How to Interpret the Bible Lesson #4 - Necessary Inferences
|
Introduction. I suspect that part of the problem when speaking of “inferences” or “necessary inferences” in Bible study is that it is something everyone does without thinking, but it is not named in Scripture. When preachers speak of using inferences, it sounds like they have created something designed only for interpreting Scripture in a different way than others. Many today accuse evangelists of using a “hermeneutic” (interpretation) devised by them, but not found in Scripture. Some trace the term “necessary inference” back to Alexander Campbell who was an evangelist in America in the early 1800's, calling it the creed of the church of Christ, and then setting it aside.
|
|
Just because a principle used in Scripture is not given a name, does not mean it does not exist. As a matter of fact, we use this principle in so many ways both in and out of the Bible that we don’t even think about it or name it. The difference between direct knowledge and inferential knowledge is subtle, but easily seen once it is pointed out. Generally, only when it is used in branches of learning do we give it a name. Those who took philosophy in High School learned the difference between inferential knowledge and factual knowledge. In math it is called a transitive relationship (if A=B and B=C, then A=C). Aristotle is credited with identifying and naming the syllogism as a logical method to draw conclusions. It is generally postulated with a three-line form. (All men are mortal... Aristotle is a man ... Aristotle is mortal). In science and law enforcement it is called deductive reasoning. In medicine it is often the foundation of a diagnosis. In short, named or unnamed, it is used in some form in every branch of knowledge - math, science, philosophy, criminal justice, medicine, history and many other fundamental subjects. Why would God who created all these other realms of the material universe not expect us to use them in studying His word?
Although there is no vocabulary word in Scripture to define or identify it, it is found in nearly every book in the Bible. Anything we are forced to conclude after careful examination of the facts is a “necessary inference.” Although no one today witnessed Jesus’ resurrection, we infer it from deduction and logic. Peter told the Jews that after considering all the prophesies, eyewitness testimony, and the miracles that were performed, the only logical conclusion was “God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.” When it is the only logical conclusion, it is a necessary inference!
Even God’s own definition of faith is logical deduction and inference. “Faith is the evidence of things not seen.” Obviously, like the diagnosis for an illness, if it can’t be seen, it must be deduced or inferred. How can we “walk by faith and not by sight” if we are not making inferences and deductions? There are syllogisms, inferential knowledge, and deductions that must be made if we are to walk by faith. After revealing that the heavens and earth are reserved for fire, Peter makes a “necessary inference:” “Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness” (2Pet. 3:11). Yet they have not been dissolved, so how are to we draw the conclusion Peter made without a necessary inference?
The principles of inferential knowledge, logic, syllogism, and deduction are clearly exhibited by Jesus in His debate with the Sadducees who “say that there is no resurrection.” (Matt. 22:23-33) Think about it! Jesus went to the passage where God called Moses at the burning bush to lead Israel out of Egypt. It was obvious to all who heard Him that this passage was not written with the resurrection or life after death in mind. Yet Jesus used the same 3-part syllogism that Aristotle did. “But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘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.” And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching. If we break this down into a syllogism it is pure logic:
Since Jesus used the logic of a necessary inference to resolve a doctrinal disagreement in His day charging the Sadducees with error, and amazing the multitude, it is obvious how important and helpful logic, syllogisms and necessary inferences can be. When we use them to resolve doctrinal disagreements to find error and truth we are not creating something new. We are following in the steps of our Savior, and using His methods!
The controversy over baptism is a classic example of how the necessary inference can be used. It is obvious to all that baptism cannot be immersion, sprinkling, and pouring water. Although each has its advocates, only one can be right. What light can logic, syllogisms and necessary inferences shed on this? If we look at the facts, only one conclusion is logical, easily deductible, and therefore a necessary inference.
Think of these syllogisms:
With these six logical necessary inferences, what sense does it make to change baptism to sprinkling or the pouring of water on the head. There is no reason to change baptism from its original meaning and there is nothing above that leads in any way to sprinkling or pouring.
Conclusion: Because the Sadducees did not use logic, deduction and necessary inference with the burning bush, Jesus told them: “Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures” (Mk. 12:27)? What will keep Him from saying the same thing to us if we don’t use logic, deduction and necessary inference today? If Jesus told them “you are therefore greatly mistaken” because they did not use His method of logic, deduction and necessary inference, why would He not say the same to us today if we don’t use them? It is folly indeed to accuse those who use the necessary inference exactly as Jesus did to be creating a hermeneutic that is not found in Scripture. If there is still doubt in your mind, consider Paul and Barnabas who under divine inspiration used it to prove Gentiles did not need to keep the Law (Acts 15:12; 14:3).
