division and inference

Big words relating to interpreting the Bible and the study of *how* we determine what God wants us to do.

Moderator: grand_puba

Post Reply
phelps
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:25 pm

division and inference

Post by phelps » Sun Nov 26, 2006 6:26 pm

I am a member of the church and have been studying God's word. The question I am putting out is the determining of authority. I understand direct commands and apostolic examples. The question I have is the "inference". It seems to me this can be really end up to be only a matter of opinion. Case in point, as members of the Lord's church we cannot even agree. Look at how we are divided. There are: non-class, one-cup, non-institutional, institutional. We are divided by the inference and not by commands or examples. As a group, we tend to look at those who are in denominations as being in error, but how can we be taken seriously unless we learn to worship God in unity.

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

very good question!

Post by m273p15c » Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:30 am

Two different points jumped out at me, including your main question:
phelps wrote:... have been studying God's word. The question I am putting out is the determining of authority. I understand direct commands and apostolic examples. The question I have is the "inference". It seems to me this can be really end up to be only a matter of opinion.
Admittedly, drawing necessary inferences that were implied by the Holy Spirit is a difficult task. One who accurately reaches the unavoidable conclusions embedded in God's text represents a truly skilled student, showing prowess in both observation and honesty, exemplifying both breadth of knowledge and depth of understanding. However, that being said, it is certainly not "opinion". It may only appear as opinion to the untrained, or jaded. Often abused, the frequent misuse of necessary inference can leave a bad taste in anyone's mouth, but we should not let a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch. Should we? Let's look at a few Scriptures to see if drawing logical conclusions - that is operating on indirectly stated truths - is permitted or approved by God:
  1. Direct Command - In the study of hermeneutics, like all thought processes, you have to start somewhere. The "direct command" is that "somewhere". It should be self-evident that we must obey God's directly issued commands, assuming the context permits application to us. Like Job (6:6, 30), each of us should be able to "taste salt" and instinctively recognize our responsibility to this end. Unless you make this assumption, or similar, establishing a basis for hermeneutics and interpretation becomes a vicious cycle of reasoning with no foundation. However, we will assume that we all have ability to read, understand, and pick out God's commands to us (Ephesians 3:3-5).

    Let us conclude this section with a virtually rhetorical question, "Must we obey the commands issued by Jesus and His apostles and prophets?" I think so (I Corinthians 14:37; I John 4:6).
  2. Approved Apostolic Example - Should we follow the examples of the apostles and prophets? Of course, they made some mistakes (Galatians 2:11-14), so we should not follow them when they exemplify human frailty; therefore, the example must be approved. But, the question has still not been answered. Should we follow their example at all? It depends. Do you think we should follow New Testament commands?
    Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, wrote:Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern. ... The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you. (Philippians 3:17; 4:9)
    If we reject the approved examples of Jesus' apostles and prophets, we are rejecting a direct command from the apostles and therefore God Himself (Matthew 18:18; I Corinthians 14:37). If we accept the commands of the apostles as coming from God, then we must accept their example and pattern as a means of establishing authority.

    Admittedly, using examples to establish authority is more difficult than simply observing direct commands. However, God has given us the Bible, a command, and our brains; so, we can do it (Exodus 4:10-12)!
  3. Necessary Inference - Also known as "necessary conclusion", this is the next logical step in analysis. Admittedly, it is again more tedious than the first two, requiring more diligence and honesty. But, I am getting ahead of myself. ... Let's pause and ask ourselves, "Does God want us to draw necessary inferences?" It depends. Do you think we should follow approved New Testament examples?

