Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth
John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue
The New Testament gives a clear and consistent witness to the inspiration of the Old Testament, whose writings are thought of as God’s speech. Matthew says that the words penned by Isaiah regarding the Messiah were spoken by God through the prophet (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:22–23). A comparison with his additional citations shows that, from Matthew’s perspective, what the prophets wrote was equivalent to God speaking (see Matt. 2:15, 17–18; 4:14–16). This divine inspiration of David by the Spirit carries down to the individual word level (Ps. 110:1; Matt. 22:44–45; cf. Acts 2:29–31). Even the minor details cited in the Old Testament prophetic texts are seen as fulfilled in Christ (Mic. 5:2; Matt. 2:5).
Historical narratives in the Old Testament are universally treated as factual accounts by New Testament writers, including both major miraculous events (the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 7; and the global flood, Heb. 11:7; 1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:5), and minor details (David eating the showbread, Matt. 12:3–4). Stephen’s speech recorded in Acts 7 demonstrates a clear affirmation of the historicity of the Old Testament Scriptures from Abram to that day. Jesus based the entirety of the case for his work of redemption on the testimony of the Old Testament from the Law of Moses to the Prophets and Psalms (Luke 24:25–27, 44–47).
Nope. Are you sure you are replying to what I’ve written? For instance, I have at no point said anything about the inspiration and/or authority of Bible. So not entirely sure were this is all coming from.
Perhaps I’ve not been clear, so let me restate my points in summary:
-
The Holy Spirit operating in the life of a believer is what (who) renews hearts and minds. Reading the Bible is one of the means or avenues through which the Holy Spirit does this.
-
The Bible did not exist in Jesus day. Additionally, Jesus, his disciples, and the early Christians did not have personal access, nor even easy access, to Old Testament scrolls. Synagogues might have physical copies of one or more Old Testament scrolls, though it is very unlikely they would have a complete set due to the cost (among other reasons). As most people were non-literate, scrolls were used as records and for public reading, not for private devotion or research. As a result scripture lived orally in the community through community hearing and memorisation, as well as through teachers, and tradents.
Liam says the disciples did not have the Scriptures. As you’ve mentioned Paul commended the Bereans for checking out his teachings according to the OT writings. Since Paul spent three years in the wilderness with Christ his letters confirm Christ came and fulfilled the Old Testament.
There is nothing more one can add to convince him
Paul was able to say with complete confidence that there are many different gospels out there but only one gospel is the true gospel found in his writings which are confirmed in the OT.
Since they did not have all the writings of the New Testament, both the Old and New Testament “the Bible”, does this mean they did not have the resources to search the scriptures to test what Paul was teaching?
In our day, we have both the Old Testament and New Testament.
Acts 17:26
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Acts 17:27
That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
This is a really interesting discussion. You might like this podcast on the scriptures’ definition, what was considered beneficial for reading and meditating in the time between the OT and NT, and what Paul was alluding to. As you may recall, Jude and many other NT writers incorporated scriptures which we Protestants would not consider part of the canon. That is not to say that they should be in their entirety, but simply that there was reliable material in them. I think that Liam may be not disagreeing with you, as trying to put a nuance. Does that help?
Thanks.
That is not what I said, I said they did not have the Bible.
Firstly, Luke commends them not Paul. Let’s quote the verse so we are all on the same page.
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17:11 NIV2011)
In the context of Acts 17:11 ‘examine the scriptures every day’ probably means they gathered each day at the synagogue to hear the communities scroll(s) read aloud and/or some one recite them and then discussed Paul’s teaching in light of the reading.
Yes, indeed, in my usual fumbling style 
Thank you for the correction, Liam. I misspoke when I said Paul commended the Bereans
Sure. But he won’t be expecting doctors to have learned about cancer treatments via the Bible, or geologists to be relying on supernaturally revealed insights to understand tectonic plates. We study creation using our senses, logic, imagination, creativity and other capacities God has given us. We don’t need supernatural enablement to use those capacities. We need supernatural enablement to relate to God and understand spiritual truth.
My 13 year old son and I got into the same mistake yesterday, reading Acts 20 in church–describing Paul’s actions so much that we forgot it wasn’t Paul speaking (in discussing the sermon). I got so confused that I think I confused him! We even talked about Paul’s addressing the Ephesians–which was Paul, but in Acts, not his separate letter to the Ephesians–it can be funny.
Hi Liam
Too many Christians avoid the OT, thinking that it has no message for them or that it is too difficult to understand. But please realize that the Old Testament was the only Bible that Christ, the apostles, and the early church possessed. When Paul referred to “Scripture,” he was thinking of the OT books. Practically every book in the Old Testament is quoted or referred to in the New Testament writings. Consider the fourfold purpose of the Old Testament writings:
A. Foundation.
We would have no information concerning the origin of the universe, the original of man, the beginnings of sin, the birth of the Hebrew nation, or the purposes of God for the world, were it not for the Old Testament record. Every New Testament can be traced back to Old Testament history. An understanding of the Old Testament is necessary if we are to interpret the New Testament correctly.
