An open Bible and a cup of coffee.

He through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs”
(Acts 1:2b-3a)

Today’s passage is the opening to the Book of Acts. Its author, Dr. Luke (Colossians 4:14) assures us that the history he relates is the result of careful investigation and eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:1-4). In his estimation, the facts of history prove Christianity’s central claim—the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead—beyond reasonable a doubt. The Lord’s resurrection is the supreme vindication of the claims He made about Himself. He was, as Paul reminds us, “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4). For those with born-again hearts and minds, the fact of Christ’s resurrection is certain beyond all dispute. It is, as Paul explained, the rock-solid assurance that the claims of Scripture are true, accurate, and dependable. God has “appointed a day,” declared the great apostle, “in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead” (Acts 17:31). The unregenerate balk at this, insisting that the resurrection of Christ itself needs to be proven before it can be used as proof for something else. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” goes the popular canard. Since the resurrection is an extraordinary claim, the Christian is supposedly tasked with providing extraordinary evidence for it. To begin with, we must ask what is meant by extraordinary evidence. Does the skeptic require a different quality of evidence, i.e. is he demanding the kind of certainty we have when dealing with problems in logic or mathematics? If so then he is making an impossible demand. In matters of history or law, the best we can do is reach probable conclusions. Perhaps he is asking for a different kind of evidence. Here he has a real problem because the historical evidence for the New Testament comes in virtually every form imaginable (e.g. ancient manuscripts, inscriptions, coins, monuments, etc). Lastly, the skeptic may be demanding a different (extraordinary) amount of evidence. We note that this demand assumes that the amount of evidence for the New Testament would be sufficient if only it didn’t make supernatural claims. The skeptic should be pressed to answer why this should be so. Finally, we must ask what amounts to a “proof” in the first place. A proof is an argument that meets some objective standard of demonstration. Where would such objective standards come from if not the God of the Bible? Truly, the strongest proof for the existence of God is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything! God has certainly made the world’s “wisdom” abject foolishness! (1 Corinthians 1:20).

God bless,

pastor john