For additional study material from our archives, see the following:
Although there is no vocabulary word in Scripture to define or identify it, it is found in nearly every book in the Bible. Anything we are forced to conclude after careful examination of the facts is a “necessary inference.” Although no one today witnessed Jesus’ resurrection, we infer it from deduction and logic. Peter told the Jews that after considering all the prophesies, eyewitness testimony, and the miracles that were performed, the only logical conclusion was “God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.” When it is the only logical conclusion, it is a necessary inference!
Even God’s own definition of faith is logical deduction and inference. “Faith is the evidence of things not seen.” Obviously, like the diagnosis for an illness, if it can’t be seen, it must be deduced or inferred. How can we “walk by faith and not by sight” if we are not making inferences and deductions? There are syllogisms, inferential knowledge, and deductions that must be made if we are to walk by faith. After revealing that the heavens and earth are reserved for fire, Peter makes a “necessary inference:” “Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness” (2Pet. 3:11). Yet they have not been dissolved, so how are to we draw the conclusion Peter made without a necessary inference?
The principles of inferential knowledge, logic, syllogism, and deduction are clearly exhibited by Jesus in His debate with the Sadducees who “say that there is no resurrection.” (Matt. 22:23-33) Think about it! Jesus went to the passage where God called Moses at the burning bush to lead Israel out of Egypt. It was obvious to all who heard Him that this passage was not written with the resurrection or life after death in mind. Yet Jesus used the same 3-part syllogism that Aristotle did. “But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘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.” And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching. If we break this down into a syllogism it is pure logic:
- God is not the God of the dead, but of the living
- God said I am the God of Abraham after he was buried
- Abraham must be alive.
Since Jesus used the logic of a necessary inference to resolve a doctrinal disagreement in His day charging the Sadducees with error, and amazing the multitude, it is obvious how important and helpful logic, syllogisms and necessary inferences can be. When we use them to resolve doctrinal disagreements to find error and truth we are not creating something new. We are following in the steps of our Savior, and using His methods!
The controversy over baptism is a classic example of how the necessary inference can be used. It is obvious to all that baptism cannot be immersion, sprinkling, and pouring water. Although each has its advocates, only one can be right. What light can logic, syllogisms and necessary inferences shed on this? If we look at the facts, only one conclusion is logical, easily deductible, and therefore a necessary inference.
- When God sent him, John the Baptist said He “sent me to baptize with water.” Why did God choose the term “baptizo - defined: immerse or submerge” when He sent John, if it was to be pouring or sprinkling?
- After He “had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water.” If baptism is not immersion, why was He in the water?
- “John was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there.” Why did he need much water unless baptism is immersion?
- “both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.” Then “they came up out of the water.” Why would they both go in and both come out if baptism is not immersion?
- “We were buried with Him through baptism,” and “buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him.” Why would Paul say we were buried with Him, if baptism is not immersion?
Think of these syllogisms:
- “Baptism” means immersion — no new meaning is given in Scripture — Baptism is immersion.
- Jesus was in the water — only need to be in water for immersion — Baptism is immersion.
- Much water is needed — don’t need much water to sprinkle or pour — Baptism is immersion.
- Go into & come out of water — unnecessary to be sprinkled or poured — Baptism is immersion.
- Buried with Jesus in baptism — not buried by sprinkling or pouring — Baptism is immersion.
- Raised with Jesus in baptism — only in immersion do we rise from water — Baptism is immersion.
With these six logical necessary inferences, what sense does it make to change baptism to sprinkling or the pouring of water on the head. There is no reason to change baptism from its original meaning and there is nothing above that leads in any way to sprinkling or pouring.
Conclusion: Because the Sadducees did not use logic, deduction and necessary inference with the burning bush, Jesus told them: “Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures” (Mk. 12:27)? What will keep Him from saying the same thing to us if we don’t use logic, deduction and necessary inference today? If Jesus told them “you are therefore greatly mistaken” because they did not use His method of logic, deduction and necessary inference, why would He not say the same to us today if we don’t use them? It is folly indeed to accuse those who use the necessary inference exactly as Jesus did to be creating a hermeneutic that is not found in Scripture. If there is still doubt in your mind, consider Paul and Barnabas who under divine inspiration used it to prove Gentiles did not need to keep the Law (Acts 15:12; 14:3).
For additional study material from our archives, see the following:
- "B" for "Baptism"
- "R" for "Resurrection"