Bringing back up a good question for those who are looking down on the use of necessary inference:





{Edited to start a new thread for this as it is off the original topic. The quote above is from the Covenant of Works thread}



[Edited on 6-21-2005 by Dan....]

__________________
Dan Harris. -member of Westminster OPC, Indian Head Park, IL

Looking for piano lessons in the Plainfield, Shorewood, Joliet, IL area?
Contact: Mrs. Jennifer Harris. Visit web site here:
http://www.harrispianostudio.com

Here's the question:


What is to be thought of the "good and necessary consequence " clause?

Thumbs up?
Thumbs down?

Why or why not?

If not, please explain the doctrines in the first post above without the used of necessary inference.

[Edited on 6-21-2005 by Dan....]

Obviously God saw fit. Keyword here, deduced. NI is not an attack on sola scriptura.

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

Is this a good definition of necessary inference?

necessary inference is a logically valid argument from true premises, such as: 1. the children of believers are covenant members; 2. covenant members are to receive the entrance sign of the covenant; therefore (this follows necessarily from the premises) the children of believers are to receive the entrance sign of the covenant.

(when I first saw the term, I thought it had something to do with an inference being necessary to get to a desired result...obviously wrong)

__________________
Bob Howes
Framingham, MA

A reoccurring thought:

Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

To give the full context (because good and necessary inference operates on the principle that a text without a context is but a pretext) of the Confessional statement:

The sense of Scripture (as derived from context, logical good and necessary inference, etc.) is as authoritative as "proof texts." Which is why the Confessional summary of doctrine or a sermon for that matter -- to the extent it properly adheres to its Biblical basis -- is authoritative at all.

Nehemiah 8
8:5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people; ) and when he opened it, all the people stood up:

8:6 And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.

8:7 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.

8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

__________________
Andrew Myers
Husband of Jessica, Father of Jackson, Katie and Samuel
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church of Northern Virginia
Warrenton, VA USA
Editor, The Matthew Poole Project

"Let your Morning Thoughts, and your last Evening Thoughts, be what shall become of you to all Eternity." -- Matthew Poole

Per Robert Shaw's commentary on Chapter 1 of the WCF:

__________________
~Wayne Wylie~
Member, Mid Cities Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Ruling Elder - Inactive
http://www.mcopc.org
Bedford, TX

Job 28:28 - And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Question: Though the consequence of a passage may be good, is it always necessary?

I would say "no" to that question. Because of our creature limitation and our sinful state we ought not to think that we are able to grasp all reason. It may seem that our consequence from reasonable inferences may be good, yet it is still possible that we have not taken into account all givens in that consequence. When the consequence can be no other, such as in the consequence of the doctrine of the Trinity, where it transcends our limitations of reason, that we call it "necessary".

However, we do have some things that are good though not necessary, such as exclusive psalmody. It may be right, it may be necessary, but we do not have the means to be conclusive on that. But that does not mean it is not good, or that we may not practice it in good faith.

[Edited on 6-21-2005 by JohnV]

__________________
JohnV :detective:

John Vandervliet
Ontario, Canada
member of: Canadian Reformed Church
"In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are" C.S Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism

Can't wait for the exclusive psalmodists on the board to discuss necessary inference.

Ahh...isn't that the rub though...we all want necessary inference but no one can necessarily infer where the line and what doctrines can be necessarily inferred! ( I know..I know...the Confession...but how did they necessarily infer what should be confessional and what shouldn't?)

__________________
Chris Rhoades -33
Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church (PCA) Nashville, TN-Under Care

Vera theologia non theoretica, sed practica est; Finis siquidem eius agere est hoc est vitam vivere deiformem. - Martin Bucer
""True theology is not theoretical, but practical. The end of it is living, that is to live a godly life."

John,

If the consequences are not necessary, then I don't see how they can be "good". Inferences which are not necessary bind the consciences of men without just cause (See WCF XX, Christian Liberty). Going with the example of exclusive psalmody, if it is not a necessary consequence, then it is neither a good consequence as it would then bind the church to perform less than what God has required of us in worship.

