Let me try to respond to some of your caveats and concerns expressed above (comments #32 and #33):

You write, (1) I do not question the validity of Jesus and Paul’s hermeneutical model. As the Son of God, and an inspired apostle, they certainly have the authority to press inferences on the conscience. However, I don’t grant that authority to uninspired believers utilizing their hermeneutical model.

Bob’s response: Ron, your reasoning seems to go something like this: Jesus and the apostles were justified in employing a certain method of interpretation that included the practice of establishing doctrines or ethical norms on the basis of warranted inference because they were inspired. However, you’re basing your conclusion on an inference! The Bible nowhere explicitly teaches that only inspired and infallible teachers or writers can draw warranted inferences. On the other hand, when Jesus draws an inference that substantiates the resurrection from an OT passage that speaks of God as the God of the living, he’s not only justified in doing so but he condemns his non-inspired and non-fallible audience for failing to draw the same inference: “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God” (Matt. 22:29).

You write, (2) Christians do have an obligation to pray and read their Bibles.I’m glad you encourage your sheep and others to do so.I’m also glad you don’t discipline members because of their failures and shortcomings in these areas. We’d all be in big trouble if we were taken to task on these matters! And no, it’s not legalistic to exhort your people to read the Bible and pray.

Bob replies: Great. I think we’re getting closer in our understanding. We must be patient. We must be realistic. We must avoid being more dogmatic than the Bible permits. In the end, however, it’s not legalistic for me as a pastor to expect my people to love God’s word (Psa. 119:97) to praise his name (Pss. 13:6; 30:4; 89:1; Phil. 4:4; 1 Thess. 5:16) and to pray (Matt. 6:9-13).

You write, (3) As a husband and father I do read the Bible to my family, pray, etc. I also believe that doing this daily is a good guideline, but having family devotions wasn’t my point of contention. Asserting it as a command (and I know you’re not necessarily going this far) when it is only inferred is what I am opposing.

Bob replies: Family devotions is a way in which heads of households can fulfill their obligations to God and to those under their care. That’s how I would put it. I don’t believe the assumption of spiritual leadership in my home is simply a matter of liberty. Rather, it’s an obligation God has laid on me (Deut. 6:4-9; Eph. 6:4). Anyone who reads the Bible from cover to cover should gather that such spiritual leadership will entail the stewardship and privilege of communicating God’s word to those under my care (wife and children), as well as leading them in acts of worship. Questions of frequency and manner are certainly open for debate and may vary due to a variety of factors. So we shouldn’t be legalistic in the way we apply these principles. But, on the other hand, we shouldn’t simply assume that the whole matter a matter of indifference to God.

Finally, you pose an analogous case-study to enforce why you’re hesitant to view family worship as in any way obligatory. You write, Let’s say your church requires attendance at all stated meetings. You infer from Scripture a pattern of morning and evening worship.

Bob interjects: I never made that inference but I’m aware that some do.

Ron continues: You then, as the pastor, require that all members attend AM and PM services, otherwise they cannot become members of your church.

Bob interjects: I do think it’s a good idea to have a participating membership. So when people join our church, we ask them to make every effort to make the stated meetings unless providentially hindered.

Ron continues, You have a young husband and wife apply for membership, but they don’t have a conviction about attending the evening service (perhaps in the church circles they were in, they only had morning worship). Furthermore, they have 2 very young children, and they believe maintaining such a schedule on the Lord’s day will be too rigorous for them (and a tired Mommy). The husband also has a blue collar job that is physically demanding and he thinks 3 services on Sunday (including Sunday School) is very wearisome. Now, these are genuine, fruit-producing Christians. They love the Lord. Do you let them become members of your church? Or do you hold them off until they submit to your inferences?

Bob replies: Good questions, Ron. First, we try not to apply our attendance expectations rigidly. If there are extenuating circumstances, we grant members the freedom to miss one of the circumstances. Second, I do believe that issues such as distance (which requires lots of time on the road) can make for a very strenuous Lord’s Day. As a result, we’ve sometimes allowed some folk to miss the evening service on this account. Third, I’ve often wondered if 3 separate ministries of the Word on the Lord’s Day aren’t too much for the people of God to digest in one day. Accordingly, I’ve suggested on several occasions that we restructure our Lord’s Day in order to make it less strenuous for mothers with young children or for people who drive great distances.

