Expert: Joe Norman - 12/11/2009

Question
QUESTION: I put this question to Onaga but, as far as I can discern, he didn't really respond to it. So, I'm going to ask other experts. If I misread Onaga's intentions, I apologize.

My question and followup question:

The Church of Christ seems to adhere to the "Regulative Principle of Worship" (RPW). The RPW basically states that worship is limited to those things mentioned in scripture by command, example or inference and all else is prohibited. The RPW pre-dates the Restoration Movement by at least several hundred years and is related to Calvinism, Anabaptist's and Reformed Presbyterianism.  Since a number of the Restoration Movement leaders were Presbyterian's, it seems reasonable to me to think that the Church of Christ's adherence to this principle is at least partly driven by the early Restoration Movement leaders RPW history.

The "Normative Principle of Worship" (NPW) on the other hand takes the stance that things not mentioned in scripture are allowed as long as they are within the keeping of peace and unity of the Church.

When one looks at the history of the "Church of Christ", one sees a pretty remarkable example of non-unity. The Churches of Christ disagree to the point of non-fellowship over Sunday Schools, Christian Institutions (institutionalism), Benevolence to nonbelievers, Wine vs. Grape Juice, Cooking or eating in the Church building, One vs. Many Communion Cups, Paid Ministers, Instrumental Music, Missionaries, Order of Worship, Communion of other than Sunday's, Conventions, etc. etc. I don't think I can possibly mention all the "non-fellowship" issues.
Although certainly not perfect with regard to unity, the Independent Christian Church (one of the 3 branches of the Restoration Movement), which practices at least to some degree the NPW doesn't have a history of non-fellowship over issues like I've mentioned above. At least when it comes to Unity, doesn't history lead one to the conclusion that the NPW is superior to the RPW? If God wished to dictate worship practices in the New Covenant as He did in the Old Covenant, wouldn't the scriptures of the New Testament have contained explicit guidance just as the Old Testament contained? How can the Church of Christ ignore all the divisions their RPW Theology history has created and, in the light of Jesus' prayer for the Unity of Believers, confidently believe that they are on the correct path (or paths in the light of non-fellowship issues)?

Followup Question:

I'll attach a link to Wikipedia on the RPW which also mentions the NPW so you can get a better idea what these two Theological Principles have to say.  I think if you read them and do some further online research on the RPW, you'll see a remarkable overlay with Church of Christ beliefs. There are a few wording changes, "Circumstances" might replace "Expediencies" and so forth but they are essentially the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulative_principle_of_worship

You are not alone in not knowing about these Principles as no one in the Church of Christ I attend has heard of them either.  For that matter, not many have heard of the Independent Christian/Church of Christ although those who attend the Independent Christian/Church of Christ are usually fairly well informed about the non-instrumental Church of Christ. Both groups have their roots in the Restoration Movement as I'm sure you know.

It seems to me that the RPW has been actually broadened in the Church of Christ in that things which are not related to Worship are regarded in the same manner as things related to Worship.  For example, Sunday Schools.  These are not mentioned in the scriptures and some Churches of Christ say they are prohibited under the same reasoning as Worship items.  Giving to Orphanages from the Church treasury likewise isn't directly mentioned in the scriptures and they are, in a similar manner, prohibited by some Churches of Christ. I don't have a problem with this prohibition except that it becomes a test of brotherhood or fellowship for some of these churches. The NPW would simply allow this to be decided on a congregational level but would not place fellowship barriers as a result of what an individual congregational assembly decides to do. These sort of issues have never created  a fellowship issue in the Independent Christian/Church of Christ.

In a worship setting, we might consider the lifting of hands to the Lord during worship or praise.  I understand that this can be an objectionable practice for many Churches of Christ.  It's also viewed both positively or negatively by different Independent Christian/Churches of Christ but it has never been regarded as an issue of fellowship or non-fellowship. Wine vs. Grape juice is a similar issue in worship. It has resulted in non-unity in the Church of Christ but has never created division in the Independent Christian/ Church of Christ. This one is interesting because the scriptures say "Wine" but in this case some Churches of Christ seem to go against the RPW and scripture and insist on "Grape Juice" and once again a division in the Church occurs.

