Lesson 8 - The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Question 1

What are the differences between the two main types of arguments against miracles?

Answer 1

1. ) Metaphysical arguments against Miracles
   - - argument against miracles actually happening
   - - A miracle is by definition a violation of the laws of nature
   - - But the laws of nature cannot be violated, or they wouldn’t be laws
   - - So miracles have to be impossible, in principle
2. ) Epistemological arguments against Miracles
   - - regardless if miracles do happen, you shouldn’t believe them even if they do (even if miracles are possible, they must be extremly improbable in principle)
   - - We should always judge our present experiences in light of our past
   - - Our past experiences in uniform in that events always follow the laws of nature
   - - A miraculous event would therefore contradict our entire past experience.
   - - So we should always seek some non-miraculous event explanation of our present experiences.

Question 2

How are these arguments flawed?

Answer 2

1. ) Metaphysical Argument - miracles can’t happen (violation of nature)
   - - miracles don’t have to be defined as violation of nature
   - - the laws of nature do not have to be understood as inviolable (can’t be broken)
   - - You are defining the terms in ways that make it impossible for Christian miracles and their worldview to be true
2. ) Epistemological argument - even if miracles can happen, you shouldn’t believe them
   - - stacks the deck to make it impossible to accept a miracle
   - - implies that our present experiences cannot add anything to our past experiences
   - - if this objection were right, then it would rule out learning anything new about the world
   - - this objection not only rules out miracles, but all other things that we take for granted as rational
   - - Not probable argument confuses prior probability with subsequent probability (background knowledge, specific evidence)

Question 3

How do the three aspects of apologetics apply to the resurrection of Jesus?

Answer 3

1. ) Proof - a case for the resurrection of Jesus
   - - Show that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is an integral element of the Christian worldview, which alone can make sense of the world
2. ) Defense: responding to the arguments against miracles
   - - Show that objections to miracles are based on non-Christian presuppositions and thus beg the question against Christianity. (They just assume the Christian worldview is false, without proving it)
3. ) Offense: refuting the alternatives
   - - Show that alternative explanations for the historical and documentary evidence are incoherent or highly improbable even on non-Christian presuppositions.

Question 4

How do the arguments for the resurrection fit into a Christian worldview?

Answer 4

1. ) The Christian worldview affirms the bodily resurrection of Jesus as a historical event.
2. ) The Christian worldview is the only worldview that can adequately account for those aspects of human experience we take for granted (morality, rationality, truth, etc.).
3. ) The Christian worldview offers the most coherent explanation for all the relevant evidence pertaining to the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
4. ) Therefore, it is unreasonable to reject the Christian worldview.
5. ) Therefore, it is unreasonable to deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus as a historical event.
6. ) Note also the doctrinal coherence of the Christian worldview – doctrines of God, sin, atonement, incarnation, and resurrection.