    For example, in Matthew 22:23-33, Jesus confirmed that there was indeed a future resurrection, based on the simple fact that God said "I am the God of Abraham". Since God identified Himself as still being the God of Abraham ("I am" - present tense), we can infer or conclude that Abraham was still alive - somewhere - even though he died a few hundred years before that event. Therfore, life exists after death, which suggests a resurrection. Jesus drew that conclusion, but should we? Could we? Well, Jesus chided the Sadducees saying, "have you not read what was spoken to you by God?" (Matthew 22:31) Although displaced by over a thousand years, Jesus observed that they were among the intended recipients of the text, and they were expected to understand its implications. So, yes, people can, should, and must draw necessary inferences, if Jesus' example and statements are meaningful to us.

    Furthermore, Peter observed in David's Old Testament prophecies that David foretold his flesh would not see corruption, but yet David died; therefore, the text must have foretold of Jesus', his descendent's resurrection (Acts 2:25-36). The book of Hebrews abounds with amazing examples of exercising one's brain to deduce necessary conclusions from Old Testament texts. For example, the writer observes that Abraham paid tithes to the priest of God, Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:1-4). Since Melchizedek received the tithes and blessed Abraham, Melchizedek was superior to him ("beyond all contradiction", Hebrews 7:7). Now Abraham was superior to Levi and his sons, including Aaron, which made Abraham superior to the Levitical and Aaronic priesthood (Hebrews 7:9-10). Finally, the writer concludes that Melchizedek must have filled a superior priesthood to that of Aaron, and since Jesus was promised to be a priest like Melchizedek, that makes His priesthood superior to the Levitical, which implies that the Old Law and its Levitical priesthood were inferior and replaced by the New Law and its Divine High Priest, Jesus (Hebrews 7:11). He buttresses his conclusion by also observing that Jesus came from the tribe of Judah, which required a change in the law, since priests under the Old Law could only come from the tribe of Levi, which again "necessitated a change in the law" (Hebrews 7:11-14).

    Since both Jesus and His apostles and prophets used necessary inference as a means of establishing God's will, should we do the same? We will, if we believe we should follow their example, and if we believe we have been so commanded. Do you see the chain? To deny necessary inference is to reject examples and ultimately disobey a direct command!
The key to correct "necessary inference" is the word, "necessary". Anybody can draw a conclusion, but is it a necessary conclusion? Are there alternative explanations that reconcile and harmonize all texts? We must be careful that we do not "jump to conclusions" and incorrectly label them as "necessary conclusions". This is the reason it is such a strong test and evidence to our honesty. Prejudiced and preconceived notions can drive our conclusions and blind us to alternatives, encouraging us to only see what we want to see. This is what makes it so difficult. Fortunately, we have "friends" to help us test our conclusions (Proverbs 27:17), although we should ultimately become skilled at questioning and examining ourselves. Just keep asking yourself, "Is this a necessary conclusion?" "Can I find legitimate, alternative explanations that equally harmonize and reconcile all the Scriptures on this point - not my pet doctrine - but the Scriptures?"

The other thing that makes it difficult is a lack of knowledge. The clue may often be buried in an obscure passage. Who would have thought to look at the burning bush as a testimony to the resurrection? But, Jesus both did it and expected us to do the same. What did He say was the Sadducees' problem, and most likely our problem too? "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. ... But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God" (Matthew 22:29-31). We must have a very broad knowledge of Scripture. The truth is often scattered throughout the pages of God's Word, so we must diligently read it cover to cover, over and over again, astutely observing all things and pondering their significance. This requires diligence and commitment, which again makes it tough.

Finally, one last thing that makes it tough - faith, or lack thereof. Remember, the other thing that Jesus observed was that the Sadducees "did not know the power of God" (Matthew 22:29-31). God's power exceeds our knowledge and understanding; therefore, we must have faith, since we cannot know and understand all He does and promises. Their lack of knowledge manifested their lack of faith. More to the point, Jesus often rebuked His own disciples more directly, "Oh, ye of little faith"; or, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!" (Luke 24:25-27). The problem often lies in our reluctance to take that "leap of faith" and follow the necessary conclusions. Our lack of faith may at first express a lack of faith in our own ability or honesty; however, after some measure of time, our reluctance ultimately expresses a lack of faith in God. Consequently, this point (and questions regarding "silence") tell so much about our view of God by our measure of willingness, or unwillingness, to presume upon God.

