Can We Derive Doctrine from Bible Stories?
by David K. Bernard
Podcast recording (no venue stated in the delivered transcript)
Kind: teaching
Scripture: 1 Corinthians 10, Acts 2, Acts 1

Source: https://acts238.life/repository/sermons/david-k-bernard--can-we-derive-doctrine-from-bible-stories
Published by Acts 2:38 Life from the sermon transcript on that page.
Free to copy and share with attribution.

------------------------------------------------------------
Now let me take a broad view and then we'll focus on the specific question that you raised. But uh the broad view is this. All the Bible is the word of God. All the Bible is given for our instruction. All the teachings, all the stories are given for our instruction. And 1 Corinthians chapter 10, for example, and other verses say that. That doesn't mean all the examples are good examples. Some are examples to avoid. But all of them are are given for our teaching. So we can't discount any portion of scripture. We can't just write it off is irrelevant.

But obviously we have to discern what it is teaching and what applies. But to your big question, uh you have to think of the scope of human history. Of course today we're in a um a literary culture. We could now argue we're getting in a post- literary culture. People are going back to more to video and more oral culture. But uh western civilization has been built on a a literary culture. So we're oriented towards the printed page or the written page. But think throughout most of human history and especially during the times the Bible was written and God was leading his people, most people uh they learned through uh oral storytelling.

Um and they didn't read. Most were illiterate. Uh even when people could read, uh manuscripts were handwritten, so they're rare, costly. The average person couldn't have a collection of books. Even in New Testament times, the average person would what we call the New Testament 27 books. They probably did not have in their most Christians probably did not have in their possession manuscript 27 manuscripts. they depended on uh the gathering of the believers and the the the preacher and other people reading texts and preaching from texts and so on. So if you think in the broad scope and then even around the world today how many people are literate if they are literate how many people read and even in our western culture most people don't read very much anymore.

So if God is going to be effective in a communicating his word, they're only a minority of highly educated people that would benefit from the type of approach that you and I might prefer. So from that perspective, it makes perfect sense that God would use story or narrative as the primary means of communicating truth. And when you think of that, a preacher or a traveling storyteller, um they're going to tell stories because they're more vivid. If they gave a long dissertation, most people would walk away not remembering anything and especially if they didn't have a means of recording it or transcribing it, which most people wouldn't have, then they're going to forget everything.

But when you tell a story that has a point, people remember the story and hopefully they can remember the point. So that's why Jesus used parables so much. Um and you you find that the teaching of Jesus is trying to communicate with various stories key points. Uh and he did have certain statements that were profound and that would convey truth. But let uh but let me give you a practical example. A lot of times we might say when we have debates over the Holy Spirit, well, you know, tongues the initial sign. And I've had people ask, "Why didn't the Bible just come out and say tongues is the initial sign of the Holy Spirit?" You know, Luke, when you wrote Acts, why didn't you just say that?

Luke probably wouldn't even understand what you're asking because he's in a narrative culture. Truth is taught by story. So, he would have thought, I I taught you the best way I knew how in in a perfectly culturally appropriate way I express truth. But if you finally had this discussion like you and I are having and say Luke, why do you just say that? It would made it so simple for us just to quote that. He might have answered somewhat like somewhat like this. And of course, we know Luke was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write Luke Acts. But he might have said, look, I'm just, you know, an associate.

I'm just a helper. My opinion is important. If if I would have wrote this is my opinion, who who cares? But the answer to your question, what is the significance of speaking in tongues? He said, I did answer that. But I answered that in a story, a true story. I told the story of Acts chapter 2. The hund 120 received the Holy Spirit. How many of them spoke in tongues? 120 of the 120. It's 100%. And then when all the crowds gathered around and wanted to know what is the significance of this tongues, the apostle Peter stood up and all the other apostles stood up with him.

Here you have all 12 apostles at the same place at the same time giving the same message. That's unique in in in the New Testament. And what they explained was this is that this tongues that you're questioning us about. Some were marveling over this miracle. Some were mocking because they didn't understand and thought they were drunk. But they're all asking the question, "What does this mean?" That was the actual question that Peter was answering. So what does this speaking in tonesues mean? Peter answered this speaking in tonesues is that the prophecy of Joel then in the last days I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh.

So what Peter and the other apostles said when you see someone speaking in tongues what that means is they've received the Holy Spirit prophesied by Joel. There's the answer to your question. But Luke might say it's not presented as my personal opinion. It's presented as a true story at the foundation of the church where all 12 apostles just answered your question. So why isn't that good enough for you? Um and so there's a perfect example. Now uh obviously when you have stories many times they might simply be descriptive. So um they rode a donkey. Does that mean we have to ride donkeys or can we use cars?

you know, um, obviously I think most of the time we can say, well, this was part of that culture. This was part of that history. It's not of the essence of the story. It's not a principle of the story. And so, probably 90% of the time, we can just weed that out. Uh, you know, what was just part of the background, part of the details, part of the culture, part of the history. Um, but if we're trying to discern, what we look at is what the early church preached, okay? What the early church taught. Um, and of course, I'm not neglecting Paul's epistles and the the explicit teaching.

