Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Human institutions. have been a focus of conflict between the groups of brethren represented here today. The conflict first began in the latter part of the nineteenth century when churches began supporting the American Christian Missionary Society from their treasury. Those who rejected church support of missionary societies later had conflict among themselves, beginning with G.C. Brewer’s call in 1938 for church support of colleges. As brethren opposed the church support of colleges, they argued from consistency that church support of orphan homes and colleges stands or falls together. Some brethren believed they stood together; others believed they fell together. I belong to the latter group and am delighted to be here to give an answer concerning the faith which I hold. Hopefully, my answer will be in the spirit of meekness and fear (1 Pet. 3:15). I hope to avoid self-righteousness, and demonstrate humility. I hope you will be kind enough not to maliciously judge my motive. I am humbled by the knowledge that I stand before God and will be judged for what I say here.

I stand opposed to churches building and maintaining human institutions because they constitute a denial of the allsufficiency of the church. What is the all-sufficiency of the church?

The All-Sufficiency of the Church

The church which Jesus built is a perfect institution, capable of accomplishing the purposes for which God built it. When men began to doubt the all-sufficiency of the church to do the work which God intended the church to do, they began to build human institutions to expedite the church’s doing that work. None of these human institutions designed to “aid” the church in doing its work would ever have been built had men not first lost confidence in the local church to accomplish the mission which God gave it to accomplish. We need to be reminded of the all-sufficiency of the local church.

1. The church was conceived in the mind of a perfect God. Paul stated that the church is a part of “the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3: 10-11). It was “purposed” or “planned” by a divine architect.

2. The church has a perfect blueprint. Like Moses of old, we are admonished to “build all things according to the pattern” (Heb. 8:5).(1)

3. The church has a perfect builder (Matt. 16.18). Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build my church.” The church is the product of a divine architect, a perfect blueprint and a perfect builder. The church is as perfect as a perfect God could make it. The local church which is fashioned after the pattern of the New Testament is exactly what God designed to accomplish his work.

4. Perfect preparations were made for the church to be established. Prior to the establishment of the church, the God of heaven prepared for the coming of the kingdom. When Jesus came, he announced, “The time is fulfilled, and the, kingdom of God is at hand” (Mk. 1:14).

5. Perfect provisions were made to bring the church into existence. Miraculous powers were manifested on Pentecost that it might be established (Acts 2).

6. A perfect head exercises authority over the church. Jesus is the head of his body, the church (Eph. 1:22-23). The head of the church is not some imperfect man; the head of the church is the perfect Lord.

7. A perfect law has been given to govern the church. The law of the kingdom is the word of God (Jas. 1:25; cf. Jude 3; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). It is the “perfect law of liberty,” the faith “once delivered to the saints,” which is sufficient to “throughly furnish us unto every good work.”

8. The church has been given a perfect minion. The mission which God gave the church is perfect, incapable of being improved by man. The mission of the church is evangelism (2 Cor. 11:8), edification (Acts 20:32), and benevolence (Acts 6:1-6; 11:27-30). These are the works which God foreordained that we should walk in (Eph. 2:10).

9. The church has perfect ability to accomplish its divine mission. The perfect Architect, who perfectly planned the church, created the church with the ability to accomplish the works he gave it to perform. The church of Christ, being perfect, is therefore able to accomplish its God’s given mission of evangelism, edification, and benevolence. Like a well-engineered machine which does the task which it was designed to perform, the church which was purposed in the mind of God and built by Christ is sufficient to accomplish the task which God designed it to accomplish.

The Missionary Society: A Manifestation of Unbelief In the All-Sufficiency of the Church

When men began to clamor for the missionary society to be organized, their writings reflected their loss of confidence in the Lord’s church to accomplish the work of evangelism. Typical of that is Alexander Campbell’s own statements.

1. We can do comparatively nothing in distributing the Bible abroad without co-operation.

2. We can do comparatively but little in the great missionary field of the world either at home or abroad without cooperation.

