Introduction:
Most Bible believers admit that God teaches directly by means of direct commands and direct statements. We sometimes say: "Commands constitute binding authority"; so, people are expected to obey, and those who do not obey in error.
[Examples: Acts 10:48; Matthew 22:37-39; 1
Corinthians 11:23-25; 14:37; John 14:15,21-24; 15:14; 1 John 2:3,4; 5:3;
Matthew 28:18-20]
But besides direct, explicit statements,
the Bible also teaches by indirect methods. These methods include examples and
"necessary inferences" (or "logical conclusions"). Some
people say we are obligated to follow only commands. They deny that example and
necessary inference are valid, binding ways to determine God's will. They may
even say that using such methods constitutes a man-made creed or a human
tradition. (Some even have a name for this view. They call it a "new hermeneutic.")
The purpose of this study is to examine
whether or not "necessary inference" constitutes a Scriptural method
to learn God's will.
*****************************************************
By "necessary inference" we refer
to truths that are not directly or expressly stated, but must necessarily
follow as a logical conclusion from what is stated. But the term
"necessary inference" sometimes confuses people, so we will also
refer to that same concept by other terms, such as "Scriptural
reasoning" or "necessary, logical conclusions."
We use such methods in everyday life so
often that we usually don't even realize we are doing it. If I tell you my age,
that is a direct statement. But if I say I was born in October of 1944, you may
reason to the same conclusion. That is all we mean by "necessary
inference": a conclusion that is not directly stated but necessarily
follows from what is stated. Whether a conclusion is stated directly or
indirectly, either way it is just as true, just as valid, just as factual.
Many Scriptures show the importance of
reasoning about what God's word says.
*****************************************************
Isaiah 1:18 - The Lord said, "Come now
and let us reason together."
1 Peter 3:15 - Be ready to give an answer
to every man who asks a reason for the hope within you.
Acts 17:2; 18:4; 19:8,9; 28:23 - Paul
reasoned with the Jews from the Scriptures to prove to them that Jesus was the
Christ. [17:17; 18:19; 24:25]
Hebrews 5:14 - We should have our sense
exercised to discern good and evil.
Sometimes the Bible does not directly spell
out the answer to questions about right or wrong. Rather, we must reason from
what the Bible says to reach the proper conclusion about what is right or
wrong.
Note that we are not defending any and all
kinds of reasoning.
***************************************************
(1) We are not defending the use of "human
wisdom" in which conclusions are based on human authority or evidence,
instead of on Bible evidence.
(2) We are not defending binding invalid or
even possible conclusions that do not necessarily follow from Bible statements.
Such instances do not prove a conclusion but simply jump to the conclusion.
What we defend in this study is the
practice of using God's word as our evidence and from it reaching conclusions
that truly, validly must follow from what is stated.
I. Bible Examples of the Use of Scriptural
Reasoning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Consider some instances in which men of God
reasoned to conclusions that necessarily follow Scripture, but are not directly
stated there. In each case the students were expected to understand the
reasoning, reach the same conclusion that the teacher reached, and then accept
the conclusion as being the will of God.
Note that Jesus and other Bible teachers
used "necessary inferences," exactly as we seek to use them. Note the
use of words such as "reason," "therefore," "so
then," "evidently," and other such expressions that show a
conclusion is being reached.
Fulfilled Prophecy
===========
===========
Acts 17:1-4
*********
Paul "reasoned from the
Scriptures" to prove that Christ must die and rise again, and that Jesus
is Christ. The "Scriptures" used here were the Old Testament (cf.
Acts 28:23).
But
what Old Testament passage directly states that Christ must rise from the dead
(without reasoning to conclusions)? What passage directly stated that Jesus of
Nazareth would be Christ?
Old Testament prophecy definitely shows
that Jesus is the Christ, but this requires taking passages and "adding
them up" to reason to the necessary conclusion that Jesus would rise from
the dead and is the Christ.
Note that this was the method Paul
"customarily" used to "persuade" people - Acts 17:2.