(Let's not make this an exclusive psalmody debate ).

I think that Bob made a good distinction with the word "necessary". We have to be careful what we mean by it. I wouldn't want to mislead you. What I mean by necessary is that it can be no other, as in the Trinity. In the matter of EP (I agree, let's not debate that) for some they see it as inferred by Scripture. And they do no harm in following after that. So they can hold to that inference as a good. But that does not mean it is necessary: it is not as though it is the only possible consequence, that there is not other possible answer to the questions raised that can also be good.

In the case of EP which you just referred to as not necessary but can be held to as a good and that they do no harm in following after that...Are you sure about that? What if the "they" were your session? Not trying to stir things up, but I am surprised I'm reading you say this (if I am indeed understanding you correctly ) Switch out EP and replace with presuppositionalism and does it change things? The reason I say this is because presup. could be held to individually and be good without being preached from the pulpit (as you have argued before) but how would that be done with EP? Would that necessitate a whole worship service to be that way and bind others? (again not debating EP just using it as an example because you did).

So I guess what I'm rambling about is, from your perspective, can a good but non-necessary teaching come from the pulpit or only the good/necessary. (sorry bout this...trying to understand all of the ins and outs here - not trying to open up a )

[Edited on 6-21-2005 by crhoades]

[Edited on 6-21-2005 by crhoades]

John,

I'm not sure we are following eachg other here.

What I am asking is how one can say that there can be a "good" inference that is not "necessary"? Any inference that is not necessary is arbitrary. It is the opinion of man and cannot be binding on men (per the principle of Christian Liberty).

Try another example. One may infer that women shouldn't where pants because the scriptures require modesty (there are fundamentalists who believe this). Is this an inference? yes. Is it necessarily true? No. It is not a necessary inference. It is not binding. Now if someone does not want to want to do wear pants, then that is okay; they are free either way. Such is a matter of preference. But for one to bind the conscience of others by teaching it as a necessary consequence of modesty is not "good", for it violates Christian Liberty.


Actually, they do in fact do harm because (assuming that it is not a necessary inference) they fail to obey completely by not singing "hymns and spiritual songs" (assuming that "hymns and spiritual songs" refer to other than psalms). An unnecessary inference in this matter would result in disobedience. (Of course, I am not looking for another EP debate...obviously if EP is necessarily inferred, then to sing more than just psalms would also be disobedience).

Are you following? How can an non-necessary inference be considered a good inference? It sound arbitrary to me.


[Edited on 6-21-2005 by Dan....]

Chris:
The following is my opinion, not necessary doctrine.

My Session did in fact impose EP, and I did not disagree with their decision. In this case submission was better, for it was done for a good purpose. There was confusion as to the place of music and kinds of songs, so they took a "position", for the time being. It was good that they did not seek a compromise with the different views, but chose instead a position of most basic Biblical necessity in worship as to music. It may be questioned whether hymns may be sung, but it cannot be questioned that Psalms ought to be sung. They did not make a rule that hymns are not Biblical; they made a rule that for the time being they would follow the RPCNA psalter, which is kind of a half-way songbook, with more contemporary or traditional music, but with referenced versification from the Psalms.

Presuppositionalism is a teaching. It is a teaching of man; it is not a confessional doctrine. To teach it from the pulpit as an exclusive view is adding man's teachings to Biblical doctrine, necessitating what God did not necessitate.

Presuppositionalism can be held as a good. It has added a dimension to thought that has benefitted us. I am not saying that it is a bad teaching. I would say that some make it bad by insisting on it on the level of doctrine, necessitating it upon God's people as if pronounced by God Himself. But that does not make Presuppositionalism wrong; it makes some who hold to it wrong. There is a difference.

Presuppositionalism is not a necessary doctrine. It is for some the only thing that they can understand, and it has been a benefit to them. But these need to maintain respect of those who are persuaded differently, but have also benefitted from the view they have understood. At least, that's how I see it.