3. We can do little or nothing to improve and elevate the Christian ministry without co-operation. . . .

4. We cannot concentrate the action of the tens of thousands of Israel, in any great Christian effort, but by cooperation . . . . (2)

Those brethren had lost confidence in the local church to evangelize the world. They wanted a “more efficient organization of our churches” because their present situation was “comparatively inefficient.”(3)

Brethren became so wedded to their new organizations for co-operative evangelism that they affirmed “it is the duty of all the congregations in any city or district to co-operate” in these missionary organizations.(4)

Cecil Willis was correct when he wrote,

Brethren never began seeking to build another organization for evangelistic work until they lost faith in the sufficiency of that organization the Lord provided. It matters not how loud one may shout that he believes that the church is sufficient, so long as he erects another organization to do the work assigned to the church . . . the brethren never built a missionary society until they lost faith in the all sufficiency of the church to preach the gospel.(5)

The missionary society was another organization designed to accomplish the work God assigned to the church. Compare the two organizations:

1. The church of Christ originated in the mind of God (Eph. 3:21); the missionary society originated in the mind of man.

2. The church of Christ is a blood-bought institution (Acts 20:28); the missionary society is a separate organization from the church.

3. The church raises its money through first day of the week contributions (1 Cor. 16:1-2); the missionary society is supported by church donations.

4. The church is organized under elders (1 Tim. 3); the missionary society is under a board of directors.

5. The church does its own work; the missionary society does the work in place of the church.

6. The creed of the church is the New Testament (Jas. 1:25); the missionary society makes it own creed.

7. The church is competent to accomplish its mission (Eph. 1:23; 3:10-11); the missionary society was designed to give greater efficiency in accomplishing the mission of the church.

8. The church oversees its own work; the missionary society oversees the church’s work.

9. The local church is the only functioning unit; the missionary society is considered an official functioning organ of the church.

10. The church does the work God ordained for it to do; the missionary society proposes to do a work greater than any local church alone can do.

11. The church has no universal church structure; the missionary society is an organization through which all local churches can function.

12. There is unity in the one body (Eph. 4:1-7); the missionary society divided the church.

The missionary society was an apostasy born of lack of confidence or faith in God’s church. The Christian Church rejected the all-sufficiency of the church in favor of the missionary society; the Lord’s people rejected human institutions in favor of the church.

Church Supported Colleges

The Lord’s people were relatively at peace regarding human institutions until 1938. During the Abilene Christian College lectures in 1938, G.C. Brewer made an appeal for churches to support Abilene Christian College. In his book W. W. Otey. Contender For the Faith, Cecil Willis wrote,

In the course of these remarks Brewer pointed out that if all the churches in Texas would contribute to the support and endowment of the school, such requests as then were being made would be unnecessary. In fact, many who were present understood Brewer to say that the church that did not have Abilene Christian College in its budget had the wrong preacher.(6)

This touched off the present furor regarding church donations to institutions which has since divided the churches. Immediately, W.W. Otey responded to Brewer in the Firm Foundation.(7)

The issue of church support of colleges involved two issues: (1) Is the work of teaching math, science, English, speech, etc. the work of the church? (2) Believing that teaching the Bible is a work of the church, is the church sufficient to accomplish the task which God gave it to do? The church support of colleges and missionary societies is parallel. If one opposed the church support of missionary societies as unscriptural, he is logically compelled to oppose church support of colleges. There is no biblical difference between church support of colleges and church support of missionary societies. Notice that what was true of the missionary society is equally true of the church supported college.

1. Both originated in the mind of man.

2. Both are separate organizations from the church.

3. Both receive church donations.

4. Both are under a board of directors.

5. Both do a work in the place of the church.

6. Both make their own creed and by-laws.

7. Both are designed to give the church greater efficiency.

8. Both oversee the churches’ work.

9. Both are considered an official functioning organ of the church.

10. Both propose to do what the local church cannot do.

11. Both are organizations through which all local churches can function.

12. Both divided the church.

Brethren backed away from the church support of colleges for a time because of the objections raised. The issue of church support of human institutions then shifted from church support of colleges to church support of orphan homes.