Another way of looking at this is to consider the response to the old Restoration Movement slogan "Where the scriptures speak, we speak. Where the Scriptures are silent, We are silent". The Church of Christ interprets "Silence as Prohibitive" while the Christian Church (Independent) interprets "Silence as Liberty". Hasn't "Silence as Prohibitive" resulted in far less Christian unity than "Silence as Liberty"? Some in the Church of Christ have told me that "Silence as Prohibitive" is the "Safe" way to go but how is it "Safe" as far as Christian Unity is concerned?

ANSWER: Hi Neal,

I do apologize for taking so long to answer you. First, these terms RPW and NPW are not important to me although I did go to your link and read about them both. It seems to me that your concern is more about unity than it is about what is pleasing to God. Non-unity is most always a result of humans trying to do as they want without regard to what God wants. In regard to which is superior, if our only concern is unity, NPW would be superior. But that is because it is built on a much more loose manner of approach to God's Word.

You asked; "If God wished to dictate worship practices in the New Covenant as He did in the Old Covenant, wouldn't the scriptures of the New Testament have contained explicit guidance just as the Old Testament contained? How can the Church of Christ ignore all the divisions their RPW Theology history has created and, in the light of Jesus' prayer for the Unity of Believers, confidently believe that they are on the correct path #or paths in the light of non-fellowship issues#?

I believe God gave as explicit guidance as He deemed necessary and He has NEVER left it up to man to decide how to worship Him acceptably. We also do not ignore all the divisions within the churches of Christ. The cause for such division is not RPW as I see it, but rather human error in attempting to apply God's Word correctly. Division comes by mis-use of God's Word. Yet, direct Command, approved Example, and Necessary Inference, are not made up by the churches of Christ or any man for that matter. This comes from God Himself and is seen in the way Jesus applies God's Word as well as the way the apostles applied God's Word.

When is silence of scripture binding and when it is not binding has long been debated and probably always will be debated. But Jesus' prayer for unity is not the kind of unity many today seek. It is a unity that is built on God's Word. When something is specified and COMMANDED to be used, it automatically restricts all other types. For example: When God commanded Moses to build the ark out of gopher wood, He didn't have to say, now don't use cedar, or oak, or pine. Yet clearly the ONLY wood he could use was gopher wood. We don't know what type of wood that was, but we do know a specific type was commanded and that automatically eliminated the use of any other type of wood.

People tell us, the Bible doesn't say we can use hymn books but hymn books are expedient in aiding us to unite in singing to God as a congregation. The books do not make music themselves. Therefore it doesn't conflict with the specified command for ALL to SING psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to God. I see the divisions and it breaks my heart. I cry over the division. I pray for those who cause splits. I pray that we all learn to unite in the way God wants us to unite.

Another thing to point out to you is that according to Jesus Christ, the way that leads to eternal life is a narrow way. It isn't an easy path and few will find it. But broad is the way that leads to eternal damnation. That path is easy. #Matt.7:13,14# Silence is prohibitive when something is specified as I showed in regard to singing to God, but silence is not prohibitive when there isn't a specified command and it is an aid to obeying a specific command. For instance, we are told to take care of the widows and orphans. We are not told HOW to do this. We are not told it MUST be done only on an individual basis and we are not told not to use the church treasury to take care of them. Here, silence is NOT restrictive. Each local congregation can decide for themselves how they plan to obey this command. The churches of Christ are independent and autonomous. That is God's design. It helps to ensure that the Lord's church will never be completely apostate. I personally do not make divisions over how many cups, Bible class vs no Bible class, kitchen/fellowship hall vs no kitchen/fellowship hall, etc matters of fellowship.

