Part Four of Five: Can Christianity Be Proven True in a Court of Law?
If we apply the same methodology used to determine truth in jury trials to Christianity, we can demonstrate it is true (“innocent”) and non-Christian religions are false (“guilty”). What standard does our court system use to determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant? Evidence and probability (see part two). Legal scholar and Christian apologist Dr. John Warwick Montgomery explains: “Legal reasoning operates on probabilities, not possibilities; preponderance of evidence in most civil [non-criminal] actions; evidence beyond reasonable (not beyond all) doubt in criminal matters” (emphasis in original). (Evidence for Faith; Deciding the God Question, 332). This means in criminal cases, there must be no other reasonable explanation for the crime other than the accused did it. The prosecution builds its case by presenting such an impressive and compelling amount of evidence that all other possibilities are eliminated. In short, the accused it sent to prison or even executed according to the probability of guilt.
As a legitimate way to determine whether or not Christianity is religious truth, legal reasoning is of tremendous value. Christianity is the only religion where its truth-claims can be tested by legal reasoning—that is, by evidence, especially eyewitness testimony. All other religions require their followers to accept their tenets based on the unverified claims of their founders or documents.
The authors of the New Testament were careful to note this eyewitness testimony to validate the authenticity of their writings. The Apostle Peter writes: “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we make known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Peter 1:16, NASB). The Apostle John is even more specific: “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life . . . we have seen and testify and proclaim to you also” (1 John 1:1-3, NASB).
Another value of legal reasoning is that it demonstrates why Christian truth-claims should be considered factual. Here’s an example of this. Let’s say a person demands “absolute proof” that Jesus rose from the dead. We point out that His resurrected was a historical event and can’t be repeated. Nevertheless, we can prove it occurred in a legal sense. We do this by presenting all the eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence supporting the resurrection and refuting all the naturalistic theories used to argue against it. In other words, we show that the biblical explanation for the resurrection best explains the facts: The birth of the Christian church around AD 30, the empty tomb, the changed lives of the Apostle, eyewitness testimony from people who personally knew Jesus and saw Him after His resurrection, and so.
If the weight of legal evidence supports the biblical claim that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, we are justified to accept it as accurate truth in the same way we accept that people are guilty of a crime based on the overwhelming evidence marshaled against them. In both cases, we have reached the highest level of certainty available in legal reasoning. For all practicable purposes, we have reached what we can consider reliable proof of Jesus’ resurrection.
For further study, see my book, Defending Your Faith; Reliable Answers for a New Generation of Seekers and Skeptic (Kregel publications, 2019).
Next week’s blog will end this series. I’ll explain how historical investigation proves Christianity is the only true religion.