In conclusion: I’m all in favor of sensitivity and realism. I’m also wary of laying a burden on God’s people that is unwarranted by Scripture. Nevertheless, I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. If a warranted principle or duty is misapplied or abused, shall we reject the principle or duty altogether? I think the Bible provides some warrant for the practice of family worship. At the same time, I don’t think we should be legalistic in our expectations of the frequency and/or the manner in which it’s conducted.

Hope this helps.

Your servant,
Bob Gonzales

Bob dealt with your point well. As for the proverbs, well, they’re proverbial. I’ll leave it at that.

Dear Benjamin,

I think you understood my intent. Perhaps I could have worded it more clearly, but my point was to avoid building legalists and strive to point the heart toward God. This is why we teach them how to think rather than MERELY what to think.

Dear Bob,

Thanks for your thoughtfulness here. Family worship has largely been set aside and/or over complicated. Simply reading through the Bible together and discussing the wondrous truths contained therein is worship. May more men gain a vision for God’s glory in their families.

For our King,

First, let me say that I empathize with what I take to be your overall concern. I had been Southern Baptist all of my life until recently when I entered into membership with my family at a Reformed Baptist, independent church. Initially, I found their curious requirements and personal convictions a bit beyond the bounds of legitimate inference and tried to reason with them. I found them, and especially my precious pastor, to be very humble people, willing to consider these questions fairly. I hope they find me to be the same, but they are this way precisely because they believe so much in the usefulness of honest Biblical reasoning.

That is why I am supposing at present that you are not intending to use “inference” in its more usual sense and must ask you what you mean by it. The term is usually defined as “the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises” (the “assumed premises” being the explicit wording and statements of Scripture).

If you are using the term this way, then you cannot really avoid contradicting yourself. For example, you said:

“I don’t lay my convictions about relatively minor (comparatively speaking) or non-essential matters on the backs of other Christians. This, unfortunately, is commonly done in some RB churches.”

This, of course, is only “unfortunate” if it is wrongfully practiced, meaning that it is unbiblical to do such things. That seems to have been your belief as you have stated it so far. Now, clearly you are not suggesting that this is merely something you have chosen not to do. You believe that no church, no pastor and no Christian of any service should do this to any other. That is a moral obligation we all share.

Yet, what do you base this upon? There is no explicit command of Scripture that we not require obedience to “non-essentials” from each other? Indeed, there is hardly a list in the Bible outlining what these “non-essentials” might be. So, here you have argued that a moral expectation exists over every Christian to refrain from something you have inferred from Scripture; at least I assume you inferred it from Scripture.

You continue:

“Ephesians 4:11-14 is no refutation of my position. The ministry of the church is not dependent on asserting inferences as commandments.”

Again, this makes me suppose that you must have something other than the usual sense of the term in mind. In the usual sense, it would be quite false to claim that the ministry of the church does not depend entirely upon asserting inferences as commandments. Allow me to explain…

Every sermon, every doctrine, every practice and every expectation in each church which finds its lifeblood in the Word of our LORD is grounded in inference. This is necessary for several reasons:

1. All beliefs based in Scripture are grounded in the application of Scripture to our modern context. This is little else but an inference. You cannot get from the Bible to our time by explicit statements. Try it and if you remain strictly with the bounds of the explicit statements (separated from their implications), you will find yourself in an absurd situation.

2. All interpretation of Scripture is grounded in the examination of the contextual meaning of certain statements. The Scripture does not teach us how to interpret it but requires us to draw inferences from several places across the Word, even to appreciate otherwise explicit commands or to understand which explicit commandments any longer apply to us today.

For instance, when you argued, “We all agree that ‘You shall not steal’ is a clear command and not open to debate,” what you failed to appreciate is that, though explicit, its precise meaning and application to anyone today is not at all explicit. That sort of thing has to be determined by inference alone.

For further examples, please consider… Do you greet every brother and sister with a holy kiss? It is an explicit command of Paul’s to do this. Do you wash the feet of the saints, literally? It is an explicit command of Christ and if you don’t take it literally, you do this only because you have inferred that He did not mean it to be taken literally. Do you baptize every convert yourself? It is an explicit command of the Great Commission that those who make disciples should also baptize them. Do you require women in your churches to wear head coverings? Do you require women to remain silent in the churches? It is only an inference that could allow you to limit the explicit statement of Paul to a more narrow context because he does not narrow it himself. And, if you try to use some other passage from his epistles to limit this, that too would be an inference drawn from the assumption that those texts have anything to do with each other.