I worshiped for a time with a "non-institutional" congregation. They tried to convince me of my error in being in agreement with the institutional churches. I never wavered from my position on these matters. I promised not to cause problems within that local church and said I would submit to the authority of their eldership as long as I remained with them. They accepted me as a fellow Christian and I even was allowed to lead singing and wait on the Lord's table there. I even led prayers. I was not allowed to teach a Bible class, but that was the only restriction made upon me. Had I continued to stay though, I believe they would have eventually let me teach a class so long as institutionalism was not taught.

I want unity as much as Jesus and God want unity. But I want it on God's terms and not man's terms. I don't think about RPW or NPW and think these are both man-made systems. Silence has never been completely binding within the Lord's church. If it were, we would not have electricity in our building among many other silly restrictions. I do hope I have answered you to your satisfaction. If not, please send me a follow up question. But please keep in mind that this is not a debate site. One last thing, we do not have a book of creeds or doctrines that all must follow. Every local church is overseen by elders. Division comes due to the flaws in mankind and Satan's influence as well. There will always be divisions and few will find the way that leads to eternal life. I don't wish that any should perish, but it is God who decides who will perish and who will not. It is not me. For that, I am eternally thankful.

May God bless you and I pray you are among those in Heaven when Christ returns.

In Christ, Joe Norman

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Joe,

Thank you for the response. I don't wish to debate anything as that has occurred over the past 150 years and provided no tangible results... in fact it seems to me that debate has only provided more division. My questions are driven by a situation that I have encountered at the Church of Christ where I worship.

But your response did bring one more question to my mind. You stated: "Yet, direct Command, approved Example, and Necessary Inference, are not made up by the churches of Christ or any man for that matter. This comes from God Himself and is seen in the way Jesus applies God's Word as well as the way the apostles applied God's Word."  Could you provide scriptural references to this claim or statement? I only ask this because it seems, to me, that these 3 items are very much a man-made principle and while having a nice sound, their actual application has led to much division  in Christ's Church.

Thanks, and I trust that both you and I have taken the actions needed for Christ to add us to his Church so there's no reason that I can see that both you and I will not be taken to Heaven when Christ returns.

God Bless,

Neal


Answer
Hi Neal,

I do thank you for the follow up question, but I kind of wish it had been a separate new question. Mainly because to me this is separate even though it is related. Yes I can provide scriptural references. I don't really think there is a need for me to provide scriptural references for direct commands or approved examples, because most everyone accepts those two. The problem most seem to have is involving Necessary Inference.

We all know what a direct command is and no one will claim we can ignore a direct command. Yet some do confuse some things and claim they are a command when they are not a command. For instance, Rom.16:16 when Paul says greet one another with a "holy kiss", this is NOT a direct command for all Christians. In fact it wasn't a command at all. Yet some try to claim it was a command for all Christians to follow. I hope you can see that they are wrong.

If you would like to see the difference between an "approved" example and an "unapproved" example though, I can help with that as well. We can look to the institution of the Lord's Supper as well for what is not an "approved" example. They went into an upper room (Matt.14). This is not an "approved" example of where we are to partake of the Lord's Supper. Yet some who try to discredit the Lord's church claim it is an example to be followed. In regard to those who claim we should only use "one cup" in the Lord's Supper, this is a mis-use of an example. It is not an approved example at all. The focus was never on how many cups or the cup itself but rather on the contents. Also there is a verse which should cause all "one-cuppers" to see their error.

Luke 22:17, 18
17 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, "Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."

Take this cup and DIVIDE it among yourselves seems to clearly reveal they did not all drink from one cup and pass it around. So again there is no reason for us to follow the "one cup" doctrine as it contradicts the Word of God and is a mis-use of an example.

Now let's look at some examples of necessary inference. Did it come from man? Not at all.

Matt.22:29-32
29 Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. 31 But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 'I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB' ? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

Here we see Jesus using necessary inference. Jesus quotes an Old Testament passage. He points out that God used the present tense. I AM and not I WAS as evidence that God is the God of the living and not the dead. There is indeed an afterlife. They should have known this by studying the scriptures. Also Jesus said they should have known that in the afterlife no one is given in marriage or married in Heaven but all are like the angels. Can u show me where in the Old Testament it says anything specific about afterlife marital status? I have never seen anything. So again, it must be inferred to be so based on what the scriptures DO say about the afterlife.

