Cold-Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace
Week 3: Section 1, Chapter 2 — Learn to Infer
Read Chapter 2 of Cold-Case Christianity.
Previewing Week 3 of Cold-Case Christianity
Read 3 of 6 discussion questions below. Unlock the complete 16-week guide when you’re ready.
Detectives rarely have a confession or a video recording of the crime — they work from clues to conclusions, and so must we as we examine the claims of the New Testament.
Discussion Questions
6 questions1.Wallace introduces "abductive reasoning" — reasoning to the best explanation — as the primary logical tool of the detective. In your own words, how does abductive reasoning differ from deductive reasoning (which moves from guaranteed premises to certain conclusions)? Which do you use more often in daily life?
2.He uses the example of arriving at a crime scene and "reading" the evidence to infer what happened, even though no one saw the crime occur. How does this analogy apply to reading the New Testament accounts of the Resurrection? What kind of "evidence" would a detective look for?
3.Wallace argues that inference to the best explanation is not guesswork — it is disciplined, eliminative, and accountable to the facts. What disciplines or guardrails keep abductive reasoning from becoming mere speculation? How would you apply those guardrails to a theological or historical claim?