BIBLE AUTHORITY What exactly is 'Necessary Inference'?

“Can necessary inference be established as a scriptural means of determining authority from the New Testament, or is it a longstanding tradition”? This question was posed by a brother who seems willing to recognize authority derived from commands and approved examples, but has difficulty seeing necessary inference as legitimate.

While I will agree that determining authority by way of necessary inference is “trickier,” and should be approached with great care, I believe it is legitimate. I believe it is more than simply longstanding tradition.

First, we need to make sure we understand the word, “inference.” To “infer’ is ‘to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises’ (Meriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dict.). Therefore: Infer = judge, conclude, perceive.

Unlike the words, “command” and “example”, this word is not used in scripture, which may be why our brother is suspicious of it as a means of authority. However, “conclude”, “perceive” and ‘judge”, [synonyms of the word], can be found in scripture.

Within the definition, the dictionary advises, “see Imply”. That is because an inference can never stand alone. There must be an implication in order for there to be a necessary inference. There can be no necessary inference unless it is based on information from statements, commands, approved examples, or some combination thereof.

In order for an inference to be authoritative, it must be a necessary conclusion. There are many possible inferences we might make based on sketchy information, but unless we can determine that the Holy Spirit has implied something, we cannot draw a necessary inference. When one draws a conclusion with out an implication he is merely surmising.

Let me cite three approved apostolic examples of the use of necessary inference:

Notice that when the time came for the gospel to be preached to the Gentiles that GOD never directly told Peter that salvation was available to the un-circumicised, He gave him a vision, sent messengers to where he was staying and sent the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his household so that they spoke in tongues. From these events Peter was able to perceive the truth that men of “every nation’ could be accepted if they would work righteousness (Acts 10:34-35). That was the only conclusion he could reach from what GOD had revealed. That’s a necessary inference.

The apostle Paul was able to conclude that GOD is the GOD of the Gentiles as well as the Jews (Rom. 3:28ff). His conclusion was based on Abraham being justified by faith apart from the law (Rom. 4:1-3).

Perhaps the clearest example of the use of a necessary inference is provided by James during the debate over circumcision. In this situation we have the apostles recognizing the use of a statement, an example, and a necessary inference all in one context. In establishing authority for conversion of the uncircumcised, Peter makes a statement that GOD “chose” that “the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe” (Acts 15:7); Paul and Barnabas then cited an example of GOD working signs among uncircumcised Gentiles (15:12); and finally James draws the conclusion by saying, “Therefore, I judge that we should not trouble those from necessary inference among the Gentiles who are turning to GOD” (15:19).

Yes! Necessary inference has been established as a scriptural means of determining authority from the New Testament. It is not merely tradition.

October 21, 2019

rdb

"Unaccustomed" to the Bible

HEBREWS 5

8 Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.

9 And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,

10 being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

11 Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.

12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.

13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant.

14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.

Notice from v. 12, that in stating that they HAD BECOME dull of hearing, it is necessarily implied that they were not always that way.

HOW had they become "dull" in their hearing?

The answer lies in what was stated in v. 14, about their "powers of discernment". To be able to "discern", it takes "practice"...constant practice. In all that is involved in this, the simple idea, is that of constant bible study.

When your "powers of discernment" aren't "trained", the result is inevitable that you will BECOME "dull of hearing"; and as the writer said, when you become dull of hearing, distinguishing right from wrong is difficult.

The one area wherein that is most affected by "dullness" is in regard to understanding the significance of man's obedience in his salvation.

This significance is seen in mentioning the example of Jesus and His obedience.

Re-read vss. 8-9. Obedience was "learned" through suffering, and is related to, and necessary to "perfection".

Having been "trained", they could now understand the significance of Christ's obedience and of how His 'perfection' came through His sufferings. More importantly, they could understand how/why obedience is connected to the sinner's salvation from His sin.

However, when one's "powers of discernment" aren't "trained", the connection of obedience to salvation is hard to explain...

What about YOU; do you have difficulty seeing the connection of obedience to salvation?

Give prayerful thought and study to what is said in verse 9 of Jesus, AND of obeying Him, "...having been made perfect, He became to all those who OBEY Him the source of eternal salvation...".

copyright 2019

rdb