Think about this too. 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.]

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.

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? Even the belief that we cannot bind inferences on others is an inference. We all use it. It is easier to use than to explain.

In Ephesians 4:8-10, Paul again uses inference. Psalm 68:18 says "He ascended." But, says Paul, one may infer that if one has ascended, he must first have been lower. There was first, then, he says, a descending. His reasoning is like this: All who ascend are included in those who have first been lower. Christ ascended. Therefore Christ must first have been lower.

But not only do Bible writers use inference in interpreting other scriptures, they also often use inference in their discussion and expect us to follow it. In Matthew 7:11, Jesus uses the common logical device of "from lesser to greater." This approach says that if something of lesser significance is true, then that which is greater than it certainly will be true. So, says Jesus, "If ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give good things to them that ask Him?" He never finishes out the steps in the argument because he expects us to be able to do that.

Jesus uses that same type of reasoning in Luke 13:15 and 14:6 when he says if it is proper to care for animals (the lesser) when they need assistance on the Sabbath day, then surely it is proper to care for humans (the greater) on the Sabbath day.

Paul uses the form of a hypothetical syllogism in I Corinthians 15:17 when he says "If [and only if] Christ be not raised, then you faith is vain." He expects the reader mentally to add, "My faith is not vain, and, therefore, Christ is raised."

But not only do Bible writers use inference in interpreting other scriptures, they also often use inference in their discussion and expect us to follow it. In Matthew 7:11, Jesus uses the common logical device of "from lesser to greater." This approach says that if something of lesser significance is true, then that which is greater than it certainly will be true. So, says Jesus, "If ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give good things to them that ask Him?" He never finishes out the steps in the argument because he expects us to be able to do that.

Jesus uses that same type of reasoning in Luke 13:15 and 14:6 when he says if it is proper to care for animals (the lesser) when they need assistance on the Sabbath day, then surely it is proper to care for humans (the greater) on the Sabbath day.

Paul uses the form of a hypothetical syllogism in I Corinthians 15:17 when he says "If [and only if] Christ be not raised, then you faith is vain." He expects the reader mentally to add, "My faith is not vain, and, therefore, Christ is raised."

But not only do Bible writers use inference in interpreting other Bible writers, and not only do they make inferences which they expect us to follow, Bible writers expect their readers to use inference to draw conclusions of their own. In John 20:30-31, for example, the writer says he recorded the signs Jesus did so those who read them would believe (by necessary inference) that Jesus is the Christ. In fact, the whole premise which lies behind the miracles of the New Testament is that God expected the people who saw them to draw an inference. Nicodemus, for example, says to Jesus "We know that you are teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs you do, except God is with him" (John 3:2). Nicodemus has done exactly as God intended: he has inferred from Jesus’ miracles what is implied in them: that Jesus is sent from God. The former blind man makes a similar statement in John 9:33: "If this man were not from God, he could do nothing."

Paul certainly the Corinthians to use some "common sense" logic in understanding his statement "not to have company with fornicators." In I Corinthians 5:9-11, he told them they should have known that he was referring to fornicators in the church and not outside. But how could they have come to such a conclusion? He had intended for them reason like this: If I am to avoid all contact with fornicators outside the church, I must isolate myself from society. I cannot isolate myself from society (because I must seek to convert them to Christ). So I cannot avoid all fornicators outside the church.

God clearly, then, expects us to draw an inference from the miracles Jesus and the apostles were empowered to do. And Paul expected his readers to use common reasoning to understand his message. God knows there is an innate sense of reasoning in the human mind. Aristotle did not invent it, although he helped to codify it, nor is induction something invented by theologians or John Locke. Long before these, God knew how the human mind worked and he took advantage of that to present certain information from which He expected us to draw conclusions.

The scriptures themselves, then, are clear that God wants us to follow the commands God gives for us, that He wants us to learn from examples, and that He expects us to follow inferences made in scripture and to draw some of our own.