True, many people, maybe even most people, abuse "necessary inference" by jumping to conclusions, expecting you to accept their assertions. However, as we can see from the few verses above, it is a path God expects us to follow. However, we must be careful to follow Him and not our hearts. How we handle necessary inference tells more about who we are than most any other point in hermeneutics.
phelps wrote:I am a member of the church and ... as members of the Lord's church we cannot even agree. Look at how we are divided. There are: non-class, one-cup, non-institutional, institutional. We are divided by the inference and not by commands or examples. As a group, we tend to look at those who are in denominations as being in error, but how can we be taken seriously unless we learn to worship God in unity.
Now, this was not your question, but I just have to say, "Whoa!" This sounds very noble - at first, but there is something not healthy in this reasoning. Who is "we"? Who is it that "we" want to take "us" seriously? If this reflects our innermost feelings, then we (you and I) are letting ourselves fall into a trap of denominational thinking - the very thing we are trying to avoid! Yes, division is bad, very bad (I Corinthians 1:10-13), and it does detract from our ability to evangelize the lost (John 17:20-23); however, "we" are not in any kind of race or competition with other denominations, neither do "we" require, need, or even want their respect. In fact, I would not want it. Sectarians only respect other sectarians. I do not think that is what you and I want. However, truthseekers will always respect the truth, when they hear it, even if they have not heard it before. That is what they should see first - the truth (Romans 1:16). The desire to organize a global, recognizable, unified, formidable group (denomination?) could be the very thing that destroys "us". Unity is desirable, but purity comes first (James 3:15-18). ... I know this may seem a very extreme and unexpected reaction, but it was similar feelings that drove many of the humongous missionary and benevolent societies that caused previous severe divisions in years gone by. People said, "We have to band together to make a name for ourselves, so people will respect us..." Can you think of an Old Testament story that started off with a similar motivation? And, ended with a similar result? (Tower of Babel, maybe?)

I share your concern for the division. It disturbs and concerns me greatly. However, divisions are ultimately unavoidable, even necessary (I John 2:19). They are not a reflection on a ideal so much as they are a reflection on the people involved, whether for good or bad. All institutions, even the first century church, tends to accumulate hypocrites or non-committals, those who profess the party platform on some level but are ultimately unwilling to maintain their commitment at some deeper level. Paul foretold there would be a great falling away in the early church (II Thessalonians 2:1-12). Although it may not be as dramatic today, why should we expect it to be any different? People are born in one place, but over a period of time, they migrate to another place that suits their thinking, their view of God. Although we may account for some of the division as due to ignorance or lack of brotherly love, long standing and fortified divisions manifests banners and ensigns for differing schools of thoughts - different appreciations for God. People gather with like-minded people. They ultimately adopt lifestyles and belief systems that suit them, whether that be based on something noble like truth, or something ignoble like self.

Although I am saddened and concerned by the division, I have learned to be content with it at a global level. Now, I always try to undo evil and division on a personal level - wherever and whenever I can, but at some greater level, I must acknowledge a division that I will likely never affect. At that level, I am content, reconciling division as an expression of our free will, varying tastes, and extended time. There is only one truth, but there are many flavors of error (although only a few primary errors), and for some reason people gravitate to the flavor that they like (free will). Given enough time, people mix and match recipes, creating more and more flavors, elaborating the spectrum of choices. They may have created more flavors, but there is still only one truth and only one that will save - God's Word (John 17:17).

So, let me wrap this up with three questions for the patient and kind reader:
  1. Does the Scriptures approve "necessary inference"?
  2. If yes, and if the enumeration of potential dangers make this sound like a veritable minefield, are you OK with trusting God to see you through that minefield?
  3. If you are OK with that, are you OK with the fact that some others may not be? If not, what do you gain by joining them and turning your eyes away from the light?
I realize I kind of "jumped on you", but I know you are an honest truthseeker and I am confident you will overlook my bluntness and receive my longwinded answer in the manner it was intended - both love and great concern.