If a teaching (such as infant baptism) is a denominational decision, and it is for them a direct inference from Scripture and the Confessions, then it may be taught. But it may not be taught from the pulpit as if lording it over those who do not hold to that. What I mean is that those who hold to the teachings of the covenantal membership of infants do not baptize their infants, then they are in disobedience to their confession. But is a Baptist is a member through accident (for whatever reason, I mean) then he ought not to be held accountable to that out of respect. Yet the minister ought to preach it from the pulpit, so as perhaps to teach the Baptist as well as the congregation why children of believers ought to be baptized. But the Baptist is not in direct disobedience to his faith, though we may believe that he is in disobedience to Scripture. It is because he is trying to be consistent with what he believes that he is given that respect, and therefore given a status of exception.

The truth itself has not changed. I still believe that infant baptism is a necessary inference. But Baptists also have the Spirit, who works in His children as He sees fit. He has given them immovable persuasion of something that we cannot understand. We must allow for that. I am not perfect, and I do not understand all things: I may yet be wrong.

If Presuppositionalism can be taught without belittling those who are not persuaded of it and who hold to all the marks of a true faith, then it may be taught. If it can be taught along with the other views, as they all work together, then it must be taught. If it is taught as an exclusive and necessary doctrine, that is it becomes a point of orthodoxy, then it may not be taught. For the simple truth is that it is not a point of orthodoxy.

Hope that helps, Chris.

[Edited on 6-21-2005 by JohnV]

See Wayne's quote of Robert Shaw, above.

I would agree with this, Dan. However, it is possible to hold to such things without binding the conscience or violating conscientious liberty.
I give some examples of that in my post, above, to Chris, namely imposing EP for a good purpose, whether temporary or not, or allowing a Baptist contingent membership in the fellowship for specified reasons, or teaching views on some things such as methods of defending against attacks on faith. These can all be done without violating the Christians right to believe to the best of his ability.

It can also be done with women being denied the right to wear pants. Just don't ask me how.
I think I am following. You are asking how EP can be good if it violates a legitimately possible interpretation the text they use to justify their imposition of it. (That is why I have said that EP is OK, as long as it is a policy, not a doctrine.) I would agree with this, that this violates Christian Liberty of conscience. But that does not mean that all impositions of EP are imposed as doctrine; some are imposed as policy, for the public good. And we can see some good in that, because at least these churches are not given to music that pleases the people instead of worships God. That is a good.

But it is also good sometimes to give up your own conscientious objections for the sake of the common good. That happens a lot, as a matter of fact. Such policies or decisions may not be "necessary", but they are good. There are a lot of things that we have to choose one or the other, without having the luxury of being able to establish necessity. We must choose the better of the two, for that is necessary. And unity is necessary, so we acquiesce for the good, peace, and unity of the Church.

There are also things that we must stand up against, even if the majority has decided in favour; even if you are the only one against. And one of those is adding men's teachings to Biblical doctrine. It may as well be Mariology as one of the millennial positions, if it equates man's books or teachings with the Word of God, and belittles those whom God has called by His own name. Not everyone is literate in the millennial views, and any one of them are not necessary doctrine. But if man makes one of them an imposed point of orthodoxy, then we must stand against that, even if we stand alone. For that is a violation of a clear and necessary doctrine from Scripture, which we know as Sola Scriptura.

Unless EP or ladies disallowed from wearing pants is declared as Scripturally necessary, we may allow for the good that such a policy may achieve. But these may not bind the conscience. They can be practices without binding the conscience, allowing the following of good order and peace, while still allowing for differences. Remember, that a lady also has the freedom not to wear pants; she does not have to wear pants in order to believe as she does.

[Edited on 6-21-2005 by JohnV]

[Edited on 6-21-2005 by JohnV]

A good example of "necessary" inferences which are not imposed would be the Confessions themselves. Office-bearers are strictly held to them, depending on the subscription methodology utilized, but ordinary members are called to believe in them, but without the same imposition. There is an allowed-for latitude, without it being a mandate for disunity in the congregations. Some things show a definite departure in doctrine or in life, but others simply show ignorance, as in a lack of education or ability. These latter are not unbelievers on account of that.

