From The Desk Of Pastor Paul Viggiano: Resurrection Day Edition
Evidence of Faith, Cause for Hope
Here are ten reasons why the resurrection of Jesus Christ remains the most important occurrence in history.
By Paul Viggiano
Branch of Hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Charles Hodge, the renowned 19th century Princeton theologian, penned these words concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ: "It may be safely asserted that the resurrection of Christ is at once the most important, and the best authenticated, fact in the history of the world."
Hodge buttressed this assertion with 10 arguments. Nine of these arguments would pass muster vis-à-vis any other notable historical event. The 10th is undeniable:
1. It was predicted in the Old Testament. The Christian faith began at the dawn of man with God making a promise to redeem mankind through the death and resurrection of the Christ. The Old Testament was a widespread and well-known document.
2. It was foretold by Christ himself. People have twisted the Scriptures from the very beginning. For those who doubted the promise of the Messiah, or were inclined to bend the Scriptures to their own agenda, Jesus re-announced that he would die and rise again.
3. It was an easily verified event. The Resurrection wasn't a matter of secret knowledge. It was a physical resurrection. There was no faith required to observe the risen Christ.
4. It was substantiated by abundant, suitable and frequently repeated evidence. Jesus was a threat to the religion of the Jews and the authority of Rome. They wanted Christianity to end. All they had to do to achieve this was produce the dead body of Jesus. This would never happen.
5. There were numerous, competent witnesses of the event. The Resurrection didn't happen in a vacuum where only the devout or those skilled in piety could observe. Jesus was a public figure followed by hundreds and seen by thousands for 40 days after his resurrection and before his ascension.
6. The conviction of the witnesses was testified by their willingness to suffer even to the point of death. The Christian faith grew dramatically after the ascension of Jesus, due to the spirit-inspired testimony of the apostles who all (but one) were put to death for their faith. It can be argued that people have been known to die for a lie, but it is a much harder argument to make that people will die for something they know to be a lie.
7. God confirmed the testimony of those who witnessed the Resurrection by signs and wonders seen by entire communities. Jesus conferred the power to perform signs and wonder to his apostles; this continued for years. The authorities certainly had the time and occasion to expose these apostles if they weren't genuine.
8. The fact of the Resurrection has been commemorated by a religious observance of the first day of the week from the time it happened until this present time. The regularity of millions (now billions) of people meeting on a weekly basis for thousands of years speaks toward the reliability of the data.
9. The effects produced by the Gospel admit of no other rational solution than the truth of Christ's death and subsequent resurrection. The Christian church is his monument. All believers are his witnesses. The tome of literary, archeological and historical evidence of the Resurrection is simply unmatched. Unbiased observers have taken historical events as fact with much less evidence.
The truth of the Gospel, the Resurrection, in fact all of Scripture can, and always has, passed every legitimate method of scrutiny. The real question is, "How legitimate are the methods?" Using man-made disciplines and evidences to determine the authenticity of Scripture would be like using my Casio to determine the accuracy of the atomic clock.
Add this to the fact that man has a propensity to interpret facts through his own grid. For example, if someone's grid doesn't allow for miracles, he won't believe the event was a miracle no matter how much evidence he is given; he'll just wait for some new explanation. Besides, it would be foolish to think that God has left us at the mercy of our own ability to do research in order to know the truth, let alone be saved.
This brings us to Hodge's last point.
10. Simply put, we know the Resurrection truly took place. Jesus said that his words are sufficient to judge us -- words which we still have in the Bible. The testimony of God's word is self-evident and undeniable. When people deny the Scriptures, they are denying something they know to be true in the depth of their heart. Man's accountability to God is not capricious; it is based in something men know.
And what a glorious thing God has revealed to us -- that there is hope beyond the grave. Jesus is called the first fruits of the Resurrection because those who trust in him will be resurrected as well -- this is what the Bible calls the good news. He is risen indeed!
The Rev. Paul Viggiano is pastor of the Branch of Hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Torrance. His e-mail address is pastorpaul@integrity.com.
Here are ten reasons why the resurrection of Jesus Christ remains the most important occurrence in history.
By Paul Viggiano
Branch of Hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Charles Hodge, the renowned 19th century Princeton theologian, penned these words concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ: "It may be safely asserted that the resurrection of Christ is at once the most important, and the best authenticated, fact in the history of the world."
Hodge buttressed this assertion with 10 arguments. Nine of these arguments would pass muster vis-à-vis any other notable historical event. The 10th is undeniable:
1. It was predicted in the Old Testament. The Christian faith began at the dawn of man with God making a promise to redeem mankind through the death and resurrection of the Christ. The Old Testament was a widespread and well-known document.
2. It was foretold by Christ himself. People have twisted the Scriptures from the very beginning. For those who doubted the promise of the Messiah, or were inclined to bend the Scriptures to their own agenda, Jesus re-announced that he would die and rise again.
3. It was an easily verified event. The Resurrection wasn't a matter of secret knowledge. It was a physical resurrection. There was no faith required to observe the risen Christ.
4. It was substantiated by abundant, suitable and frequently repeated evidence. Jesus was a threat to the religion of the Jews and the authority of Rome. They wanted Christianity to end. All they had to do to achieve this was produce the dead body of Jesus. This would never happen.
5. There were numerous, competent witnesses of the event. The Resurrection didn't happen in a vacuum where only the devout or those skilled in piety could observe. Jesus was a public figure followed by hundreds and seen by thousands for 40 days after his resurrection and before his ascension.
6. The conviction of the witnesses was testified by their willingness to suffer even to the point of death. The Christian faith grew dramatically after the ascension of Jesus, due to the spirit-inspired testimony of the apostles who all (but one) were put to death for their faith. It can be argued that people have been known to die for a lie, but it is a much harder argument to make that people will die for something they know to be a lie.