Church Support of Orphan Homes

The support of orphan homes was an issue with which brethren became more emotionally identified than church support of colleges. Consequently, the debates over our differences regarding human institutions have almost exclusively centered on church support of orphan homes. Even in brother Lanier’s paper submitted for response, only one human institution receiving church support is defended the orphan home. If the benevolent institution question was solved, we would have dozens of other human institutions supported from the treasury to divide us. Why has our brother ignored these institutions?

The issue involved in this conflict involved two questions: (1) Is the church limited in benevolence to saints only? (2) If the church has an obligation to provide care for orphans, can the church send donations to a human institution to provide that care for them? My understanding of the Bible is that the church is limited in its work of benevolence (cf. 2 Thess. 3:10 which forbids helping saints who win not work and I Tim. 5:16 which charges individual Christians to care for their own that the church be not charged). However, I personally know of no local congregation which divided over whether or not to take care of a non-Christian in need. The problem of church supported orphan homes was result of shifting and personal responsibility which might be illustrated like this:

James 1:27, Galatians 6:10 and 1 Timothy 5:16, passages which give commandment to individual Christians, were transferred to the church; personal responsibility was shifted to church responsibility. This transferred responsibility was then transferred again from the church to a human institution.

Brethren differed, but did not divide, over taking money from the congregational treasury to help a non-Christian. However, the sending of donations to a human institution to provide care for orphans divided churches. Many congregations have been split over sending a $25 a month donation to an orphan home as a means of declaring with which side of this issue they were identified. Like the support of missionary societies before, the supporting of benevolent societies was defended as an expediency, but churches which refused to support them were ostracized by those who made sending a donation to an orphan home a litmus test of faithfulness to God.

Some of those who opposed church supported missionary societies to accomplish their work also opposed church supported benevolent societies to accomplish their work. The two were logically parallel, without a biblical difference. Compare the church support of missionary societies with the church support of benevolent societies.

1. Both originated in the mind of man.

2. Both are separate organizations from the church.

3. Both receive church donations.

4. Both are under a board of directors.

5. Both do a work in the place of the church.

6. Both make their own creed and by-laws.

7. Both are designed to give the church greater efficiency.

8. Both oversee the churches’ work.

9. Both are considered an official functioning organ of the church.

10. Both propose to do what the local church cannot do.

11. Both are organizations through which all local churches can function.

12. Both divided the church.

Not only did we “anti’s” see these as parallel, so also did the writers for the Firm Foundation who opposed the writers for the Gospel Advocate on this very point. The brethren associated with the Firm Foundation argued that orphan homes had to be placed under elders for them to be scriptural; those writing in the Gospel Advocate stated that putting them under elders was unscriptural. Nevertheless, both groups could join hands to oppose the “anti’s.” Those who agreed with us about church contributions to benevolent societies could not work with us; rather, they have worked with those who practiced what they condemned as sin, remaining remarkably quiet about church supported societies, while the number of these church supported societies continued to increase.

The writers for the Firm Foundation believed that church support of benevolent societies was sinful but should not break the fellowship. They laid the groundwork for the thinking of the grace-unity brethren who oppose instrumental music in worship as sinful but still fellowship those who practice this sin..

Endnotes

1. I am aware that a number of brethren have given up the idea that the New Testament contains patterns. I reject that view, although that is not the assigned subject. I find the position logically inconsistent which goes to the Bible to rind a pattern of no-patternism.

2. Millennial Harbinger, Vol. VI, p. 523.

3. Millennial Harbinger, Series III, Vol. 6 (1849), pp. 90,92.

4. Millennial Harbinger, Series 111, Vol. 3 (1845), pp. 66-67; Series I, Vol. 1 (1831), p. 237.

5. Cecil Willis, Truth Magazine, Vol. V, p. 271.

6. Cecil Willis, W. W. Otey. Contender For the Faith, p. 287.

7. W.W. Otey, “Bible Colleges,” Firm Foundation, Vol. LV, Nos. 31,32 (August 2, 1938). p. 1; (August 9, 1938), p. 1.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 7, pp. 194, 212-214
April 6, 1989

By Webb Harris, Jr.