Incidentally, more here... http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/authority2.html and here http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... e_sky.html

phelps
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:25 pm

Post by phelps » Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:29 pm

Thank you for your reply. I do not feel I was "jumped on". I feel that my post was more that likely to open ended and was to broad. I feel in order for you to understand my last post I need to explain the reasoning for it.

To paint you a picture of myself, I have been worshiping with same congregation as a baptized member since I was 16 years old. I am now 30. I grew up in this congregation with some of our current elders teaching me the bible for years.

At some point in my teenage years (I cannot remember the age or year), we had recieved a call to our building from some one asking for directions. This was a Saturday during a wedding reception. Having been around for some time now, I was very comfortable giving the directions. After giving those directions I was asked "Are you anti?" To say the least I was very shocked. Anti? I asked my friend who happened to be walking towards me if she knew what that had meant. She was as confused as myself. "Mam," I responded "anti what?" Just trying to get a little more perspective so I could help her answer her question, or get some one who did. She more or lest told me "never mind" and hung up.

I proceeded to go to the most influential and knowledgeable person I knew. My mom. I asked her and she smiled and stated that this was something that some congregations are considered. I had to do with issuses that split the church years back. She said we would talk about it later.

I was explained the difference between those who were considered "anti" and those who weren't.

For years I accepted the "anti" brethern as conservative (anti just sounds bad), but people who love God, just see how he wants things done differently than I do. (I am not big liberal, not everything goes.

About two years ago, a minister and elder from one of the conservative congregations challenged our leadership to a "debate." I have never understood why, because all this ever does is create more division. The elders and ministers read the open challenge to the debate and discarded for the very reason I stated. After waiting and not getting the response, they had the nerve to write individual members and send them the same letter challengeing our congregation to a debate. (how they got our addresses I don't know, but I have a clue) We had a congregational meeting on this and it was agreed that we would not respond.

To add fuel to the fire the same minister showed up to a gospel meeting we were having and was trying to challenge our elders and ministers to a debate on the spot. Not very professional in my opinion.

Ok. now you are seeing why my personal study has taken me to scriptual authority. There has been many articles on print and on the web pertainging to this. I am seeking why do we do what we do and is it authorized. I am not trying to add to our worship, but I feel that the churches of Christ can find some common ground and fellowship with each other as long as matters of salvation and God's word are heeded. I hate the fighting. It is not good for us to fight over what methods we use (e.g. youth groups, mission committees, helping the orphanages, youth rallies)or don't use. I know we are given both generic and specific commands. I cannot think of a congregation that is divided over our specific command.

My uncle is a member of a "conservative congregation". They worship in a building less that 10 miles from where our place of worship is. If he were to invite me to a gospel meeting, I would go. This is the way it should be, even if we disagree on the methods on how we teach.

My question to you would be if invited, would you worship beside someone who was considered slightly liberal? How about "non-class" or "one-cup"?

I have more to add about the infernece question I raised, but time is against me and I will do so ASAP.

Let me thank you again for your response. I hope that our conversations can only make each other grow in spirit and truth.

In him

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:34 pm

Thanks for your patient and thoughtful reply. Your question was a very good one that touches on a lot of important topics, which need to be discussed!

Again, you mentioned several things worthy of comment, but please allow me to focus on your main question:
phelps wrote:I am seeking why do we do what we do and is it authorized. I am not trying to add to our worship, but I feel that the churches of Christ can find some common ground and fellowship with each other as long as matters of salvation and God's word are heeded. I hate the fighting. It is not good for us to fight over what methods we use (e.g. youth groups, mission committees, helping the orphanages, youth rallies)or don't use. I know we are given both generic and specific commands. I cannot think of a congregation that is divided over our specific command.