Acts 2:27-32,36
*************
Peter quoted David's prophecy that
"you will not leave my soul in Hades nor allow your Holy One to see
corruption" (v27). He reasoned: (1) David said "my" soul, but he
could not have meant himself since he did die (v29). "Therefore"
(conclusion), the reference must have been to the Christ, David's descendant
(v30). (2) And if he did not see corruption, then he must arise from the dead
(v31).
Note that Paul and Peter expected people to
reach the same inference they reached. They viewed the conclusion as
"binding": they believed people who did not accept the conclusion
would be wrong. In fact, their souls' salvation depended on it!
Arguing from fulfilled prophecy is
worthless unless we draw necessary conclusions.
Dealing with Temptation
================
Matthew 4:4,7,10 - Three times the Devil
tempted Jesus. Each time, Jesus quoted Scripture to prove the Devil was wrong.
But the passages (especially in the first two cases) did not directly state
that the act Satan wanted Jesus to do was a sin. Jesus' conclusion just
necessarily followed from the verses.
Jesus used "necessary
inferences," He concluded that certain acts were wrong, and He bound these
conclusions both on Himself and on the Devil.
Parables, Illustrations, Symbols, &
Figures of Speech
====================================
Jesus and His disciples used numerous
parables, illustrations, symbols, and figures of speech, which can only be
understood by drawing conclusions.
Matthew 16:5-12
**************
Jesus warned about the leaven of the
Pharisees. The disciples reasoned incorrectly, and thought He was talking about
bread. Jesus rebuked them, not for reasoning, but for reasoning incorrectly.
When He gave them more information, they correctly understood that the leaven
referred to doctrine.
Note that Jesus never did directly state
the conclusion. Yet He said their conclusion had been wrong, expected them to
find the right conclusion, and even impugned their faith.
This is just one of many such instances.
*********************************
All such figurative language requires the
hearer to draw inferences. The whole point is that the lesson is implied but is
not directly stated. Yet Jesus clearly expected His hearers to get the point,
and rebuked them when they did not.
If necessary inferences are not binding,
then no lesson taught by any parable or any figure of speech is binding! Yet
these are some of the favorite teaching methods of Jesus and the prophets.
[Cf. John 2:19-22; Mark 4:33,34; etc.;
etc.]
Divorce and Remarriage
===============
Matthew 19:3-6 - Pharisees asked if a man
could divorce his wife for just any reason. Jesus quoted God's original
marriage law that a man should cleave to his wife and the two become one.
God's plan ordained two people to be
married but made no provision for another marriage partner. Jesus then
concluded that divorce was never God's intent (v8), and "therefore"
man should not separate what God had joined. This conclusion follows from what
is said, but the conclusion itself was not directly stated in the passage Jesus
used. And the result is a fundamental moral truth.
The Resurrection of Man
===============
Mark 12:24-27
************
Sadducees denied the resurrection, because
they denied the existence of spirit beings - Acts 23:8. They argued from an
inference about a woman marrying men in succession, but Jesus showed their
inference was incorrect. Note that Jesus did not condemn reasoning from God's
law; what He condemned was reasoning incorrectly. If drawing inferences is not
valid, why didn't Jesus just say they should not base doctrine on inferences?
Jesus then reminded them that God said,
"I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," at a time when those men
were physically dead. Yet God is not the God of the dead but of the living.
"All live to Him" (Luke 20:38). Though physically dead, these men
were alive before God. This disproved the basis of the Sadducees' objection to
the resurrection: their belief that that man has no spirit.
All this came as a conclusion from a verse
that directly said nothing about resurrection or spirits. Note that Jesus
reasoned with them about the matter (v28). But He concluded they were
"therefore" greatly mistaken (you therefore greatly err - v27, KJV).
1 Corinthians 15:12-19
******************
Paul reasoned with people who say there is
no resurrection from the dead. He showed several conclusions that would follow
from such a view, all of which contradict the gospel (note his repetition of
"then"). He then logically concluded that people who say there is no
resurrection are wrong.
People say we must not bind inferences or
tell others they are wrong because they draw different conclusions from ours.
Yet, that is exactly what Jesus and Paul did, and they did so regarding some of
the most basic doctrines of the Bible.
