» Is “Necessary Inference” a Bible Study Necessity? Thought Imports:

The term “necessary inference” was coined by Thomas and Alexander Campbell, and is taught as a guide to study or view the Bible, in addition to “command” and “example.” In addition to their guide to Bible study, they promoted several other “principles” that were created to guide thinking about and studying the Bible, such as “The Laws of”: Exclusion, Silence, and Patternism. In this article I will address the validity of “necessary inference” in any subject of study, but in particular, the Bible. These three, “command”, “example”, and “necessary inference” are all taught to the proselyte as having the force of a command from God.

Comparisons, contrasts, evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, and any passage using the word similar to “reason” are all used in an attempt to justify the teachings of Thomas and Alexander Campbell, wittingly or not; in turn, human principles may be applied to Scripture, and therefore give apparent license to men to make their editorials into commands. This in turn hands men the reins of power and control over others’ minds that many crave; the more people coaxed on board, the more people may share in the worldly glory that comes as a result of other followers listening to them explain the ”principles” they have accepted from people whom they revere.

Reason, of course, is necessary to see the truth of God’s Word, because God provides us reason and evidence to believe in Him. He lets us all decide whether we want to trust our lives to Him, and gives us free will to make that decision. However, Christ, not human reason, is King. In defense of “necessary inference” and other human precepts posing as God’s Word, human reason is made King. The claim is made that it all is found in God’s Word, because they can identify examples for you of their principles (but not God’s actual or plain teaching about them) in selected Biblical passages. You will also not see any emphasis on full contextual study; the claim is made that this would take too much time, but here are some really important passages that you need to carefully consider (in the “light” of their reasoning, of course). The Word of God speaks for itself (Hebrews 4:12), and the Lord has given us the ability to reason in order to see all the facts concerning actual Truth, which only comes from His Word, not from human templates of reasoning (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Although some think they may infer things about others’ motivation or “read between the lines” in spoken or written material, these amount to opinions which may or may not be accurate, depending on the accuracy and completeness of information or logic of the one “inferring.” If the missing information were available, it would no longer be opinion, but fact. The absence of information, either from an actual dearth of it or through insufficient study, entices those prone to make inferences to make them, and they consider their inferences factual; however, those inferences remain one’s opinion until or unless actual facts are uncovered. In the case of Bible study, archeological and historical information are valuable in providing a backdrop of context that may help further define the meaning or significance of certain Biblical accounts or phrases. Generally, however, when one finds a core teaching from God (or any Biblical passage), and studies it with the Scripture in its complete context, its meaning is well enough defined to preclude any “necessity” of anyone’s “necessary inference.”*

Alexander and Thomas Campbell were avid followers of John Locke, a religious/political activist** who believed that truth could be arrived at through reason. I believe truth comes from the Word of God (Psalm 119:160, John 17:17), and that His Word is clearly spoken.

For an educator to teach that “inference” finds fact or law is to teach that opinion is necessary in finding law or fact,*** or that opinion itself is somehow fact, and this usually means the opinion of the teacher. A teacher may deftly present all his logic and then “let the listener (or student) decide” between his logic and nothing, or his logic and a rival’s. Most students, for various reasons, will side with the teacher’s “facts” as he presents his “’necessary’ inferences,” and be against the view of the rival group. Except for the study of human reasoning, namely, logic, deemed by some “the science of necessary inference’”, in law, and occasionally in math to mean “good” or ”best” guess, I know of no other disciplines that employ the term “necessary inference”, let alone teach that inferences will lead a person directly to fact, or are equivalent with fact. Most sciences employ empirical observation. In math, its theorems are either proven out by observable fact, or until facts are shown to prove out that theoretical extrapolation, they are considered perhaps viable but still simple theory.

However, the Bible is not a textbook for logicians or math, nor are the writings or teachings within to be subject to human opinion, editing or addition (Deuteronomy 4:2, 5:32, 12:30-31; Joshua 1:7; Proverbs 30:5-6; Galatians 1:6-9; Revelation 22:18). God plainly tells us in His Holy Scriptures how He wants us to handle His Word; with His instructions, “inferring “, or “reading in” to His Word is not “necessary”, commanded, or appropriate, but rather spoken against. Full context will reveal the full meaning, for which there is no substitute. The Bible nowhere teaches that we must infer things that are not spoken in God’s Word, or any method showing how we must infer, let alone make laws from those inferences. In fact, God’s (and His Son’s) teaching is quite plainly against any human precepts or commandments, additions, subtractions or editing of His Word. Inferring things about what Scripture does not explicitly say or teach amounts only to human opinions, precepts and commandments; these are not to be taught or received as a teaching from God (Matthew 15:8-9).