The glory of God is ultimately unfathomable to our minds. The songs of praise which echo throughout the heavenly chambers, fresh from the lips of angels and cherubim, magnify his eternal being, unblemished holiness, and sovereign rule. They exalt him as Creator and Redeemer (Rev. 4:8,11; 5:13). His glory is his own. It cannot be rivaled or compromised. Through his prophet Isaiah, Jehovah announced that he would not give his glory to another; his praise would not be given to “gods” of stone (Isa. 42:8).

The plotted theft of God’s glory is perhaps the most ancient form of covetousness. Do not think only in terms of angelic beings and Satanic powers envying God’s supreme station, but see man as longing for the Divine right of Deity, as well. Isaiah’s kinsmen would steal God’s scepter to place it in the lifeless hands of their graven idols, while an enemy king dreamed of pilfering the same only to keep it for himself (Isa. 14:13,14). His desire was nothing novel.

When temptation came to Paradise it was garbed accordingly. At its heart was a slandering of God and his word. The serpent hissed misrepresentations, but the woman manifested her awareness of truth by defining the parameters of God’s instruction quite precisely (Gen. 3:2,3). But the serpent paints a sordid picture. With blasphemous strokes, he depicts the Almighty as one threatened by his human creation, as defensive of his position and afraid of man’s challenge.

This strikes at the heart of sin’s nature. Sin is, in a sense, man’s feeble declaration of independence from God. He vows that he is free of moral constraints, at liberty to create his own values and standards. He attempts to sever his history from God, arrogantly asserting that he owes nothing to anyone. He redefines his purpose and rewrites his destiny. Such is the appeal of evolutionary theories.

God teaches us otherwise. Man is unable to redeem himself; this is the lesson of the Old Testament. Man has proven himself to be incompetent and impotent when severed from God’s graces. In the prophets and in Romans we are shown the downward spiral of the society which has been “turned loose” by the Almighty.

We do not learn and we do not pay heed. The spirit of our age is one which seeks to repeat the conceited mistakes of the past, to take God’s glory for ourselves. No one stops to consider the impossibility of the task. Our contemporaries march on into the “New Age” where visions of “man as God” are but 20th-Century remnants of ancient lies.

Secular Humanism

Most of us are at least somewhat aware of the threats of secular humanism. Good literature is abundant and among us are men who are to be commended for their roles in publicizing the sinister onslaught of this bane. Our attention has been turned to the organized societies and prestigious publications which propagate the humanists’ doctrines. We have been shown the vulnerable nature of public education and hopefully we will respond with vocal concern. We thank those who have made us more aware of the subtle ways in which we are being re-educated to see ourselves as the highest intellect in the cosmos. We will cling to Jeremiah’s confession that man needs God’s direction (Jer. 10:23) and believe James’ avowal of the source of true wisdom (Jas. 1:5).

But while continuing our battle against “orthodox” humanism, we must recognize that there are many other “Man as God” philosophies that are taking firm root in our culture. They seem disconnected, as if they are unrelated entities that appear to disjointed sectors of the population according to various tastes and whims. It is not so. The common denominator is the underlying desire to remove God from the throne and replace him with ourselves. The common appeal is human pride.

Spiritualism, Sorcery and Witchcraft

Occult practices are as old as the hills and God’s warnings against them are ancient. In the book of Leviticus, God warns the children of Israel as they enter Canaan that the land is polluted with conjurers and wizards. His declaration is that mediums, sorcerers and their ilk are strictly off-limits (see passages such as Leviticus 19:31; 20:6,27).

The careful reader will note that the immediate danger posed to Israel is not that they will become spiritualists. Rather, it is that they will seek them out for advice. God says that in doing this they will be “playing the harlot.” Indeed, God asks, “Should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? ” (Isa. 8:19) This defines the practice as that of seeking advice from the departed.