My uncle is a member of a "conservative congregation". They worship in a building less that 10 miles from where our place of worship is. If he were to invite me to a gospel meeting, I would go. This is the way it should be, even if we disagree on the methods on how we teach.

My question to you would be if invited, would you worship beside someone who was considered slightly liberal? How about "non-class" or "one-cup"?
Let's talking about fighting and wrangling in general, first... The Bible clearly condemns useless and pointless arguments - fighting about things that do not matter, accept maybe to our egos:
Paul, an apostle, wrote:As I urged you when I went into Macedonia--remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. (I Timothy 1:3-4)

... Teach and exhort these things. If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself. (I Timothy 6:2-5)

O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge --by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith. ... (I Timothy 6:20-21)

But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some. (II Timothy 2:16-18)

But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned. (Titus 3:9-11)
Paul warns us against two kinds of babblers and wranglers: Those who argue about things that are harmless, but "unprofitable and useless". Now the topic may be harmless, but the results of their arguments are anything but harmless. They cause division and should be withdrawn from, simply because they refuse to lay aside their useless, but divisive arguments. The second category is people who push false doctrine and "overthrow the faith of some". Both categories of people should be rejected. Now, we could pause and talk about the right way and time to engage in argument and "contend for the faith" (Jude 3), but for the sake of the main point, let's press on...

Now, if you or I admonish a brother to give up his argumentation, what are we implying, even assuming? We are assuming that he is either pushing false doctrine or arguing about things that do not matter! Correct? Now, you may believe that the items you mentioned are inconsequential, that God has not expressed His will on the matter, but what do the people on the other side think? They think it is a matter of right and wrong, righteousness and sin! If you ask such a person to come partake in your worship, and such a person believes the worship consists of sinful practices (instrumental music, contributing to institutions, using multiple cups, dividing into classes, participating in social programs, etc.), then what are you asking them to do? Violate their conscience!
Paul, by inspiration, wrote:However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse. But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. (I Corinthians 8:7-13)

All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own, but each one the other's well-being. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience' sake; for "the earth is the Lord's, and all its fullness." If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience' sake. But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience' sake; for "the earth is the Lord's, and all its fullness." "Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience? But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks? Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. (I Corinthians 10:23-33)
Even if we are right, and somebody is wrong, we cannot ask them to simply violate their conscience. Their conscience must be persuaded and retrained according to the truth, because to violate their conscience is strictly condemned! They can lose their souls over the matter ("because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?"; see also Romans 14:23)! Otherwise, we must either forbear ("if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble") or separate. We cannot simply agree to disagree when one brother is persuaded that it is a matter of sin and agreeing would involve him in sin! We can only agree to disagree when we cannot prove our case according to Scripture, when our case resides upon our personal scruples, not God's Word (Romans 14:1-23).

So, to finally answer your question. I would personally attend with you provided I was not called upon to participate in instrumental worship, contribute to a missionary society, or do something else that I am persuaded is sinful. I would not object to visiting with a one-cup or no-class group, because I do not believe they are sinning in such practices, although I understand those practices to be overly-restrictive. However, I understand and sympathize with their reluctance to come visit with me because we have multiple classes. So, I would seek to persuade them according to the truth where possible, and I would seek to resolve our differences by coming to a better understanding of Scripture, but based on the above texts, I cannot compel them or plead with them to abandon their convictions for the sake of unity alone. Remember, true wisdom is first pure, then peaceable (James 3:17-19). I want freedom to exercise that purity and not be compelled to what I think is sin, and I must give others room to exercise the same purity. Only through discussion and study of the gospel can we hope to achieve unity of the same mind (I Corinthians 1:10; Romans 1:16).

...

So, what did you think about the case for necessary inference? Is it required of us or not?

Thanks for your thoughtful consideration and earnest concern for both unity and properly understanding the Word of God.

Post Reply