Jesus does show that understanding God’s Word in its full context is important, however. When the Sadducees tried to trap Jesus about the resurrection, He reminded them that God had said, “I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” and having said this after their physical death, and noting that “God is the God of the living, not the dead,” He astonished them by His teaching. In this instance, Jesus reminded the Sadducees of what God had told Moses in Exodus 3:6, its plain present-tense statement showing that all mentioned were alive, because God is the God of the living. This simply took a realization of what the scripture actually says, in its whole context. What was most astonishing was that the evidence about eternal life was there for centuries, “in the passage about the bush” and throughout the Old Covenant writings, unnoticed by the Sadducees and their proselytes (Matthew 22:29).

The student of the Bible needs to study God’s Word in its total context to find the meaning of a given passage. To take one scripture out of either its local or entire context is to do violence to the meaning of God’s Word. Whole context is vital, crucial, to a real or full understanding of any written or spoken communication, but especially in the studies of Scripture or history.

Heb 4:12
12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart [NASU] (1 Peter 1:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Ephesians 6:17; 1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Kings 8:39; 1 Chronicles 28:9; Acts 1:24; 15:8; Romans 8:27; Revelation 2:23). The Father and Christ Jesus has already given us everything we need for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3-4; 2 Timothy 3:15-17).

God does not teach by “inference” but by plain and clear explanation of both principle and (fulfilled) prophecy, just as He plainly and clearly teaches us how to handle His Word. We have been given the information we need to believe (John 20:31) and to be saved (Matthew 24:13; Mark 16:16; Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38, 17:30-31, 20:21, 26:20-21; Romans 10:9-13; Ephesians 2:8-10; 2 Corinthians 7:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; Titus 3:3-8; 1 Peter 3:20-21; 2 Peter 3:9). Jehovah, His Son, and the Apostles have already given us complete instructions on how to handle the Scriptures; we need no further instructions than theirs. Even the parables we will find fully explained to us by Jesus the Messiah in the Holy Scriptures. When Jesus was talking to the Pharisees and scribes concerning His coming in the flesh and His identity, He referred to their use of the signs or phenomena of the weather to discern what would happen next. The scriptures had long foretold the Messiah, and the Pharisees and scribes should have been able to discern for themselves from their own study of the scriptures that Jesus matched or fulfilled all the prophecy concerning Him (Luke 24:44).

An inference, according to “the science of necessary inference” (or, logic) may be reasonable, but not necessary. In fact, several inferences might be drawn from any given reading material. The problem comes when someone asserts that certain inferences are necessary; just how are they taught so? Where exactly is the Biblical teaching commanding “’necessary’ inferences” and what is the Biblical procedure given to decide whose “necessary inference” should prevail? If anything, the teaching of “necessary inference” as Biblical and authoritative is simply another tool of the Devil to use people to deceive and divide, because: 1. those “necessary” inferences, which are drawn by men, 2. and/or any basis for their use, are not taught in the Bible, clearly or otherwise. In fact, Jesus teaches that 3. Human precepts and commandments being taught as coming from God are worship in vain (Mark 7:7). It is said that Jesus “taught ‘necessary inference’” when He reminded the Sadducees in Luke 20:27-40 that God said, “I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob;” but nowhere does Jesus use the term or teach that one must conjecture, draw principles (precepts or teachings) from human reasoning about Scripture, or make laws (commands) based on human inferences; in fact, as already noted above, both Jesus and the Father speak plainly against them. I believe that in the preceding passage, Jesus simply reminds all who will listen that when God says something, He means every word that He says, concomitant with all the depth of each word’s meaning inherent in the entire context of His Scripture.

Historical context, if accurate, may help us to understand the Word of God in more dynamic, or modern-day wording, more commensurate with the thrust of the original language, as used in its original setting. Some have described the Epistles (letters) as being analogous to a telephone conversation, of which we are able to hear only one side, due to the fact that we don’t know all of the circumstances surrounding and concerning those particular people, places and things, but we do know what the Epistles say. The Bible’s historical backdrop may be described accurately or inaccurately, but if accurate, may help provide a probable scenario that could serve to explain “the other side of the conversation” in the Epistles, for instance. However, to assert that one possible scenario (or “’necessary’ inference”) is the only way to view “the other side of the conversation”, is anti-academic due to the attempt to dispense with other thought, and because it is not the very Word of God it is anti-scriptural, and foments division and dissension, which Paul describes as works of the flesh (Galatians 5:20).