Do not relegate this practice to the superstitious ancients of ages past. It is as modern as it is old. I can hop in my car and be in Cassadega, Florida in 30 minutes. This small, quiet town is home to numerous mediums and spiritualists. Witches from around the nation convene there, as they do every year, for Halloween activities. Orlando’s businessmen and secretaries often drive there for advice on their lunch-breaks.

For the more affluent among us, we can purchase an hour with “Ramtha” or other ghosts who speak through their living hosts. These ducts are called ” channellers. ” The sinfulness of these acts is revealed very clearly in Ramtha’s message. He wants you to know that “you are your own God.” The message of the dead is that peace and bliss await us all in the great beyond.

Through the aforementioned practices man seeks to become God. He gains his independence through consulting with psychics, watching the stars and reading the lines on his palms. Now he understands his past; now he can control his future. The tea-leaves and the tarot cards reveal all the obstacles that lie ahead so that he can navigate them successfully. Through sorcery and witchcraft man can control the universe. Its ancient appeal has always been its promise to control the lives of others so that they do our bidding. When Vine defines pharmakia, which is rendered “sorcery” in our Bibles, he points out that the charms and amulets serve the actual purpose of impressing the applicant with the sorcerer’s powerful resources.

The real appeal of witchcraft and Satanism is not the over-sensationalized sacrifices of virgins, but the harnessing of occult powers to do one’s bidding and allow him or her to become God. Today’s Christians will respond as did their brethren in Acts 19:17-20.

The UFO Phenomenon

It might be worthwhile to note briefly the place of the UFO craze in the modern embracing of the “Man as God” philosophy. This is dealt with in Gary North’s “Unholy Spirits.” Most readers will not agree with much of what Mr. North suggests, but he must be acknowledged as insightful concerning modern trends and superstitions.

When we analyze the current beliefs concerning UFO’s as alien visitors, we are impressed with the evolution of common extra-terrestrial expectations. At one time they were feared as “space invaders.” “The War of The Worlds” represented the fears of numerous people. However, now we await kind E.T.’s. “Close Encounters” are longed for; StarMan will rescue us from ourselves. The aliens are now perceived as much like ourselves, only higher on the evolutionary scale. They are the gods of the heavens. And they hold the secrets of how we can be the same. They will teach us how to arise above all of our problems, initiating global peace and restoring Paradise to Earth. Then we will be gods.

The Eastern Religions

The growing popularity of Zen, Buddhism, Hindusim and various eastern mystery religions is part and parcel with the onslaught of humanism. These religions will continue to increase in popularity because they jibe well with the “Man as God” philosophy. You see, in many eastern religions, man is God.

The recent appearance of articles on reincarnation in many journals is no accident and is not coincidental. Reincarnation is a necessary tenet of the eastern beliefsystem. The foundation of their faith is that the soul of man is something that “broke off” from God in the beginning and is making its way back to God. Through numerous incarnations it perfects itself until it is God, whole and complete, once again. Rather than accepting the creation account as the revelation of our origin, the eastern religions would rather steal John 1:1 – “In the beginning was man, and man was with God, and man was God.”

Positive Mental Attitude

The Seduction o Christianity by David Hunt and T.A. McMahon is another book which is, in my estimation, biblically unsound on many counts, but is invaluable for its insight into current “religious” trends. It reveals much concerning the PMA philosophies of men such as Peale and Schuller. Those who would embrace the doctrines of these false teachers unintentionally unite with the “Man as God” syndrome.

It is one thing to be confident because “my God is able.” It is another thing altogether to be confident because “I am able” (Phil. 4:13). Peale and Schuller present a body of doctrine that declares that our “unconscious mind[s] ha[ve] a power that turns wishes unto realities when the wishes are strong enough.” Schuller says, “You don’t know what power you have within you!” We are told that through visualization and positive repetitions we can control our circumstances and, often, even the actions of other human beings.

