Prophecy in Proving Bible

[Kenny]

Do you all think that using the prophecies promised in the Bible is a sufficient way of proving the Bible, if not where would be the downfalls?

[rgrove]

Yes, I do first and foremost because God Himself does. I used it extensively in my first serious witness to a coworker and it's built into my testimony.

Isaiah 41:21-24
21 Set forth your case, says the Lord;
bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob.
22 Let them bring them, and tell us
what is to happen.
Tell us the former things, what they are,
that we may consider them,
that we may know their outcome;
or declare to us the things to come.
23 Tell us what is to come hereafter,
that we may know that you are gods;
do good, or do harm,
that we may be dismayed and terrified.
24 Behold, you are nothing,
and your work is less than nothing;
an abomination is he who chooses you.

Isaiah 43:8-12
8 Bring out the people who are blind, yet have eyes,
who are deaf, yet have ears!
9 All the nations gather together,
and the peoples assemble.
Who among them can declare this,
and show us the former things?
Let them bring their witnesses to prove them right,
and let them hear and say, It is true.
10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor shall there be any after me.
11 I, I am the Lord,
and besides me there is no savior.
12 I declared and saved and proclaimed,
when there was no strange god among you;
and you are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and I am God.

For Example, I just posted an example of doing this kind of apologetic by Justin Martyr in the "Better Book Room" section of The Christian Convocation. It was written in the first half of the second century. First he established (as well as could probably be done for his time) the ancient witness of the scriptures. He then went through many fulfillments, although some are ignored that I would use and some are used that more modern exegetes wouldn't use (they did some creative exegesis at times in the early church and you see hints of that in Justin's work as good as it is. For example he says Jesus was the fire in the burning bush. That's not something you could get by today's understnding of exegesis). He also demonstrated something important with dealing with people of other religious beliefs. He built a bridge between the two belief systems by drawing some parallels and demonstrating he knew the pagan religions of the day well. His criticism was well informed. He then drew out the conclusions to his presentation of the fulfilled prophecy. Jesus was undeniably who he said he was and He would come again in judgment of the living and the dead. Repent and believe and then authenticate that rebirth by living a life fitting of one of Christ's sheep. He said it in a slightly more wordy manner, but that was indeed the message and it was predicated almost entirely upon fulfilled prophecy.

I personally believe that fulfilled messianic prophecy only suffers some neglect in todays apologetics because people aren't that familiar with the OT, let alone OT prophecy. I taught on OT messianic prophecy once and the group mostly appeared to not know anything but the most commonly seen Isa 53. Isa 53 is important, but there is so much more! The Bereans were able to search the scriptures they had (which was the OT) and see that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah to come. They didn't come to these sorts of conclusions based upone one small section of the book of Isaiah. The OT is teeming with Messianic prophecy and it is absolutely vital for authenticating who Jesus was and what he came for. It should be one of the main tools used in apologetics IMO.

Yours In Christ,
Ron