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

The Bible declares…

The Bible declares…
– that there is a God. It also declares that there is a Devil…Satan.
(Gen. 1:1; Acts 17:24; 1 Chron. 21:1; Zech. 3:1; Rev. 12:9-10)
– that their purpose is mutual: both want your soul! 
(1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 Peter 5:8)
– that Satan portrays himself as God; but God NEVER portrays Himself as Satan.
(2 Thess. 2:3-12)
– that God encourages discussion and investigation of His words; Satan calls this vanity.
Isa. 1:18; 41:1; 43:26; Rom. 1:21; 2 Kings 17:15; Jer. 2:5; Eph. 4:17-18
– that God HAS never; and WILL never, deceive you to solicit your service.
Titus 1:2; 2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 6:28
– that Satan always HAS; and always WILL, deceive you for the same purpose.
(John 8:44)
Some, in the Bible, called the Son of God, Satan; and some called Satan, God.
John 19:20; Rev. 14:9, 11

For the Bible declares…
that there is TRUTH and there is ERROR. 
(1 Tim. 4:1; 1 John 4:6)
That God has angels, apostles, ministers, and servants; so also, does Satan (Matt. 25:41; 2 Cor. 11:13, 15; Rom. 6:16).
Therefore, the PREACHING from their ministers bears many resemblances, but there is ONE glaring difference!
The reason for this ONE difference is because only ONE proclaims truth, for there is only ONE true gospel message. (Gal. 1:6-9)
Both have motives for advancing their message.
The one with a message of error always gives himself away; and always in the same manner…by IMITATION of the one with a message of truth.
The ones with the ERROR imitate the ones with the truth; but the ones with the truth NEVER imitate the ones with the ERROR.
(Jer. 2:13; 12:16; Gal. 2:14)
The ones with the error advance their cause by force, intimidation, and deceit;
Those with truth, promote their cause by honesty and patient overtness.
(Jer. 8:8; Prov. 7:5; 2 Cor. 4:2; 6:7; 2 Tim. 4:2)
Likewise, some call Satan’s ministers ‘gospel preachers’ and ‘gospel preachers’, ministers of Satan. In doing so, their true nature and true love are revealed – John 3:19-21; Matt. 10:24-25; John 8:39; 2 Thess. 2:10

It is why the Lord warned:

“Take heed WHAT ye hear” ~ Mark 4:24

“Take heed HOW ye hear” ~ Luke 6:38

It is why DOCTRINE MATTERS!

copyright 2019rdb

BEING A FOOL AND BEING FOOLISH

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN BEING FOOLISH AND BEING A FOOL.

A fool has a great confidence that some find attractive.
The fool has an enormous talent to sense the needs of another and then transform himself into the kind of person that other person wants.
The fool will use his tongue to flatter others, to convince them that he alone understands them, and that others have misunderstood them and treated them badly.
They have a fun way about themselves that makes you drop your guard because of your natural desire to have fun and feel that you belong.

For the fool this is all a show, an act of hypocrisy, so that he might gain a temporary goal at the expense of another and then cast off the one he has used. “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but he who heeds counsel is wise.” (Proverbs 12:15) He may be bold and love to express his opinion, but he does not know where he is going.

One of the great mistakes a person can make is to get in the way of a fool and his folly. “Better to meet a she-bear robbed of its cubs than to confront a fool immersed in folly.” (Proverbs 17:12)

God warns us in many ways not to even try to teach a fool. “Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words.” (Proverbs 23:9)

A fool will threaten you if he perceives that you are getting in the way. He will threaten to slander you and will carry out that threat if you do not submit to him.

There is a big difference in being a fool and being foolish. All of us have been foolish and learned, but the fool will not. This is the very person that Jesus warned about: “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.” (Matthew 7:6)

copyright 2019
rdb

Did the Bible actually prophesy about the WATERGATE scandal?

CONTEXT - it matters!

I remember a TV preacher from years ago, (during the Nixon presidency) saying that the Bible predicted the Watergate scandal...quoting passages such as Neh. 8:1, 3 which only contained the words "water" and "gate" in them, without regard for the context in which 'water' and 'gate'.