Those who wish to give a little glory to Jesus Christ suggest that we should visualize Jesus. When you get him good and real in your mind (so much so that you can define the color of his eyes, hair, etc.) you can then talk with him in a way far beyond your wildest fantasies. This is nothing new. Man has always found it needful to represent his gods with images. But in Exodus 20:4,5 Jehovah forbade such actions by his children. You cannot do him justice with a chisel or a paint-brush. And it will not be long before you cannot distinguish between the representation and the represented. The Roman Catholic tradition bears this out. The icon is supposedly an “aid” to focusing upon spiritual things, but those of us who have Catholic relatives know the adoration that is given to the stone figures. The point is that it is just as easy to worship an image of imagination as it is to worship an image of stone. Beware! You cannot create God! You cannot manipulate God! The one who attempts to do so might just as well turn to potions and charms.

The growing popularity of Zen Buddhism, Hinduism and various eastern mystery religions is part and parcel with the onslaught of humanism. These religions will Indeed, God’s glory is his own.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 6, pp. 174-175
March 16, 1989

By Johnny Stringer

Sadness burdens our hearts as we contemplate the division that exists among brethren in Christ. Some of us cannot in good conscience participate in activities that many churches of Christ engage in. For example, many congregations give money to institutions which have no scriptural right to control the money of churches. Those of us who oppose this institutionalism cannot be a part of churches which engage in it, for our participation in the actions of those churches would violate our consciences. Hence, to avoid participation in what we believe to be wrong, we must separate ourselves from institutional churches. Division, therefore, is inevitable.

Yet, many institutional brethren do not understand why there cannot be peaceful co-existence between institutional and non-institutional brethren. They point out that within non-institutional congregations, there are numerous disagreements. Some do things that others cannot in good conscience do; yet, we tolerate one another so that the peace and harmony of the congregation is not destroyed. For example, there are disagreements on whether Christians may participate in war, be policemen, or have a Christmas tree. God’s word is clear, but in trying to apply biblical principles to the many circumstances of life, brethren do not always reach the same conclusions. In such cases, we exercise the tolerance taught in Romans 14. Why, then, it is argued, can we not be as tolerant with those who disagree with us on the institutional question as we are with those who disagree with us on these other questions?

Two Kinds of Questions

There is a vast difference in the nature of the institutional question and the nature of these other questions-These other questions pertain to private, individual practices. Each individual can practice his belief without affecting anyone else. No one must participate in anything which violates his conscience. Hence, the peace and harmony of the congregation does not have to be affected. This is the kind of questions discussed in Romans 14.

The institutional question, however, is in a different category. It pertains not to the private practice of an individual, but to the collective activity of the congregation. Each individual cannot practice his belief without affecting anyone else; rather, all in the congregation participate. Hence, if some cannot in good conscience participate, the peace and harmony of the congregation is necessarily affected. To apply Romans 14 to a question involving collective activity is to apply it/to a type of question it was not written to deal with.

It is argued, however, that if there are two congregations in an area, one institutional and one non-institutional, then the brethren who are non-institutional do not have to participate in the practice which violates their conscience. They can be members of the non-institutional church; and since they do not have to be involved in the practices they think are wrong, they can exercise tolerance toward those in the institutional congregation – just as they do toward those with whom they differ on questions involving private, individual practices. Hence, the non-institutional and the institutional brethren can overlook differences, accept one another, announce one another’s gospel meetings, etc. Of course, if noninstitutional brethren could exercise such tolerance toward institutional brethren, we could do the same toward churches using instrumental music in worship.

Binding Practices on Others

One reason this is impossible is that institutional brethren bind their unscriptural practices on others. In matters of private, individual practices like those described in Romans 14 no one has the right to bind his practice on anyone else, and Paul forbade such. But when men introduce unscriptural practices into a congregation, they are binding those practices on all who remain in that congregation. People must participate if they are members of that congregation. Similarly, a congregation which engages in these practices binds them on all who would become a part of that congregation.

Those discussed in Romans 14 did not bind their practices on anyone. In matters of private, individual practices, those who differ can be in the same congregation without anyone being bound to participate in a practice he believes to be wrong. We cannot be tolerant of those who bind unscriptural practices on everyone who would be a part of their congregation.

