The Riddleblog

Warfield on The Fact of Christ’s Resurrection

In an age when “spirituality” has replaced being “religious” (see, for example Michael Horton’s outstanding bookShaman and Sage), B. B. Warfield’s remarkable essay tying Christianity necessarily to historical events comes as a breath of fresh air—even if it has the slight sense of coming from more than a century ago.

Warfield’s essay, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historic Fact, begins with something quite obvious, yet too often assumed, overlooked, or rejected. Christianity is absolutely dependent upon what Jesus said and did (especially in his dying and bodily rising again from the dead), and not with any possible response to the message coming from the “spiritual self,” pushing me to find “my truth within” quite apart from the historical facts of the life of Christ. Warfield makes his view crystal clear in this regard.

It is a somewhat difficult matter to distinguish between Christian doctrines and facts. The doctrines of Christianity are doctrines only because they are facts; and the facts of Christianity become its most indispensable doctrines. The Incarnation of the eternal God is necessarily a dogma: no human eye could witness his stooping to man’s estate, no human tongue could bear witness to it as a fact. And yet, if it be not a fact, our faith is vain, we are yet in our sins. On the other hand, the Resurrection of Christ is a fact, an external occurrence within the cognizance of men to be established by their testimony. And yet, it is the cardinal doctrine of our system: on it all other doctrines hang.

To read the rest, follow the link below

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerAugust 28, 2024Christianity and history, the risen Jesus, Christ's resurrectionComment

How Much Evidence Is Required for Christ’s Resurrection?

Here’s a simple and effective argument to use when contending for the truth of Christ’s resurrection.

According to John Warwick Montgomery . . .

The issue here is a miracle: a resurrection. How much evidence is required to establish such a fact? Could evidence ever justify excepting it?
Phenonmenally (and this is all we need worry about for evidential purposes) a resurrection can be regarded as death followed by a life, D. then L. Normally, the sequence is reversed, thus L. then D.
We are well acquainted with the phenomenal meaning of the constituent factors (though we do not understand the “secret” of life or why death must occur), and we have no difficulty in establishing evidential criteria to place a person in one category rather than in the other. Thus the eating of fish (Luke 24:36-43) is sufficient to classify the eater among the living, and a crucifixion among the dead. In Jesus' case the sequential order was reversed, but that has no epistemological bearing on the weight of evidence required to establish death or life. And if Jesus was dead at point A, and alive at point B, then resurrection has occurred.

From John Warwick Montgomery, “A Revelational Solution” in Human Rights and Human Dignity (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1986), 154-155.

ApologeticsKim RiddlebargerMay 4, 2023Christ's resurrectionComment