Miracles
=====
Like fulfilled prophecy, the whole purpose
of miracles demands that people draw conclusions. Every miracle required people
to reason to the conclusion that the man through whom the miracle occurred was
a messenger from God.
John 9:29-34 - A man was born blind, but
Jesus healed him. He reasoned that Jesus' miracles proved who He was. "If
this man were not from God, He could do nothing" (v33). Then he expected
the rulers to reach the same conclusion, and rebuked them when then failed to
do so.
Miracles prove nothing unless a person is
willing to reason to the conclusion that necessarily follows.
[Cf. Isaiah 41:21-24]
Salvation for Gentiles
=============
Acts 11:1-18 (10:9-35,44-48) - Jews
questioned Peter for teaching the gospel to Gentiles. He proved he had done
right because:
(1) He had a vision showing he should not
consider things unclean if God had cleansed them.
(2) The Spirit told him to go with the
messengers from Cornelius.
(3) An angel had told Cornelius to send for
Peter.
(4) Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism
as Peter preached to them.
Peter and the Jews concluded that the
Gentiles had been granted repentance to life (note "therefore" and
"then" - vv 17,18). (Cf. Peter's conclusion in 10:28.)
Here is one of the most important doctrines
of the New Testament; yet the practice was begun on the basis of evidence, none
of which directly stated the conclusion. Should we conclude that this is not a
binding doctrine?
Circumcision and the Old Testament
======================
Acts 15:17-19
************
When disagreement arose about circumcision,
brethren determined it was not binding under the gospel. The evidence for this conclusion
was: (1) Vv 7-12 - the examples of Peter and of Paul and Barnabas, and (2) Vv
13-21 - An Old Testament passage said the Gentiles could be called by God's
name, but that passage says nothing about circumcision (v17).
The inference was drawn that circumcision
is not binding (note "therefore I judge" - v19). This conclusion was
viewed as binding - i.e., those who taught otherwise were said to be in error.
And all this relates to one of the most important, basic doctrinal issues in
the New Testament.
Hebrews 7:11-15
***************
Christ fulfilled Old Testament prophecy
that He would be a priest after the order of Melchizedek (v17). But all Old
Testament priests were of the tribe of Levi, whereas Christ would be a
descendant of David of the tribe of Judah. The conclusion is that this required
a change of the law (v12).
Note that the writer proves the Old
Testament has been removed by using a passage that said nothing directly about
that subject. This was "of necessity": a necessary inference (v12).
The conclusion is evident (v14). And it is clearly binding, since the author
expected all readers to accept the conclusion.
If we are wrong to use Scriptural reasoning
to reach conclusions as the basis of doctrine today, why was it clearly done in
case after case in the Scriptures?
Rhetorical Questions
=============
These are questions for which the hearer is
expected to understand the answer without being told it. See 1 Corinthians
1:13; Luke 10:36f; Mark 8:36f; 1 Peter 4:17f; etc.
All these instances require the student to
reach conclusions that are not directly stated. If inferences are not binding,
then inspired writers should never have used rhetorical questions, or we could
never bind any lesson taught by rhetorical questions. Yet again, this was one
of the favorite teaching methods of Jesus and other inspired men.
Observations
========
"Necessary inferences" are a valid
Bible teaching method.
***********************************************
The Scriptures themselves show that it is
proper to draw conclusions that necessarily follow from what the Scriptures
state. It is proper to base doctrine on such conclusions and to believe that
people who do not accept those conclusion are wrong.
What's more, this is not some rare,
isolated practice. Rather, it is one of the major teaching methods of the
Bible. To deny the validity of necessary inferences would be to indict God's
faithful preachers and teachers throughout the Scriptures.
We all use inferences every day.
**************************
Using necessary inferences is like using
your hand. We may have trouble explaining how the hand works, but we all use
it. So everyone uses necessary inferences, but they are easier to use than they
are to explain!
Inferences are so common that everybody
uses them, including people who object to them! Listen closely and you will
find that people, who oppose the use of examples and inferences, often argue
against them by using examples and inferences!