3. The use of "command, example, and necessary inference" are a valid method of applying a passage after we have used other principles of hermeneutics to understand its meaning. Writers in the Restoration Movement who have spoken of "command, example, and necessary inference" have never intended these to be our total hermeneutic. There are two basic steps in hermeneutics: (1) determining what the passage meant to those who first received it and (2) determining what God wanted me to do as result of what that passage meant to those who first received it.

To understand what a passage meant to those who first received it we must use such principles as the following: (1) learning from history, archaeology, culture, and geography about the conditions under which these words were spoken, (2) defining words that need to be explored, (3) studying the syntax of the passage, (4) recognizing the type of literature are we dealing with, (5) discovering who said these words to whom, (6) learning from the context around the passage, (7) interpreting the figures of speech in this passage, (8) learning from other passages about the passage we are studying, and (9) finding out what the "big picture" about dispensations and theology presented in the Bible tell us as we fit this passage into it.

Only after we have explored the original meaning of a passage through such means as this are we ready to ask the question, "Now what does God want me to do as result of what this passage meant to those who first received it?" To answer that question, we use "command, example, and necessary inference."

A. If we have understood a passage correctly and that passage has in it a commandment which God intended the people of our dispensation to obey, then we must obey that command. God’s command to Noah to build an ark, obviously, was limited to a particular time and circumstance. The commands of the Law of Moses were not given to Gentiles or to those living under the Christian dispensation. We do, however, live under the law of Christ (Romans 7:1-7), and Jesus left commandments for us to follow (John 14:15). So we find commands that apply in our dispensation: believe in Jesus (Acts 16:31) and repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). We have commands to worship, to put away sinful deeds, and to care for the needy.

We must, of course, ask certain questions about a command before knowing just how we are to follow it. Is there, for instance, some other command that might limit or clarify it? Romans 13:1-7, commands us to obey the government, but Acts 4:19 teaches us, by the example of Peter and John, that if man’s law contradicts God’s command, "we must obey God rather than men."

Also we must understand that inherent within any command is a level of specificity which determines what is allowed and what is prohibited. When God specified, for instance, how priests were to obtain the fire they were to use at the altar of incense, getting fire in any other way was excluded. So in Leviticus 10:1, when Nadab and Abihu got their fire from some other source, they used a method God "had not commanded." When He commanded one way to get fire, all other ways were "not commanded" and thus excluded. The NIV says they used "unauthorized fire." When God commands one out of several possibilities in a category, then, the other possibilities in that category are in the "not commanded" category and, thus, are unauthorized.

The same lesson is seen in other passages. I Chronicles 15:13-14 reports that when David moved the ark after the time when Uzza died, he said, "we sought him not according to the ordinance." This second time, the Levites carried the ark "as Moses commanded." When God selected one out of many possibilities for moving the ark, other means of moving it were excluded.

When Saul was impatient because Samuel was late, he ignored the fact that when God specified that priests were to offer a sacrifice, any one else was excluded from offering them. In I Samuel 13:14, Samuel told Saul "you have not kept what the Lord commanded you." But God did not command those of the tribe of Benjamin not to offer sacrifices. He only commanded that those of Levi could. Yet, when Saul, of Benjamin, offered a sacrifice, he violated the commandment. So, to do what is excluded is just as much a violation of the commandment as to fail to do what is commanded.

Paul makes the same point in I Corinthians 11:20-34. Here Paul condemns the Corinthians church for not observing the Lord’s supper just as he had commanded them to do. He says, "I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you." Thus, Paul says, I told you how to take the Lord’s supper and you are doing it some other way and, in the process, you are "eating and drinking damnation" and are "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." When Paul told them how to take the Lord’s supper, other ways were excluded.