Nehemiah also mentioned the HORSE gate; the FOUNTAIN gate; the REFUSE gate, the VALLEY gate OLD gate, FISH gate, SHEEP gate, EAST gate, INSPECTION gate, OLD gate, GATE of EPHRAIM and GATE of the GUARD in Nehemiah chapter 3. These were simply the various ENTRANCES (gates) of the city of Jerusalem. WATER gate was one of the entrances to the city, NOT a prophecy of political scandal to occur in the 1970's, as this preacher applied. it.

A similar DISREGARD for CONTEXT could be made from a statement of Job. "If I have looked at the sun when it shone...that...would have been an iniquity...for I would have denied God above." ~ Job 31:26-28. Without regard for CONTEXT, some might conclude that looking at the sun would be a sin...

However, if you read the missing words in these 3 verses (vss. 26-28), as well as the entire chapter, Job's words are a declaration that he has NOT concealed his sin by doing any of the "if's" in this chapter.

Also, by consideration of earlier chapters in the book, Job's friends had accused him of this very thing...secret sins. This is why a study of context is crucial to teaching truthfully from the Bible.

CONTEXT MATTERS!
Jesus taught:
"Take heed WHAT ye hear" ~ Mark 4:24
"Take heed HOW ye hear" ~ Luke 8:18

If context is perverted; doctrine will also be perverted. CONTEXT makes a difference, because DOCTRINE MATTERS!

copyright 2019

rdb

Rightly Dividing God's Word: Alleged Bible Contradictions...some considerations...

Rightly Dividing God's Word: Alleged Bible Contradictions...some considerations...: Consider 4 eye-witness accounts of an accident; here are their statements: Witness #1 – These two drivers hit head on Witness #2 – Th...

Alleged Bible Contradictions...some considerations.

Consider 4 eye-witness accounts of an accident; here are their statements:

Witness #1 – These two drivers hit head on

Witness #2 – This truck came across the yellow line and hit the other driver

Witness #3 – The woman turn right into the path of that man

Witness #4 – This red VW was hit by a white truck

Contradictions, or simply four detailed accounts of the same incident, each giving partial, yet differing details?

To understand the truth in regard to the accident, ALL the evidence must be considered.

LAW OF CONTRADICTION

…also implies that a proposition cannot, with reference to the same matter, be both true and false. To say that Jane Smith is a wife, and then assert that Jane Smith is not a wife is a contradiction. But, to say that Jane Smith is a wife, and then add that she is a mother, does not constitute a contradiction. The two terms, although different, supplement each other, but do not contradict each other.

“It is sometimes possible, by means of close study, to show without forcing the issue that two supposedly contradictory passages are really complementary.”

It must be absolutely impossible to harmonize two statements before we conclude that they are contradictory.

“It is the first principle of historical science that any solution which affords a possible method of harmonizing any two statements is preferable to th:e assumption of inaccuracy or error – whether these statements are found in the same or different writers. To act on any other basis, it is clearly acknowledged, is to assume, not prove, error.”

Two statements are not contradictory unless it is impossible for both to be true. “…that if, on any rational hypothesis, they both can be supposed true, they both may be true, and no contradiction is made out.

This rule is made necessary by the fact that writers and speakers often omit details, the absence of which gives their statements the appearance of inconsistency, whereas their presence in the narrative would have prevented this appearance.

It is unjust to refuse any writers the benefit of this rule; for in doing so we are liable to charge with falsehood the most truthful writers, and with incorrect information those best informed.”

The absence of a solution to so-called contradictions does not constitute evidence that there is no solution. It is possible that many of us may be unable to solve many of the difficulties which have been pointed out by infidels as contradictions, while others who have delved more deeply into the scriptures have little trouble solving the difficulty.

As with the accident stories given above, compare from the Bible 4 accounts from the gospels of what was written and placed on the cross of Jesus:

Matt. 27:37 – This is Jesus the King of the Jews.

Mark 15:26 – the King of the Jews.

Luke 23:38 – This is the King of the Jews.

John 19:19 – Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews.

Conclusion: This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews.

Contradictions???

The psalmist stated long ago, "The SUM [entirety] of Thy word is truth..." ~ Psalm 119:160

copyright 2019

rdb