There is exhortation in Eph 5:19 regarding “addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,” (RSV) with perhaps several reasonable applications but none which are exclusively “necessary” to infer. Many infer that the passages (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16-17) regarding singing are specifically and exclusively referring to large weekly assemblies of Christians, but Paul does not limit his exhortations in Ephesians or Colossians to apply only to large assemblies. Since there are no restrictions or regulations regarding this exhortation, God may well have inspired Paul to form this general exhortation to apply generally, as the first Christians “devoted themselves to the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread and the prayers” in the meetings from house to house, the temple (Acts 2:42, 46; 5:42), in their daily lives while working and at home, and a large gathering on the first day of the week where the Lord’s Supper was shared (Acts 20:7).

If the Bible is studied in its whole context, this fully contextual study can help a student to examine and discern exactly what is taking place when someone calls an inference “necessary”. It is good to keep in mind that part of the 1st definition of “infer” references the definition of its main synonym, namely, “conjecture” (reference the first definition for “infer”*** below). It is good to remember also that to infer is not the same as to imply; a speaker or writer might imply things, i.e., open options, by forming a statement in such a way that they are not ruled out. Those who seek out the source to inquire of the person, to ask, “Were (are) you implying that (such and so) is the case?” to find facts, as opposed to conjecture about what they thought the speaker might be implying, will learn the facts concerning their conjecture as the speaker wishes to tell them. Inferring something is what a reader does when deriving conclusions not explicit anywhere in the text.****

Describing one’s “inference” regarding the Holy Scriptures as “necessary” makes one’s inference (or precept) to appear as fact (which appeals to many), or into a (human) command (which appeals to even more), not spoken by God, but said to be, according to their “principles”. Jesus calls this practice “vain worship” in Matthew 15:9 and Mark 7:7 (referring to Isaiah 29:13). The following two scriptures of warning from the LORD (Jehovah, or Yahweh) might be good to consider when handling God’s Word:

Ezek 13:1-7
13:1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel, prophesy and say to those who prophesy out of their own minds: ‘Hear the word of the LORD!’ 3 Thus says the Lord GOD, Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing! 4 Your prophets have been like foxes among ruins, O Israel. 5 You have not gone up into the breaches, or built up a wall for the house of Israel, that it might stand in battle in the day of the LORD. 6 They have spoken falsehood and divined a lie; they say, ‘Says the LORD,’ when the LORD has not sent them, and yet they expect him to fulfil their word. 7 Have you not seen a delusive vision, and uttered a lying divination, whenever you have said, ‘Says the LORD,’ although I have not spoken ?” RSV

Jer 23:29-31
29 Is not my word like fire, says the LORD, and like a hammer which breaks the rock in pieces? 30 Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, says the LORD, who steal my words from one another. 31 Behold, I am against the prophets, says the LORD, who use their tongues and say, ‘Says the LORD.’ RSV

Below, you may leave a comment regarding your thoughts, whether of agreement, objection or simple observation.

*http://www.answers.com/topic/necessary-inference (definition).

** http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/John_Locke

*** in-fer (in-fur)v. in-ferred, in-fer-ring, in-fers. v. tr. 1. To conclude from evidence or premises. See Synonyms at conjecture. 2. To reason from circumstance; surmise: We can infer that his motive in publishing the diary was less than honorable. 3. To lead to as a consequence or conclusion: “Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor” (Academy). 4. To hint; imply. v. intr. To draw inferences. See Synonyms at conjecture.[Latin inferre, to bring in, adduce : in-, in. See IN-2 + ferre, to bear. See bher-1.]–in-fer’a-ble adj. –in-fer’a-bly adv. –in-fer’rer n.

****USAGE NOTES: Infer is sometimes confused with imply, but the distinction is a useful one. When we say that a speaker or sentence implies something, we mean that it is conveyed or suggested without being stated outright: “When the mayor said that she would not rule out a business tax increase, she implied (not inferred) that some taxes might be raised.” Inference, on the other hand, is the activity performed by a reader or interpreter in deriving conclusions that are not explicit in what is said: When the mayor said that she would not rule out a tax increase, we inferred that she had been consulting with some new financial advisers, since her old advisers were in favor of tax reductions.(1)