We understand this principle of exclusion in everyday life. When a song leader says turn to number 412, he does not have to name all the songs to which we are not to turn. When a doctor prescribes a particular medicine, the pharmacist does not fill it with another medicine and say, "The doctor didn’t say not to use this one." When the architect specifies a particular type of window, the builder does not say, "He didn’t say not to use another type so I’m sure it will be OK." When the teacher specifies a due date for a paper, the student shouldn’t say, "He didn’t say I couldn’t bring it on another date." When one of a set of possibilities is specified, other equivalent possibilities are excluded.

Some have used the terms "generic" and "specific" in describing various commands. They often illustrate by saying that if God had told Noah to build an ark of wood, this generic command would have allowed Noah to choose any wood he wished. But when God used a specific command for gopher wood, this limited Noah from using any other type. Thus, naming one possible wood out of many, excluded other types of wood.

We apply this principle of exclusion in many ways. Unleavened bread and fruit of the vine are commanded for the Lord’s table, and we understand that Christ did not have to specify all that we should not use on the table. Other foods are clearly excluded. Voluntary contributions are commanded and so we do not practice other ways of raising money for the work of the Lord. Baptism is commanded as the means for getting "into Christ" which excludes getting into Christ by signing a card, prayer, or some other means. We are told to pray in the name of Jesus and surely do not need a list of those in whose names we are not to pray.

In the same way, we are told to sing as an offering of music in our worship to God (Colossians 3:16; Ephesians 5:19; I Corinthians 14:15). If we were commanded to offer "music" to God, we could follow this command and use any type of music we wished. Since, however, the command is more specific in naming vocal music, the principle of exclusion applies. God does not have to tell us all the types of music not to use. By specifying singing, other types of music are excluded just as other types of food on the Lord’s table are excluded by the naming of fruit of the vine and unleavened bread.

It is true, of course, that while a command is exclusive, it is also inclusive. That is, while a command eliminates doing other equal actions, it also allows doing those actions which are incidental to carrying out the command. Thus, while the command to use unleavened bread excludes other types of bread for communion, its silence about the manner of distributing the bread leaves that open. Similarly, while the command to use vocal music in worship excludes the use of instrumental music, its silence about how to make the words known leaves open the use of printed words, projected words or memorization.

So we seek to interpret commands carefully and if they apply to us, must understand them and follow them, recognizing that each command both excludes and includes.

B. If we have understood a passage correctly, we must also ask whether the passage contains an example from which God wants us to learn. Not everything any New Testament Christian did becomes a precedent which we must follow. About examples we must ask such questions as these: (1) is this practice incidental or was it intended to establish a precedent? (2) is this practice one that was consistently followed by early Christians? (3) is the practice one which has apostolic approval? (4) is this practice the result of what appears to be an underlying command or principle? (5) are there exceptions to this practice which had the approval of the apostles?

We know the common practice of early Christians was to walk wearing sandals but there is no underlying principle or command that is evident in their footwear. Early Christians sometimes met in upper rooms, but since they also met in other places as well, there no precedent is established by these times they met in upper rooms. The Christians in Jerusalem "had all things in common." But this was to meet a particular emergency there and is never mentioned as being practiced by Christians anywhere else. These, then, are cases of examples that are not binding.

On the other hand, there are some practices that clearly do meet the above criteria. In all of the recorded cases of conversion in the book of Acts, people were baptized. This clearly, then, was a regular, consistent practice and also corresponds with commands that are given. Thus, both command and example show that baptism for forgiveness of sins is God’s teaching to us.

We have no command, however, about the particular day in which Christians are to meet to take the Lord’s supper. Yet we seek to know God’s will about when to take it. We know, both from scripture and from history, that the practice of the early church, under apostolic guidance, was to meet on the first day of each week and, at that time, to take of the Lord’s supper. Thus, we have a clear precedent as to the day for Christians to meet and observe the communion. We can observe the supper on that day and know we are within what will please God. To observe it on some other day is to venture into the territory of not being assured it will please God.

There is, likewise, no command for churches to have elders as their shepherds, but such was clearly the approved, common practice of the early church. And since all of these cases indicate that there was a group of elders and not just one, we practice having more than one elder in each congregation.