Obviously, those are highly significant. But I'm saying in Acts, what they preach would also be considered authoritative. So, look at what they consistently preach. Look at what they consistently taught. look at what they consistently experienced or received. So if it's just one thing that happened like Philip was caught up caught away I believe that's true are we going to expect that to happen it only happened one time in the book of acts even Philillip apparently only one time the rest of the time he had to walk or travel uh by some other means so is that going to be a norative thing obviously not because it wasn't even in the book of acts so you look at consistent experiences and you look at consistent practices So if it said they did something one time, you know, Paul met with the believers until after midnight that we do find that story.

Does that mean we should do that every time? It it only happened once in the whole book of Acts. So it's never mentioned in the epistle. So is it okay to have church till after midnight? Yes. Is it required? Is it norm normal? Is it practiced? Uh should it be established as a practice? There's no indication of that in the text. And of course, if you look at that particular story, Paul was traveling and he had to leave the next day. And so, they were trying to take advantage of every last opportunity for him to minister to that local group of believers. So, it's pretty obvious from the context.

This is an unusual one-time occurrence. So when you look at what is the consistent preaching, teaching, experience and practice, I think that will settle almost every ex case of is this just describing an incident that happened or is this setting up a pattern for us to follow. Now I do think John mentions in the gospel of John that uh you know I wrote these um I wrote this narrative so that you believe in Jesus Christ and he said there are many other things that could be written. Uh the whole world couldn't contain all the books which should be written. So he's saying very explicitly I was selective in choosing and of course we believe in the inspiration of scripture.

So it wasn't just John as a person but the holy spirit was guiding him. So, but John is saying, I didn't tell you the whole story like I was writing a biography. I didn't tell you the whole story like I was writing a history. I deliberately picked and choose what I thought was significant for you to know, which we would say the Holy Spirit guided him. So, he's saying it's not just telling a story. It's not a secular biography. It's not a secular history. Everything is told for theological purpose that you will believe. I would say Acts is the same way. It's not a secular historic history history.

It doesn't really tell the the story of all the 12 apostles. Only a very few of them are actually noted. And then Paul was not one of the 12 but added later. Actually, it's mostly what Peter and Paul did. So, it's not a biography of Peter. It's not a history of the early church in a modern secular full sense. It's very selective which lets you know those stories were chosen for their teaching value. They were chosen to set a pattern. Here's what the early church is like. Therefore, you should follow that example. Now, in Acts chapter 1, that is an interesting case, the casting of lots.

And as I've already described, I think it would be pretty easily disposed of. That's never used again. But even in the context, I think you can see it's um the reason why this was before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Okay? So, they're still living under the old covenant as they awaited the new covenant. Under the old covenant, you have examples of God leading people through the u the Old Testament. We don't actually know the uram and thumb, but it seemed to be some type of lot or some type of um stones that were used to signify and they prayed and they believed God would help them choose the right one to give them the answer yes or no.

Seemed to be a very rudimentary system. And so, think about it. The early church, they haven't received the Holy Ghost yet. So, they don't have the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the same way that we do the infilling. Jesus had left them. So they can't go talk to him. So they're kind of stuck like the Old Testament trying to discern the will of God but without the baptism of the Holy Spirit. So they revert to an Old Testament custom. They cast lots. They they try to discern and they pray for God to guide their choice. Some people say God did honor that and they chose Matias that was the 12th apostle.

Some people actually say no, they missed it. Paul was really the replacement 12th apostle. But regardless of that, Paul was indeed an apostle chosen by God specially. So I I really would tend to think they that God did honor their requests. But notice it was situated at as before the day of Pentecost under the Old Covenant before they had the indwelling Holy Spirit. And it was explicitly an Old Testament practice that they were relying upon. But you don't find that used ever again in the New Testament. So a few chapters later when they chose the the seven uh men that would assist the apostles, we usually think of them as the first deacons, they didn't cast lots.

Uh when different ones were called to preach, when Paul and Barnabas were called to missionary service, uh it the it there was no casting of lots, but it it seemed good to the Holy Spirit. and the spirit spoke. Apparently, some type of spiritual gift was manifested, tongues of interpretation or prophecy or some other means. Um, and so throughout the rest of Acts, you find them being led of the spirit, the operation of the gifts of the spirit. You don't find them going back to this Old Testament custom. So, even by what I've just described, I think it's pretty easy to discern what is a one-time occurrence based in their historical situation versus what is a pattern for us to follow.

And I would say that in Acts as well as other parts of the New Testament, when you see the New Testament church operating consistently in a certain way, um, and especially their preaching, their teaching, uh, their experiences and their practices, their consistent practices, then that would be an example for us to follow. And it's not just a suggestion, but it's authoritative teaching from the word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit. And I think when you start to grasp this, the purpose of these stories makes the Bible come alive in a way that it doesn't otherwise.

Yes. And a much good preaching is the use of those stories. Uh and if you'll just analyze that, I like to organize my message logically and have key points. And I think that's important. But when when uh you're preaching and making certain statements, if you relate to a Bible story, relate a Bible story, or you tell a personal experience to illustrate your point, you can actually see the audience come alive. So even though intellectually you've made the statement that they understand, they agree with, they appreciate, but when you tell a story that illustrates how that applies, that connects with people in a way that a mere statement doesn't do.

I'm not discounting the value and importance of of the statements. In fact, my books are filled with, you know, teaching of that nature, but I do believe the illustrations both from the Bible and from life experience actually are probably the primary vehicle whereby people in practice accept, understand, and not only intellectually but emotionally embrace the teaching. And so why would we expect the Bible to be different from our own experience? Uh the Bible is going to speak the way we best understand and learn.