3. And, again, which of these explicit commands is a “non-essential”? Only inference will tell you.

4. Every form of discipline in the church (and we are explicitly commanded to discipline) is grounded in the practice of inference because various sins and wicked practices apply to explicit statements in the Bible only by inference for the simple reason that the Bible does not address us explicitly but only indirectly. Obviously the statements of the Bible were addressed expressly to their original audience and readers. It is only by inference that we reason these commands have believers today in mind as well.

5. How do you know who should be allowed baptism or the LORD’s Supper, membership into your church and would properly be recipients of Biblical discipline? That requires an inference based upon your supposition as to what precisely makes a true convert and who this term might rightly apply to among those around you.

6. And besides, I think you would agree that the commandment to “train up” our children “in the way they should go” is an explicit one. What must be inferred in order to keep this command is the meaning of the command and whether and how it applies to us today. But that is true of any command in the Bible…

Rather than multiply these examples indefinitely, I will say simply that if your own fallen, fallible human nature is not an impediment to yourself and your family, then it cannot be an impediment to you to submit to the discipline of the Church and the correction of others by inferences from the Word. You, I suspect, would expect your wife to submit to your leadership on some level and your children as well, but your expectation is dependent on a set of inferences you and they agree upon.

What I think you have a difficulty with is not the process of instructing, correcting, rebuking, disciplining and the like on the basis of inferences from Scripture (which are unavoidable). What you and I both dislike is the abuse of inference to serve an agenda that is not fairly drawn from Scripture at all. But that evil practice does not arise from inference. It arises from impoverished and self-serving inferences.

It is hardly necessary to dismiss the practice because many have abused it. Lots of people abuse explicit commands as well, do they not? Yet you would not toss out the practice of holding others even to certain explicit commands.

I hope that you hear the brotherly affection intended in this response and that it serves to profit you and those you love.

Perhaps I can pose a further example of inference gone awry here. Let’s say your church requires attendance at all stated meetings. You infer from Scripture a pattern of morning and evening worship. You then, as the pastor, require that all members attend AM and PM services, otherwise they cannot become members of your church. You have a young husband and wife apply for membership, but they don’t have a conviction about attending the evening service (perhaps in the church circles they were in, they only had morning worship). Furthermore, they have 2 very young children, and they believe maintaining such a schedule on the Lord’s day will be too rigorous for them (and a tired Mommy). The husband also has a blue collar job that is physically demanding and he thinks 3 services on Sunday (including Sunday School) is very wearisome.

Now, these are genuine, fruit-producing Christians. They love the Lord. Do you let them become members of your church? Or do you hold them off until they submit to your inferences?

(1) I do not question the validity of Jesus and Paul’s hermeneutical model. As the Son of God, and an inspired apostle, they certainly have the authority to press inferences on the conscience. However, I don’t grant that authority to uninspired believers utilizing their hermeneutical model.

(2) Christians do have an obligation to pray and read their Bibles. I’m glad you encourage your sheep and others to do so. I’m also glad you don’t discipline members because of their failures and shortcomings in these areas. We’d all be in big trouble if we were taken to task on these matters! And no, it’s not legalistic to exhort your people to read the Bible and pray.

(3) As a husband and father I do read the Bible to my family, pray, etc. I also believe that doing this daily is a good guideline, but having family devotions wasn’t my point of contention. Asserting it as a command (and I know you’re not necessarily going this far) when it is only inferred is what I am opposing.

I really appreciate your graciousness,

RM

“I assume you are a fallen man and yet you draw numerous inferences from the Word of GOD for yourself and consider them necessary to be believed and obeyed.”

Indeed. I consider them necessary in my own household, but I don’t lay my convictions about relatively minor (comparatively speaking) or non-essential matters on the backs of other Christians. This, unfortunately, is commonly done in some RB churches.

Ephesians 4:11-14 is no refutation of my position. The ministry of the church is not dependent on asserting inferences as commandments.