B. Preparation
The Old Testament reveals God’s preparation for the coming of His Son into this world. In Genesis we see the need for a Savior and the promise that He will come through the woman, through the Jewish nation, and through the tribe of Judah. The rest of the Old Testament amplifies these basic facts and shows how Satan tried to destroy the Jewish nation to prevent the birth of Christ. Genesis 3:15 indicates that there are two “seeds” in conflict in the world, the seed of Satan and the seed of Christ, and we see this conflict from Genesis 4 onward.
Genesis 3:15
This is the first Gospel declared in the Bible: the good news that the woman’s seed (Christ) would ultimately defeat Satan and his seed (Galatians 4:4-5). It is from this point on that the stream divides: Satan and his family (seed) oppose God and His family. God Himself put the enmity (hostility) between them, and God will climax the war when Satan is cast into hell (Rev. 20:10). Review the Parable of the Tares in Matthew 13, and note that Satan has children just as God does. In Genesis 4, Cain kills Abel, and 1 John 3:12 informs us that Cain was “of the wicked one” - a child of the devil. The Old Testament is the record of the two seeds in conflict; the New Testament is the record of the birth of Christ and His victory over Satan through the cross.
Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines of the Old Testament
My added comments
Luke 8:11
Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
We all have a heart response to the Light and we all have a heart response to the seed.
Yes they do. What’s your point? Are you implying that I find the Old Testament too difficult to understand?
If by Bible you mean the collection of scrolls considered authoritative that would later be codified into a collection we would come to call the Old Testament… then, Yes, I agree. However, in discussions about scripture in the First Century culture the word ‘Bible’ is anachronistic. As is, technically speaking, the word book, since books (as in a codex) didn’t enter common use until 300AD. I’m not trying be pedantic, I’m trying to be precise and accurate in my words.
Look I don’t want to sound rude, but you and Shannon seem to be assuming that I’m arguing that somehow the Old Testament isn’t God’s Word or inspired or authoritative or whatever. I’m not, which you would know if you read my posts or simply asked me.
I’m simply trying to have a discussion about how the culture and access to Old Testament scrolls in the First Century should impact how we read certain parts of the New Testament.
Liam as Christy says to me, “You are too sensitive”
Just sharing in regards to the teachings of the Lord. If that part of the excerpt did not apply to you then move on from there. It was the beginning of Warren Wiersbe’s comment. Not everyone here including me knows everything in the Word of God. I should of not replied directly to you in response.
It goes back to the original post. We are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds by the Word of God.
By the way … it may be helpful for you to note: If you intend for your reply to be a response to a specific post in the thread, you will want to open your reply by clicking the grey reply link at the bottom of that specific response. (And if it is the latest response in the thread it’s easy to mistake it for the general reply arrow at the very bottom.) If your post isn’t to anyone in particular but is just applicable to the whole thread, then scroll all the way down and look for the blue reply link at the very bottom. Then your post won’t register as a specific reply to just one person - which may be confusing to them or make them feel targeted by you.
Thanks Mervin
I also find myself using the quote function (highlight a statement and click the quote balloon) in order to better clarify my response when it might be ambiguous.
I learned a great deal along those lines from Walton and Sandy’s The Lost World of Scripture. There is a lot to consider.
Ah I see, I couldn’t tell were the quote from Wiersbe’s quote started so I do apologies. You may find it useful to know that you can use the > symbol to create indented text for quotes. When you use the > symbol at the start of text block it looks like this:
In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God and the Word was God. ~ John 1:1 (NIV2011)
Just remember that if you use a multi paragraph quote (like the Wiersbe one above) you need to use a > on every new paragraph, like this:
A. Foundation.
We would have no information concerning the origin of the universe, the original of man, the beginnings of sin, the birth of the Hebrew nation, or the purposes of God for the world, were it not for the Old Testament record. Every New Testament can be traced back to Old Testament history. An understanding of the Old Testament is necessary if we are to interpret the New Testament correctly.B. Preparation
The Old Testament reveals God’s preparation for the coming of His Son into this world. In Genesis we see the need for a Savior and the promise that He will come through the woman, through the Jewish nation, and through the tribe of Judah.
I find it is a really cool feature for easily showing others that what they are reading is a quote or except and not my words. Hope that helps. 
The reason why Christians are transformed by God’s Word, is because God’s Word is Jesus the Logos, as I the English Bible proclaims, not the Bible.
The reason why some people do not know God is because they are not looking for God. People who have rejected the existence of God are not looking for Him, but also people who believe that they understand God when they only grasp an ideology about God are not looking for His Truth.
