#-899 Why Wasn’t Saul of Tarsus Convinced?

Dr. craig’s response

Although we cannot know for sure, I agree with you that it is likely that Saul was aware of the testimonial evidence of the disciples of Jesus to his post-mortem appearances to them and perhaps even to the empty tomb itself, which was public knowledge in Jerusalem. Yet he, like doubting Thomas, was not convinced until he saw for himself a resurrection appearance of Jesus.

I think you’re right to infer that “even if one has all the evidence, it is not sufficient to believe this supernatural event occurred,” if by that statement you mean that the evidence does not guarantee belief. The evidence certainly is sufficient for belief in the resurrection to be rational, but it will not compel belief. By the very nature of the case, historical evidence is always probabilistic; therefore, it can be resisted, even if it is unreasonable to do so. A heart that is hardened against God and refuses to believe cannot be compelled by the evidence, even though the evidence might remove any excuse for unbelief.

It does not therefore follow that “Christian apologists should stop appealing to historical evidence to convince skeptics.” It follows rather that they should start appealing to God to open the unbeliever’s heart by the work of the Holy Spirit, convicting him of sin and drawing him to repentance and faith. “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one” (Romans 3.10-12). Were it not for the work of the Holy Spirit, all our apologetic arguments would fall like water on a stone. But the Holy Spirit can soften and illumine the heart of the unbeliever so that he does respond to the evidence. We need to pray for our interlocutors as we present our arguments that the Holy Spirit will illumine their hearts, dispel the darkness of sin, and draw them to himself.