By example we know what the early Christians did when they came together: they prayed, one or more than one spoke to the assembly, they contributed their means, they took the Lord’s supper, and they sang. These things we can do knowing we are following the approved example of the early church. Other forms of worship which are not commanded and for which there is no example, would clearly be excluded. The use of instruments in Christian worship, for instance, is neither commanded nor is there an example. To use instruments for worship, then, is both to do what is not commanded and to do that for which there is no apostolic precedent. For those who are committed to the apostolic plan, then, the use of such instruments would be excluded.

C. If we have understood a passage properly, we also ask whether there is an implication in the passage from which we are to make a necessary inference. Some say we should not use this method because it is based on human logic. But following commands requires the use of the mind to understand language and the use of examples is based on the mental ability of establishing a precedent from cases (a form of reasoning by generalization). So to eliminate basic functions of the mind for reasoning and for language would leave us with no ability to use scripture. As shown earlier, reasoning is part of the mental capability God gave us and, as seen in scripture, He clearly intends that we use it in understanding His Word.

There are many examples of the use of inference in our study of scripture. The strength of the inference, of course, depends on the certainty of the premises. When Matthew 3:16, for example, says that after Jesus’ baptism he came "up out of the water," we may correctly infer that He went down into the water. Thus, His baptism was by immersion. We reason the same way about the nature of baptism in the case of the Ethiopian in Acts 8:38-9: "and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip." If they both went down into the water and both came up out of the water, then the baptism was by immersion for in no other method of baptism do people enter the water. We draw this conclusion through inference. Concluding that baptism is by immersion because it was a burial (Romans 6:4) is also making a necessary inference.

Nowhere in scripture are we told specifically that the Sabbath provision has been taken away. When we read, however, that Christ has "blotted out the bond written in ordinances" (Colossians 2:14), we understand that the Sabbath provision would be included in what is blotted out. In another case, the Bible teaches that elders are to be the husband of one wife. From this we infer that only men can be elders because only men can be husbands.

The interpretation of figures of speech almost always involves inference. We first know that figurative language is being used because we reason that a more literal interpretation would be impossible or unlikely. Since, for example, the Bible teaches us to respect our bodies and care for them, we believe Jesus is using hyperbole when he says to "pluck out your eye." The reasoning goes like this: if what Jesus asks us to do contradicts other Bible teaching, He must be making His point through a figure of speech. "Pluck out your eye" does contradict other teaching. Therefore, He must be using a figure.

To give another case, when John speaks of "antichrists" in I John 2:18-22, he says that there will be many, that they had already started coming in his day, and that their identifying characteristic would be to deny that Jesus is the Christ. From these statements we infer that John’s use of "antichrist" is not a prediction of a great political ruler who comes shortly before the end of time.

Again, if there are no contradictions in the Bible, then Paul and James must have used the word "works" in a different sense when they said different things about works. Our inference is that since the Bible does not contradict itself, then Paul and James are in harmony and therefore they use the word works in a different sense.

If we were denied the use of inference, we would have great difficulty in applying the message of scripture to our lives today. An inference is only as good as the premises on which it is based and one must take other cautions in making the inference to be accurate, but to say that we cannot reason to conclusions based on scripture would be to take away the intelligence with which God expects us to come to scripture.

Conclusion

So what is our conclusion? Many important principles must be used in interpreting the meaning of scriptures. The use of "command, example, and necessary inference," however, is an important tool for making application of scripture to our own lives once we have determined what the passage meant to those who first received it. The use of "command, example, and necessary inference" were not invented by the Restoration Movement or by any theologian. They are processes of thought common to man and which God expects us to use as we come to scripture. Like all processes of interpretation, they must be used carefully and one can use them to come to right conclusions or misuse them and come to wrong ones. Because they can be abused, however, we must not cast them aside. We must use them correctly for should we fail to do so, we would not understand God’s will for us today.

I do apologize for the length of this response, but I do believe it is all important to share. I hope this helps you. I too believe we will one day be in Heaven together and thank you for choosing me to ask your questions. To God be the glory.

In Christ, Joe Norman