We are called to an intricate teaching on the Trinity, which "except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved." (Athanasian Creed, art. 44) But that doesn't mean that everyone of us understands it, or can say we hold to every word of it without exception. Those of us in this latter category, who have trouble understanding it, yet can say we believe it, though, because we trust that the Church fathers who formulated it did not steer us wrongly, and that it was carefully formulated for us, even though we do not understand it.

So some of us may express the holy doctrine of the Trinity in an unseemly fashion, but that is a matter of kind correction through teaching, not of discipline. Yet we uphold the necessity that the Athanasian Creed expresses.

[Edited on 6-21-2005 by JohnV]

John,

I failed to see how the quote from Shaw addressed how an inference can be both good and non-necessary.

I am not following here.... How can someone (let's make the someone a "she" for clarity sake) infer from the scriptures (hence, claim that it is binding) that it is wrong for women to wear pants and yet not have her conscience bound by that inference?

I'm not following here either....
Either these inferences listed be true, or they are not.

How can a church (assuming EP to be false, as I know that we both do not hold EP) impose EP "for a good purpose"? When is it ever a good purpose not to completely obey the scriptures in worship standards (which failure to sing hymns and spiritual songs is incomplete obedience)?

Allowing a Baptist membership in the church (which is proper so long as he has a credible profession) has no bearing on whether infant baptism is lawful. Either infant baptism is lawful and the Baptist sins by not having his children baptized, or infant baptism is not lawful and the paedo-baptist sins by having his children baptized. If credo-only baptism is not necessarily inferred, then the inference thereof is not good. So also, paedo-baptist is not necessarily inferred, then the inference thereof is not good. They cannot both be good inferences.

Concerning presuppositionalism, I do not understand why it would be wrong to teach it if it be necessarily inferred from the scriptures. If it is not necessarily inferred from the scriptures, then it is the arbitrary opinion of men. If it is necessarily inferred, then it is the truth of God and should be taught.

How can any of these inferences be good if they are not necessarily deduced from the scriptures? Either they are the will of God or they are arbitrary.


How can it be a policy and not a doctrine? If the scriptures commands the singing of "hymns and spiritual songs" and we have a policy that forbids the singing thereof, how can that be lawful?

How can incomplete obedience be for the public good?

Certainly. It is not my place (as a lay person) to decide whether the congregation is to sing Psalms only or whether hymns also; this is the duty of the elders.

Now if I held EP and were a member of a church that does not hold EP, I would advise the elders of my differences and request that I be not made to sing that which I found to be unlawful in the worship of God.

This applies to other issues as well.

This is where Christian liberty comes into play. If one decision or the other is neither prescribed nor forbidden, then we are at liberty to choose as we wish.

I don't disagree (except for the EP), but this is off the issue. The issue is inference from the scriptures. For example, let's say a college requires that alcohol be not allowed on campus (including in the dorms for those who are above the legal age). This may be a good policy (and probably is, for the sake of the security of the falculty and students). But it is not a policy that the college inferred from the scriptures (If they claimed to infer it from the scriptures then there is a problem). As to whether it is lawful for a authority to impose such policies for the good of the people is technically off the topic at hand, unless they claim to have infered such policies from the scriptures.

That the officers of the church are to uphold the teachings of the confessions is certainly inferred from the scriptures (Titus 1:9 ff).

That the laypersons are not required to affirm the confessions, is because the scriptures lays no such strictness on church membership as it does on who is qualified to be a teacher in the church.
(See Hodge, Systematic Theology, Part III, Chapter 11, section 3 under the "Nature of the Church", "Terms for admission into his kingdom." page 607 in my copy).

However, I don't see how this relates to distiguishing between a "good" inference and a "good and necessary" inference. If the teachings of the confessions are necessarily infered, then those doctrines are to be taught as truth. If they are not necessarily inferred, then they are the arbitrary opinions of men and ought not to be taught as truth no matter how "good" they might seem.


[Edited on 6-21-2005 by Dan....]

John: We've done it now.