The Authority of Scriptural Reasoning: Does the Bible use this method to teach us? Are logical conclusions binding if they are based on Scriptural reasoning that necessarily follows from God's word? Should we accept the "new hermeneutic" that denies that examples and necessary inferences constitute binding authority?
A multitude of sermons have been preached I have preached a few of them myself on the three methods of establishing authority, namely 1 Necessay inference bible, 2 example, and 3 necessary inference.
In fact, this has been preached so often that I suspect there are probably hundreds of Christians in this country who believe that there is a passage somewhere which contains those exact words. Does the average person who sits in the pews week after week ever question that? Is it possible that preachers have imposed a man-made formula for thinking upon the Scriptures?
I believe that is exactly what has happened, and the result is that we have been led down the road of strife and division in the name of a man-made doctrine.
The notion that there are three methods and only three methods of determining what the Bible teaches is a purely subjective concept, and 1 would like to pursue that further in a future article.
In this article I am concerned only about the third part of this presumed biblical Necessay inference bible "necessary inferences. All of us use both kinds of inferences in our think-lng processes, and we would not be able to get along very well without doing so.
The point to be noted here is that both kinds of inferences are valid forms of reasoning. A "necessary inference" is a conclusion which is drawn from premises, and which, if the premises are true, must necessarily be true.
The usual form used by a logician to analyze that kind of reasoning is known as a "syllogism" such as: All people are rational beings. All Americans are people.
Therefore, All Americans are rational beings. This type of reasoning guarantees the conclusion statement 3 to be true, if it is demonstrated that the premises statements 1 and 2 are true. Thus it is possible to have a misleading necessary inference: All dogs have four legs.
Fido is a dog. Therefore, Fido has four legs. Premise 1 is not true. Some dogs either from birth or by means of accident or surgery have fewer than four legs.
The point is that a "necessary inference" is drawn from premises which may or may not be tree. Statement 3 "Fido has four legs" is a "necessary inference" from statements 1 and 2. Yet, from those statements alone we do not know for certain whether or not Fido has four legs because premise 1 is not true.
If a man from some underdeveloped nation sitting on the street corner of a large American city, observing the color of automobiles that passed by, sees black cars pass him and no other color he might conclude that all cars arc black.
His reasoning does not guarantee that his conclusion is correct, only that it is probable to some degree or another based on evidence he has seen. This was the kind of reasoning used by Nathanael when he said, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? This "necessary inference" is supposed to be drawn from Acts Someone might be able to write a syllogism in which that statement is the necessary conclusion, but I do not know what it might be.
In the Book of Acts, we are allowed to observe only one gathering of disciples in which they "broke bread.
Thus, we can say with a relative and it might be very small degree of certainty that all of their gatherings for "breaking bread" were on the first day of the week. However, there is not an "acceptable" degree of certainty to me to turn that conclusion into a requirement that we not the Lord may bind on people.
This is true about whatever conclusion you draw regarding the instrumental music issue, the orphan home issue, the drinking vessel issue, etc. Most of the conclusions we draw in Bible study are the result of inductive reasoning, which will, at the most, give us "sufficient inferences," not "necessary" ones.
Another fact to consider is that inferences whether sufficient or necessary are the result of human reasoning. They arc not what the Bible says, they are what I or the person doing thc reasoning say the Bible says.
The conclusions I draw regarding the Bible may be very compelling to me, but they should never become the conclusions of another person who has not examined the evidence for himself.
I must be willing always to let the other man draw his own conclusions, and recognize that they are the result of honest study and an endeavor to please God.
Only then will we end the division and strife which has plagued us through the years. Those of us who do so are called "cowards," "deceptive," and a host of other names which detractors use to get people to quit reading The Examiner.
What difference does it make who I am?Bible Study Software. Necessary Inference in the Old Testament. by Terry W. Benton. After the reasoning has drawn the necessary inference on the meaning of the words, there is the necessary inference as to who it applies to and how it .
Every inference is not a necessary inference, Jno c.
NI is not deduced from subjective sources such as feeling, personal conviction or conscience, Acts , d. "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. The Bible does not forbid Christians buying lottery tickets and putting money in slot machines, but since it commands them to maintain good works (Titus ; Ephesians ), the necessary inference is that Christians will abstain.
The Bible does not specifically forbid Christian boys and girls intertwining themselves in dancing, but since such behavior, among red-blooded young people, easily leads to mental and physical fornication, the necessary inference is that Christians will abstain. "Command, example, and necessary inference" are inherent functions of our mental processes and have been since human beginnings.
Although not always under these particular terms, the concepts of "command, example, and necessary inference" are used in many fields today and have been so used for centuries.