Divisive

Another reason we cannot be tolerant of institutional brethren is that institutionalism is a source of division. Congregations have had to split because it was introduced and many could not in good conscience participate. In view of God’s hatred of him “that soweth discord among the brethren” (Prov. 6:16-19), can we be tolerant of practices that make it impossible for unity to exist and have torn up congregations all over the country?

1 Corinthians 1:10 teaches that we are to speak the same thing, have no divisions among us, and be joined together in the same mind and judgment. This does not mean that there must be no disagreements whatever, for Romans 14 allows for disagreements within limits. In 1 Corinthians 1, Paul is condemning divisions. Hence, the point is that Christians must be in agreement to the extent that they are able to work and worship together in harmony and do not have to divide. Disagreements over collective congregational activity preclude such unity; they are inherently divisive. We cannot be tolerant of practices which make it impossible to have the kind of unity God requires.

Brethren, scriptural unity is possible. God’s teaching regarding collective activity is sufficiently clear that we can reach a common understanding. This must be true, for God requires that we agree to the extent that we can work and worship together; and God does not require the impossible. The problem is not that God’s word is unclear; the problem is the attitudes with which God’s word is approached.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 6, p. 178
March 16, 1989

By Greg Gwen

During the recent Nashville Meeting, our institutional brethren frequently attacked the very basic hermeneutical principles upon which we have interpreted and understood God’s word. Specifically, they substantially rejected the concepts of approved apostolic example and necessary inference as being authoritative.

We want to deal with their rejection of necessary inference and its usefulness in the comprehension of God’s will. During the meeting in Nashville, our liberal brethren often asked the question: “Necessary inference: necessary to whom?” We believe that question can be very simply answered.

The American College Dictionary says that to “infer” is to “derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence. ” It further states that “inference” when used in matters of logic is “the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises. ” In other words, when we discuss “inference, ” we are talking about drawing conclusions from available information or evidence.

The dictionary also defines “necessary” as “that which cannot be dispensed with.” In the realm of logic, and pertaining to propositions, we are told that “necessary” carries the idea “that the denial of the proposition involves a self-contradiction; that it is impossible for the premises of an (necessary) inference or argument to, be true and its conclusion false.” So then, “necessary,” when used in this sense, suggests something that is absolutely essential, unavoidable, and which cannot be denied.

So then, there you have it. The answer to our brethren’s question is easily answered by nothing more complex than a look at the dictionary for some simple definitions. “Necessary inference: necessary to whom?” The answer is; necessary to anyone who has a logical mind, who can read God’s word and use rational thought processes to reach conclusions. Simply put, necessary influence is necessary to everyone!

Multiplied examples of necessary inference can be shown from the Scriptures. For instance, Matthew 3:16 says, “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water.” Note that nothing is said about him going down into the water, but we necessarily infer, and rightly so, that if he came up out of the water he must have previously gone down into the water. This is simple, but it is necessary!

Other cases of necessary inference are more to the point. We have long taught that the authority for a church building is established by necessary inference based upon the command to assemble (Heb. 10:25). If saints must assemble, then there must be a place for such assemblies. Therefore, the command to assemble authorizes a meeting place – a private home, a public place, a rented facility, or an owned building. Such a conclusion is necessary, and anyone with a logical mind will not deny it.

It is rather amazing that our institutional brethren would even question us in these matters. Their arguments are actually self-condemning. These brethren use the Lord’s money to purchase church buildings – elaborate ones in many cases. If necessary inference is not authoritative, then how can they justify these?

It would be interesting, but rather sad, to see any of these brethren in a debate with a qualified denominationalist. Their own arguments against the concepts of approved apostolic example and necessary inference would explode in their faces. Of course, there is little reason for these brethren to engage in such debates, because the doctrine t ey teach is rapidly losing all distinction from that of the religious world in general.

Let us be sure that we are well grounded in all the concepts of Bible authority, and let us “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 6, p. 179
March 16, 1989