7. God confirmed the testimony of those who witnessed the Resurrection by signs and wonders seen by entire communities. Jesus conferred the power to perform signs and wonder to his apostles; this continued for years. The authorities certainly had the time and occasion to expose these apostles if they weren't genuine.
8. The fact of the Resurrection has been commemorated by a religious observance of the first day of the week from the time it happened until this present time. The regularity of millions (now billions) of people meeting on a weekly basis for thousands of years speaks toward the reliability of the data.
9. The effects produced by the Gospel admit of no other rational solution than the truth of Christ's death and subsequent resurrection. The Christian church is his monument. All believers are his witnesses. The tome of literary, archeological and historical evidence of the Resurrection is simply unmatched. Unbiased observers have taken historical events as fact with much less evidence.
The truth of the Gospel, the Resurrection, in fact all of Scripture can, and always has, passed every legitimate method of scrutiny. The real question is, "How legitimate are the methods?" Using man-made disciplines and evidences to determine the authenticity of Scripture would be like using my Casio to determine the accuracy of the atomic clock.
Add this to the fact that man has a propensity to interpret facts through his own grid. For example, if someone's grid doesn't allow for miracles, he won't believe the event was a miracle no matter how much evidence he is given; he'll just wait for some new explanation. Besides, it would be foolish to think that God has left us at the mercy of our own ability to do research in order to know the truth, let alone be saved.
This brings us to Hodge's last point.
10. Simply put, we know the Resurrection truly took place. Jesus said that his words are sufficient to judge us -- words which we still have in the Bible. The testimony of God's word is self-evident and undeniable. When people deny the Scriptures, they are denying something they know to be true in the depth of their heart. Man's accountability to God is not capricious; it is based in something men know.
And what a glorious thing God has revealed to us -- that there is hope beyond the grave. Jesus is called the first fruits of the Resurrection because those who trust in him will be resurrected as well -- this is what the Bible calls the good news. He is risen indeed!
The Rev. Paul Viggiano is pastor of the Branch of Hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Torrance. His e-mail address is pastorpaul@integrity.com.
posted by Soli Deo Gloria | 4/09/2007 03:18:00 AM
3 Comments:
“10. Simply put, we know the Resurrection truly took place.”
Regarding the above point— it’s a tricky one to communicate sometimes. Though “we (all) know”, we don’t all know that we know. In fact, when making the above point to a skeptic they’re likely to take you to mean that they’re lying about their unbelief. And since they’re certain that they know what’s in their mind better than you do they’re apt to write you off as a “non-conversant”. That is, they’ll conclude that you don’t know what’s going on in your own mind let alone what’s going on in theirs’.
On this point, due to its propensity for misconstrument, I think we must stress clarity. Point #10, while accurate and true, generally requires more elaboration when utilized as an apologetic.
What do you think PP?
"The real question is, "How legitimate are the methods?" Using man-made disciplines and evidences to determine the authenticity of Scripture would be like using my Casio to determine the accuracy of the atomic clock."
I think the issue is, then, if Christianity is true, the methods are valid. If Christianity were not true, we would have no way to know that they were.
So basically, you can't knock the methods, or accept the methods, without ultimately knocking what would make the methods, methodologically sound.
As such, studying history, is not a man-made method at all. It is theology by other means. History is His business. It's what He does. If God wants us know that Washington crossed the Delaware, He expects us to study history to know it. Otherwise we are really saying that special revelation is all that God has to say and that can't be what we are trying to say, because even by saying it, we are saying something else, since what we are saying is not special revelation.
And if scripture is not history it is nothing very interesting.
I guess all that I'm really saying is that though it is true that Holy Scripture is the sole infallible authority in all matters of faith and practice, and all other authorities are inferior to it in their claims, their claims are not made true or false because of their relation to scripture.
It is just as true that Christ rose from the dead whether or not we read it in Scripture. Scripture is a source of the content to be understood, but not the only source. Peter, for example did not read about it in Scripture.
And things do not become true because we read about them there. Things like 1=1 are true in, with, and apart from scripture, and were true before there were any scriptures. Scripture does not make things true, Scripture tells us things because God wants to tell us true things.
Thus, I think, that God demands that men "do research in order to know the truth". In fact, apart from direct unmediated special revelation, it is the only way to get the truth. The fact that men are biased against the truth, hate the truth, create alternate truths, or presuppose "facts" not in evidence that will preclude them from seeing the truth, are irrelevant to the real fact, that God has provided all of the necessary tools to knowledge and understanding, and fully expects men to seek and aquire the truth.
We cannot pretend with the world that they cannot know, simply because they will not know. (The problem is not in the disciplines.)
So we cannot dismiss the normal means of knowledge aquisition. God has ordained then. The methods are sound because they are God's methods for men and to bring them in to disrepute because men love evil instead of good is to say that they either do not or cannot know what the Scriptures seem to teach that all men can and do know.
Just a thought,
Christopher Neiswonger
Christopher, the only reason you know that 1=1 is because it reflects the very nature of God. The normal means of knowledge aquisition is thereby ordained by God and is contained in scripture. People who refuse to acknowledge that all knowledge comes from God operate in a realm that they have no firm foundation in. They therefore have no knowledge at all. It is all meaningless and gibberish and will perish just like everything else. Though it is true that Peter did not read about the ressurection in Cannonized scripture, he did read about it in prophecy, it just so happens that he was involved with the revealing of the redemption of mankind. I guess my point is there can be no true knowledge without or apart from what God has revealed to man and everything known, both material and immaterial, otherwise if we can know truth apart from God , we better start worshipping whatever it is that reveals that truth to us, because it is on equal footing and authority with God. Just something to think about.
Jaime B. (onefromclay)
Post a Comment
<< Home