God transforms our minds/spirits when we commit ourselves fully to God/Jesus, that is when we love God with all our hearts, minds, soul, and strength and our fellow humans as ourselves.
Again, the Bible is not God. The Bible is not Jesus. Knowing the Bible is not salvation.
Following God’s law is not salvation. Following Jesus is salvation. Loving God and loving others is salvation.
When I am cutting and pasting multiple paragraphs I put in the code for a quote which is
[quote]
Then paste my content here.
[/quote]
@Kelli @Shannon it is really helpful when you mark the material you are pasting into a reply. It is also helpful if you include the source.
Thank you… still learning on using the discussion board. Please be patient with me. 
(My post below apparently was lost yesterday in an update. I’m reposting it here.)
I am jumping into this thread without having read it all (it has gone many different directions), so forgive me if this is too tangential.
Apologetics is valuable, both as an evangelistic tool and as confirmation of faith by existing believers (and probably some other ways). The Holy Spirit uses many means to open hearts to the truth of Christ, and apologetics is one of those ways. Different people are reached by different things; for those who are inclined to use reason or those in academia, for example, apologetics can be very impactful. Some people need well-developed reasons to undergird their belief (I’m one of those people!). It is essentially how Paul witnessed in Acts 17, for example, and the Holy Spirit allowed it to bear fruit there.
There is not a dichotomy between “grace and love” versus apologetic arguments, so I think @Christy’s comment that people are “more likely to be awakened by grace and love in action than by arguments” gives the wrong impression. It’s not either/or. Grace and love ought to be the foundation with which we construct and present the arguments to those who are interested in them—with genuine love for the listener’s well-being, covered in prayer, in submission to the Father’s will, asking for the Holy Spirit’s help and wisdom and guidance, etc. Doing apologetics can itself be “grace and love in action!” Christians have been called to do many things, and apologetics is one of those things. The question, then, is how it ought to be done. We should do all that we do for His glory (Colossians 3:17), whether that be crafting arguments or changing a tire or whatever else.
Of course, I agree that we ought not waste our time on topics of no real significance (i.e. avoid “empty speculation;” 1 Timothy 1:4, 2 Timothy 2:23). And there are “disputable matters” where Christians can disagree (Romans 14), so it’s probably wise not to spend too much effort on those topics. The important part is how that disagreement plays out: can we disagree while maintaining mutual respect? The answer ought to be yes, though it is too common for pride to get in the way, and the answer becomes no.
That said, apologetics need not be a focus for everyone, so if someone isn’t drawn to it, I don’t think there’s any harm in that person largely avoiding it.* But it is valuable for many others, and so ought to be held in appropriate esteem, even for those who don’t personally engage in it.
After all, correct belief matters, and apologetics has an important role in promoting correct belief. When done in the proper context and in submission to God (e.g. with a motivation of love for others, not out of quarrelsomeness or the prideful desire to defeat anybody who dares to challenge you), it should be a respected venture, and even recognized as a calling of God for some individuals.
*Though, @Christy, I have a question for you: I consider many of your posts on this forum to be “apologetic” in nature (in that they use reason and intellect to promote correct spiritual belief), so I was surprised to read your comment. Do you view your posts differently?
Maybe I am using apologetics differently based on my own baggage with the term.
I believe in apologetics in the Scriptural sense of always be prepared to give an answer for the hope you profess. As Christians we are called to testify to the work of Christ’s spirit in our lives and be witnesses of the reconciliation with God that Christ makes possible for humanity. And we are commanded to love God with our minds, so I don’t think we can or should compartmentalize off our intellects from our relationship with God.
In my upbringing and experience with the church in the US, apologetics meant mastering arguments that proved the rationality of Christian faith or gave evidence that Christian truth claims were valid and correct. The point was to “defeat” ideological opponents (atheists, secular humanists, “liberals,” even sometimes people whose take on Christianity was slightly different than my tribe’s like Roman Catholics) It always proceeded from an anti-postmodern perspective, defending things like “absolute truth” and inerrancy. It is that approach to “giving an answer” that I don’t have much use for, at least not as an alleged evangelistic tool. The gospel isn’t “We are right and certain we are right and can prove it to you.” I have only met one person in my whole life who said he was argued into Christian belief and that person had a major faith crisis when some of the arguments that were used to convince him fell apart on closer inspection.
To the extent that apologetic arguments are used to disciple people into the teaching of the church with the goal of living righteously with intellectual integrity, I think they are fine. It just seems like some of their biggest fans think of them less as a vitamin pill that fortifies the faithful and more as a weapon that beats unbelievers into submission. That’s what I meant by preferring grace and love in action. I don’t think the gospel is an unassailable argument, I think it’s the good news that there is grace and hope for people who need wholeness and healing.