Benjamin asks:

“Otherwise, how are we to sharpen one another? How will the injunction of Scripture to receive correction and rebuke with meekness and humility be accomplished, if you cannot accept the inferences of fallen human beings? It is written, “Whoever heeds instruction is on the path to life, but he who rejects reproof leads others astray” (Proverbs 10:17).”

Different people infer different things from the Scriptures. We all agree that “You shall not steal” is a clear command and not open to debate. However, inferences can open up a whole can of worms and, if pressed, can disturb the peace of whole churches. My contention is that pastors can offer their biblical reasoning for why they think such and such a thing is a good and necessary inference, but they cannot expect their personal convictions about that inference to placed on the backs of their sheep.

Benjamin says:

“Dr. Gonzales is not demanding your obedience to his reasoning. He is only offering his ideas as the Word of GOD, to the best of his knowledge. As with a pastor or any the godly brothers and sisters throughout history (like Spurgeon), if you wish to give ear to them, it will only be because you accept the reasoning behind their opinions, as is true of any of us.”

That’s fine. If this is just an intramural debate or discussion about family worship. In some places, however, this is considered a Christian duty and your spirituality is questioned or judged by your observance of it (or lack thereof). I cited an example of one prominent RB church disciplining members for failure to have regular family devotions. That is well beyond “accepting the reasoning behind their opinions”, that is elevating an inference to the level of a commandment, such as “Thou shalt not commit adultery”. That’s the danger I’m concerned about, and it is not theoretical.

This is not about a radically private walk with Christ, it’s about keeping the bounds of pastoral authority within the limitations set by the Great Shepherd.

(1) The Scripture writers (including Jesus) provide for us a pattern of how rightly to interpret the Scriptures. The fact that they were inspired and we’re not doesn’t preclude the validity of their hermeneutical model.

(2) I’ve been a pastor for about 13 years. I’ve counseled and provided oversight to many sheep during that time. I’ve found that as a whole most Christians struggle with being consistent in their prayer life and in reading the Scriptures. Have I every disciplined anyone for that? No. Have I told them that they have no obligation to pray and read their Bibles? No. Do I encourage them to strive for consistency and regularity, as well as provide helpful strategies for doing so? Yes. Is that legalistic? If not, why not?

(3) If you’re a husband and/or father, perhaps you can share with the rest of us how you fulfill your duty loving your wife as Christ loved the church and nurturing your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Do you ever read the Bible to them? Do you every teach them principles from God’s word? Do you share the gospel with your children? Do you pray with them? Is once a year good enough? Do the Scriptures provide absolutely no guidelines for the manner and frequency by which you would carry out this stewardship?

Just curious.

Bob G.

Otherwise, how are we to sharpen one another? How will the injunction of Scripture to receive correction and rebuke with meekness and humility be accomplished, if you cannot accept the inferences of fallen human beings? It is written, “Whoever heeds instruction is on the path to life, but he who rejects reproof leads others astray” (Proverbs 10:17).

Even if your response, as I suspect it would be, is that in all instances you will have to answer for whatever you choose to believe from the Scriptures (which, of course, includes this novel inference of your own regarding the inferences of others in the Church), how is that any different in the case before you? Dr. Gonzales is not demanding your obedience to his reasoning. He is only offering his ideas as the Word of GOD, to the best of his knowledge. As with a pastor or any the godly brothers and sisters throughout history (like Spurgeon), if you wish to give ear to them, it will only be because you accept the reasoning behind their opinions, as is true of any of us.

If a brother’s reasoning is poor, you have the opportunity to aid him in turn. If not, then it shall be the other way around, but it seems a sorry relinquishment of the obligations of love to ignore others’ beliefs in a radically private walk with Christ. No church could function and mature in grace according to this notion you’ve professed and it is not at all the instruction of Paul to those who would take his place after he was gone.

I am comfortable with Jesus making inferences from Scripture, since He is holy and without sin. However, I am not comfortable with fallen men doing that and placing their convictions upon my conscience as the word of God to be obeyed. This is why many RB churches have legalistic tendencies. I know of a prominent RB church that disciplines it’s members for failing to have regular family devotions.

It’s the commandments that are binding, not any particular individual’s (or eldership’s) application of those commandments.

Thanks for your comments.

RM