christianity based on the historical resurrection of Christ, and such arguments occupy central importance in this apologetic. It is felt that if a man would simply consider the “facts” presented and use his common reasoning sense he would be rationally compelled to believe the truth of Scripture. In such a case the evidences for Christ’s resurrection are foundational to apologetical witnessing, whereas their only proper place is confirmatory of the believer’s presupposed faith.

Greg Bahnsen, The Impropriety of Evidentially Arguing for the Resurrection

We have further explored Bahnsen's perspective, acknowledging that evidential proof of the resurrection is unattainable without first recognizing the authority of God's Word. However, this does not render the facts surrounding the resurrection useless. On the contrary, these facts can significantly reinforce our pre-existing beliefs.

It's crucial to note that our faith in the Bible isn't grounded in empirical evidence for each verse. Instead, our belief stems from its inherent authority, with the anticipation that evidence will corroborate what we already accept as truth. This principle is crucial and can be illustrated by the historical example of the Hittites.

There was a time when critics of the Old Testament ridiculed it for mentioning a tribe of people, the Hittites, which were (as yet) unknown outside the Bible; such presumed flaws in the Biblical record were taken as rendering it worthless as a historical document -- until Hittite artifacts and monuments began to be uncovered around Carchemish by archaeologists, beginning in 1871. The Hittite civilization is today one of best known cultures of the ancient world!

Greg Bahnsen, Tools of Apologetics

The comparison involving the Hittites is significant. Our belief in the biblical accounts of the Hittites doesn't stem from archaeological discoveries; instead, our conviction of their existence is grounded in the authority of Scripture. Consequently, we anticipate that archaeological evidence will align with Scripture, reinforcing its accounts rather than being the source of its truth.

With this framework in place, let's delve into the facts, particularly focusing on Dr. Gary Habermas' minimal facts argument:

My Minimal Facts Argument in favor of Jesus’ resurrection was developed many years ago while writing my PhD dissertation.  It has two requirements for the historical facts that are used: each must be confirmed by several strong and independent arguments, plus the vast majority of even critical scholars must recognize the occurrence’s historical nature.

Gary Habermas, The Minimal Facts Argument

Dr. Gary Habermas articulates that his minimal facts approach is grounded in six key facts:

1. Jesus’s Death by Crucifixion: This fact is universally acknowledged due to the historical evidence supporting the method and fact of Jesus's execution.

2. Post-Crucifixion Appearances: Shortly after Jesus's death, his followers reported having genuine experiences that they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus.

3. Transformation of Lives: These experiences had a profound effect on his followers, transforming their lives to the extent that they were willing to face death for their belief in the resurrection message.

4. Early Doctrine: The teaching that Jesus had been resurrected was established and disseminated shortly after his crucifixion, indicating the immediacy and impact of the belief.

5. Conversion of James: James, who was Jesus’s sceptical brother, became a follower of Christ after he too experienced what he believed was an appearance of the resurrected Jesus.

6. Conversion of Paul: Similarly, Paul, who was initially a persecutor of Christians known as Saul of Tarsus, became a fervent believer following an experience he interpreted as an encounter with the risen Christ.
   

Dr. Habermas elaborates on these points in greater detail, providing a robust foundation for understanding the historical evidence of the resurrection.

For additional compelling evidence, consider exploring "Evidence that Demands a Verdict."

It's important to remember, though, that from a presuppositional standpoint, these facts cannot serve as the foundational proof of the resurrection upon which our faith is built. If the resurrection is treated as merely probable rather than a certain fact (which is the most that can be achieved through empirical evidence as noted), we encounter significant epistemological issues, as previously discussed.

A resurrection deemed only probable effectively amounts to no resurrection in terms of its foundational role in the Christian faith.

Furthermore, no amount of empirical evidence alone is sufficient to sway the unbeliever. A fundamental shift in worldview is required—a point underscored by the example of Luke 16.

God’s Word is sufficient in giving the sinner the necessary witness which can lead him to conversion; if he will not hear the inspired Word of God, neither will he be moved by a human argument for the resurrection. A proof of the resurrection is certainly no more powerful than the living and bodily presence of the resurrected Savior before one’s own eyes; yet we learn from Matthew 28:17 that even some of the eleven disciples of Christ doubted while in His resurrected presence! When one is not ready to submit to God’s self-attesting Word, no amount of evidence can persuade him. - even compelling evidence for Christ’s resurrection.