In fact, the belief that it is wrong to
bind inferences is itself an inference! Where is the passage that directly
states it is wrong to bind inferences? It does not exist. So, the only way to
argue against the use of inferences would be to use inferences! If the position
was valid, no one could afford to defend it, for they would violate the rule
just by defending it!
Sometimes people argue against the use of
inferences by bringing up inferences that they say we don't follow.
*****************************************************
Suppose someone could prove that we are
guilty of failing to properly follow an inference. That would not prove we are
wrong when we say that inferences reveal God's will. It would only prove that
we need to do a better job of following them.
The same can be said for Bible commands.
Surely we agree that we should follow Bible commands. Suppose someone could
prove there is a command in the Bible we are not properly following. Would that
prove commands are not binding authority? Of course not. It would only prove we
should do a better job of understanding and following the commands. The same
applies to examples and necessary inferences.
II. Issues that Can Be Resolved Only by
Necessary Inferences
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Below is a list of practices for which we
can learn the truth if and only if we use Scriptural reasoning (sometimes in
conjunction with examples). For none of these is there a direct statement
saying whether they are right or wrong. If we can say things are right or wrong
only if we have a direct command or statement, then we could never know the
truth about any of these practices!
Do You Have a Conviction About Any of the
Following Practices?
=======================================
Can you prove your conviction using only
direct commands or statements, without using examples or inferences? Try it.
You cannot use examples and you cannot draw conclusions that are not directly
stated.
1) Miracles for today
2) Modern-day prophets and revelations
3) Sprinkling or pouring for baptism
4) Alien sinner saved by prayer (before
baptism)
5) Infant baptism
6) Animal baptism
7) Postponing baptism till a later service
8) Purgatory
9) Indulgences
10)
Praying for the dead
11) Praying to saints and Mary
12) Burning incense in worship
13) Confessing sins to special priesthood
14) Successors to the apostles
15) Lord's Supper on weekdays
16) Annual or quarterly Lord's Supper
17) Literal body and blood in Lord's Supper
18) Hamburger and Coke on the Lord's Supper
19) One elder over a congregation
20) One bishop over several congregations
21) Earthly head or headquarters for the
church
22) Church missionary/benevolent societies
23) Calling a preacher "Reverend"
24) Church support of
entertainment/recreation
25) Church-owned businesses
26) Church-owned colleges, schools,
day-care
27) Instrumental music in worship
28) Fund-raising by rummages, bake-sales,
etc.
29) Weekday collections
30) Denominational names (Baptist,
Methodist)
31) 1000-year reign of Christ on earth
32) Religious holy days
33) Gambling
34) Dancing
35) Drug dealing
36)
Cheating in school
37) Abortion
38) Publishing/selling pornography
39) Religious holy days
etc., etc., etc.
Even when people deny that examples and
inferences are binding, they still hold strong views regarding some of these
practices. But to prove their conclusions, they must use examples and
inferences as binding authority! To be consistent, they must recognize that
examples and inferences are binding, or they must give up their position
regarding all these practices!
Denial of Examples and Inferences Leads to
All Kinds of Error.
======================================
This is not an imaginary problem. Many
people in the Lord's church have denied that examples and necessary inferences
are binding. Invariably they either repent of this error, or they increasingly
accept and fellowship all kinds of errors like those just listed. When you cut
the ropes that anchor the ship, there is no way to stop how far it will drift.
This is why we must not let these doctrines infiltrate the church.
I can name many people whom I have
personally known in the church who began to deny that examples and necessary
inferences constitute binding authority. The end result in every case has been
an inevitable departure into denominational error of all sorts.
The doctrine has very real and serious
consequences.
Conclusion
=======
Making proper applications of God's word
can be difficult, whether from commands, examples, or inferences. But Jesus,
His apostles, and other faithful teachers have always used necessary
conclusions from Scriptural reasoning to show what was right and wrong.
To be true to God today, we too must make
proper applications from examples and inferences, as well as commands. To deny
these are binding is to inevitably end up in denominational error.
You are free to keep copies of this material on computer and/or in printed form for your own further study. If you have any other requests about the use of this material, please read our copyright guidelines at www.gospelway.com/copyrite.htm.
Free Bible Study Lessons, Commentaries, and Workbooks
