Then He *said to Thomas,
“Reach here
your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it
into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing,"
(John 20:27).
Evidential
Apologetics is that style of Christian defense that stresses the miracles
found in the Bible, particularly Christ's resurrection, as an evidence for
the existence of God and the validity of Christ and His words. It
also uses historical evidences to support the veracity of the biblical
accounts. In this, it is very similar to
Classical
Apologetics which stresses reason in its approach to evidences.
Basically, evidential apologetics stresses evidence such as miracles,
fulfilled prophecies, etc. and uses reason to support them.
An example of evidential apologetics might be as
follows (Note the similar argument to the classical approach):
Allen: How do I know God exists?
Paul: One of the ways can be found in the gospel accounts where
Jesus performed many miracles like walking on water, healing the sick,
etc. and then finally rising from the dead. No mere man can do those
kinds of things. There had to be something supernatural at
work. Why can't that be God?
Allen: But the Bible is full of myths. It is just a
bunch of stories.
Paul: Actually, they are not just myths and stories.
The gospels, for example, were written by those who either knew Jesus
personally, or were under the direction of those who did. The
gospels are full of factual accounts of cities, customs, terms, locations,
etc., that can all be verified historically and archaeologically.
There are many books that have verified the authenticity of the gospel
accounts.
Allen: If that is true, then I am sure the gospels have been
corrupted over time.
Paul: Actually, that isn't quite accurate. You
see, the New Testament alone has something like 24,000 supporting biblical
manuscripts and they are around 99.5% textually pure. That means
that they have been reliably transmitted to us through the
centuries. We can trust them.
Allen: Still, I can't believe all those miracles and
stuff.
Paul: Why not? Many eyewitnesses wrote and spoke about
what they saw Jesus do. After the gospel accounts were written,
there were plenty of people around who had seen Jesus who could have
spoken up or written something down contradicting what the apostles
wrote. But, we have no account of this happening.
Allen: I didn't think of that.
Paul: Furthermore, since the eyewitnesses wrote about what
they saw, and they saw miracles, as did hundreds of others, and Jesus
healed people, walked on water, calmed a storm by a command, and rose from
the dead, then whatever He says must be true since He backed up His words
with His deeds.
Allen: That makes sense, but that doesn't mean there is a
God.
Paul: True, it doesn't require that a God exist, but since
Jesus spoke about God, about the need to be right with God, etc., and
since He performed many miracles including rising from the dead, then it
is safe to say that not only is there a God, but that we should listen to
Jesus. This would also mean that the Bible is the inspired word of
God.
Allen: I'll have to think about what you said.
Generally, the evidential apologetics stresses
data that supports the miraculous evidences of the biblical accounts
thereby authenticating the Bible and the claims and deeds of Jesus.
The resurrection of Christ is perhaps the most
important evidence regarding Christianity in the Bible. It is a very
strong evidence and you should be familiar with the arguments
supporting it. If the resurrection of Christ is valid, then
Christianity is true. If Jesus did not arise from the dead, then
Christianity is false.
You'll find in your discussions with critics of the
Bible that they will reject the resurrection of Christ. But what
have they to offer in place of the accounts? You see, if they want
to deny that Christ rose from the dead, then they need to come up
with a replacement explanation that can incorporate the actions and
words of the disciples. In other words, the disciples claimed
that Christ rose from the dead and they based their lives, their
words, and their deeds on that resurrection even. It is not simply
that they are claiming to believe in some abstract concept like
reincarnation or karma. Instead, they taught that Jesus rose from
the dead. It is the resurrection of Christ that motivated them
to do and say what they did. What other explanation best accounts
for their actions? What other explanation is there that can account
for the disciples willingness to die, to suffer persecution,
hardship, rejection of their religious community, and to become
extremely evangelical? These are the same people who taught honesty,
integrity, truthfulness, self-sacrifice, and love. If Jesus did not
arise from the dead, then the disciples are liars and perpetuated
that lie while they were going around telling people to be honest,
truthful, loving, etc. it just doesn't make sense... unless Jesus
actually rose from the dead.
The evidence is there and it is a powerful argument for
the resurrection. Don't let the critics say it didn't happen. If
they want to deny the resurrection, than let them offer a better
explanation for the motivation and actions of the disciples
throughout the New Testament history. If they cannot, then the
resurrection of Christ is the best explanation.
------------------------ Focus Points ------------------------
-
Evidential Apologetics is that style
of Christian defense that stresses the miracles found in the Bible,
particularly Christ's resurrection, as an evidence for the existence
of God and the validity of Christ and His words.
- The resurrection
is the best explanation that accounts for the motivation, action,
and words of the disciples.
-
If the critics want to deny the resurrection, than let them offer a
better explanation for the motivation and actions of the disciples
throughout the New Testament history. If they cannot, then the
resurrection of Christ is the best explanation.
|