The Authority of Inference
By Dwaine Dunning
[Page 132] |
One of the better features of The Declaration and Address is a simple, but effective analysis of measures which men may take to learn the will of God. There are, according to Mr. Campbell, three kinds or types of Biblical "authority." These are the expressed command of God, a categorical statement which clearly shows God's will; the approved apostolic precedent, or an example of something being done in a particular way by inspired people; and the necessary inference, which is a conclusion reached by process of logic or reason from scriptural premises. This system of determining "authority" has been of great value since its publication. In some circles, showing all three kinds of "authority" for an argument or practice is considered to settle any argument or dispute beyond question.
However, there were some limitations originally imposed by Thomas Campbell, which have been virtually forgotten in our day. Proper use of his system of determining scriptural "authority" brought unity to scattered saints in the first years after its promulgation. But now, because
[Page 133] |
For many years, Bible questions have been discussed from the standpoint of a given viewpoint having "command, example and inference" in support. Such use, listing three types of argument without distinction as to value, has given the impression that all three are equal in value. This is not true! And Thomas Campbell, who developed the system, wisely limited it and showed that the third area of "authority," that of inference, was of such a nature that questions affecting fellowship should never be determined by using inference, or argument by logical process. This limitation has been forgotten by those who use the system.
When two people discuss a question from the viewpoint of mutual acceptance of the Bible as the word of God, and God has stated his mind flatly and unequivocally on the matter, the only thing needed to reach agreement is for one party to show the other what God has said. Prior disagreement means that one party was wrong and it should never be forgotten that both may be. But if God said it, there is no reason for strife between men who honor God. Unity comes easily when there is an explicit statement of God upon which to base agreement.
Less simple to use is the approved precedent, or inspired example. A certain degree of human judgment must enter in to determine whether a particular apostolic practice was intended exclusively for the Jerusalem church, or for all congregations in every place and at every time. Some find in the recorded practice of the Troas congregation in Acts 20:7 an "approved precedent" for observing the Lord's Supper which is binding on all congregations in every age. Others do not. Some do not even see in the incident an observance of the Lord's Supper, but merely a "fellowship meal."
It is evident that approved precedent or apostolic example, while of value, does not have the same power as the direct command of God. It has been a serious mistake to condition fellowship on this kind of evidence, especially when some group of men has been either "right" or "wrong" on such matters as have been established with this kind of evidence at the expense of categorical divine commands on unity and fellowship.
Bringing up the rear, miles behind either command or precept, is the third kind of "authority" -- that of inference. This kind of "authority" rests almost wholly on human wisdom. It is evident that if God did not command a thing and the apostles did not do it, the only reason for people to want to do it in post-apostolic days is that someone's inference, or human wisdom, has by a process of reasoning arrived at the position that the thing ought to be done, or believed.
Thomas Campbell strictly limited this kind of evidence to the individual Christian. Reasoning from scriptural premises is the only way the individual Christian can come up with an answer to some problems. But Mr. Campbell said such conclusions should never be bound upon someone else or unless he "manifestly sees that they are so."
A vast majority of "unity problems" are in this third area of "authority." There is little disagreement among Bible-believing people about what God said. There is some disagreement about what use should be made of apostolic practice or precedent. There is a lot of disagreement on non-commanded, non-precedented matters where human reasoning is the factor by which the position of some individual or group is determined.
This is precisely what we should expect. If a process of reasoning, a logical procedure, is properly the grounds upon which unity may be extended or withheld, then unity is at the absolute mercy of the weakest intellect and the most uncharitable disposition in Christendom.
To say "direct command, approved precedent, and necessary inference" without distinguishing between them, thus giving the impression that all are of equal strength, is to do violence to the insight of the man who contrived the system.
[Page 134] |
Use of the system, with proper regard for certain limitations on its use, was a terrific force for unity for half a century. When the limitations were forgotten or deliberately set aside, division came to the spiritual descendants of those who at one time used the system to produce unity. It is high time to either set aside the system completely or to re-learn the "checks and balances" built into it by those who first used it to unify Christians.
If God said it, that settles it! If God did not say it, but the apostles did it, there is good reason for Christians who are in at least the same approximate situation as those who were doing it under apostolic leadership to consider seriously and strongly the precedent or example as God's answer to contemporary questions as to "how to do it."
But if there is neither divine command nor apostolic precedent for some belief or practice, it is folly and absurdity to think that any man, or any group of men, has the wisdom to go through a process of reasoning, with the usual dismal limitations imposed by human weakness and Satanic influence, and arrive at a conclusion which has the strength of command or precept. This puts a terrible burden on a contrivance which is never as strong as it ought to be in the spiritual realm -- the human mind and spirit. Yet this is precisely what is done by many who ought to know better.
There can be unity in following what God commanded. There may be unity in using apostolic precedent, particularly when "comparing spiritual things with spiritual," and locating several examples or "precedents" for doing something in a particular way. There can never be unity in human inference. It is simply impossible for more than a comparative few in Christendom to see something a certain way, without a divine command or a fairly clear apostolic precedent to show the way. Unity is hopeless, and those who want it are helpless, if inferential arguments ever get out of the realm where they are strictly the business of one individual Christian trying to determine what God wants him to believe or to do in areas where God did not command nor the apostles give an example.
Calvinism and Arminianism, the perseverance of the saints, instruments of music and four-part harmony, owning a church building, painting "holy pictures" or destroying them, immersing in river or baptismal tank, questions regarding the millennium these are just a few of the divisive subjects which in no way depend on divine command or apostolic precedent, but which come entirely within the third realm, that of inference, and are upheld and opposed in such a way that the unity which God commanded is destroyed for the sake of being right or wrong about something that has only imperfect reasoning to affirm or deny! This is, with a vengeance, "leaving the commandment of God that you may establish your own traditions."
So let us either re-impose the wise limitations placed on Thomas Campbell's system by the man who developed it, or find some other way of determining what God wants us to do. Unrestrained use of the "third area of authority" without those limitations has produced an appalling mess of division in some circles. The system is good. It abundantly proved this a century and a half ago, by doing what its champion said that it would do. Mr. Campbell's wisdom is shown by comparing what he said about the limitation of the third area of "authority" with the situation which has arisen through ignoring the limitation. Let those who use command, example and inference learn how to use these things once again!