Greg Bahnsen, The Impropriety of Evidentially Arguing for the Resurrection

A critical point to emphasize regarding the discussion of the resurrection's facts is that Christians should resist allowing skeptics to confine the scope of evidence solely to extra-Biblical sources. On what basis are the Scriptures disqualified as evidence of the events they recount? Unlike the Bible, no other historical document is subjected to such stringent scrutiny in the study of ancient history. The assertion that the Bible cannot serve as evidence for its claims is a manifestation of prejudicial conjecture.

Prophecy and the internal witness of Scripture

Ending our discussion without addressing the significant role of prophecy in analyzing the resurrection would be incomplete. One of the key reasons for our belief in Scripture lies in its internal testimony. This is articulated in Article 5 of the Belgic Confession, which states:

And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them [Scriptures]— not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God. For even the blind themselves are able to see that the things predicted in them do happen.

Article 5, Belgic Confession

In the Old Testament, Christ's resurrection was prophesied in several passages that pointed to His suffering, death, and subsequent rising from the dead. One of the key prophecies is found in Isaiah 53:10, which talks about the suffering servant being raised from the dead by the will of the Lord. This passage foreshadows Christ's resurrection as part of His redemptive work for humanity. Additionally, Psalm 16:10, speaks of the Holy One not seeing decay, which the New Testament writers interpret as referring to Christ's resurrection.

Other passages like Daniel 12:2 allude to a future resurrection where some will rise to everlasting life, which can be understood in light of Christ's resurrection being the foundation for believers' hope of eternal life. Furthermore, in Ezekiel 37, the vision of the valley of dry bones can symbolize the restoration of Israel, but it also hints at the spiritual regeneration that comes through Christ's resurrection.

These Old Testament prophecies find their ultimate fulfilment in the New Testament accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection, as seen in Acts 26:23, Acts 2:31, and other verses that attest to Christ's resurrection being the culmination of God's redemptive plan. The Old Testament serves as a foundation for understanding the significance of Christ's resurrection in the grand narrative of salvation history.

Promises of a future resurrection in the Old Testament are not hard to find:

For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. My heart faints within me!

Job 19: 25-27, ESV

And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Daniel 12:2, ESV

And more specifically to Jesus:

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

Isaiah 53: 10, ESV

To delve deeper into the topic of prophecy, consider exploring 'All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible.' By purchasing the book through the image link provided below, you'll not only gain valuable insights but also support Apologetics Central.

Conclusion

The resurrection occupies a central position in the Christian worldview, serving as the paramount testament to Jesus's identity and His triumphant conquest over death. Through His resurrection, we, alongside Job, who has already witnessed this glory, can joyfully proclaim:

For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. My heart faints within me!

Anticipated objections

The only objection I've encountered to the article by Bahnsen is a quotation of Acts 26:26. The claim is that Paul argues for the resurrection by use of evidence.

For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner.

Acts 26: 26, ESV

It fascinates me to observe how often people cite this verse almost as if it stands alone, ignoring that Paul does not ground the king’s belief in the resurrection solely on evidence. In the subsequent verse, he also specifically references the prophets, indicating that the appeal is not just to empirical evidence but also to the fulfilment of prophecy.

King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.

Acts 26: 27, ESV

Also note that early on in the address to Agrippa, Paul states his position up front, and we quoted this verse earlier as well:

Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?

Acts 26:8, ESV

Indeed, even before moving to the confirmatory power of the evidence, Paul makes it clear exactly what it is he is defending:

To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass: that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.

Acts 26: 22-23, ESV

Paul anchors his argument on the authority of Scripture, interpreting the publicly available evidence of the resurrection through a biblical perspective. This approach aligns with Greg Bahnsen's advocacy in his article, which I have aimed to further elucidate here.

The structure of Paul’s reasoning in Acts 26 is particularly compelling. He begins with the probing question, "Why find it incredible that God raises the dead?". He then reflects on his own past misunderstanding, recognizing his failure to see the truth that was always present in the Scriptures. It was only after encountering the risen Christ and converting to Christianity that Paul began to preach the fulfilment of what Moses and the prophets had foretold.

In resonance with Bahnsen's conclusion in his article:

As Paul at Athens, we must demand a complete, change of world-outlook and presupposition (based on the authority of God’s Word) and not just a mere addition of a few facts