# Sola Scriptura vs Necessary Inference



## Scott Bushey (Feb 10, 2005)

Recently, in another thread, the topic arose in regards to issues of silence in Gods word. Apparently, some feel as if the concept of _necessary inference_ to be an attack upon sola scriptura. My premise was to this brother was that it is not an attack on sola scriptura or any less honorable to Gods word to utilize the theological interpretation known as necessary inference. Is it not also true for the person whom rejects NI that it must follow, to be consistant, one must (even) do away with one's interpretation of the trinity as it is solely derived under this discipline.

Thoughts?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 10, 2005)

Indeed - without good and necessary inference as part of Sola Scriptura, there could be no systematic theology, only biblical.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 10, 2005)

Chris,
Do you not agree that if one denies NI that the thelogical system falls apart? Do you see NI as an reproach to SS; does not the idea contradict the term SS?


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 10, 2005)

I totally agree with you Scott but if we conclude that NI (or necessary consequence, G&NC) is part of Sola Scripture, doesn't that put strict subscriptionism on shaky ground. NI is the method by which we systematize our sub-standards so can't we disagree with the WCF, for example, as long as we can demonstrate a good and necessary consequence.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 10, 2005)

Bob, could you elaborate on what you mean by "shaky ground"?



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Do you not agree that if one denies NI that the thelogical system falls apart?



That is basically what I was saying.



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Do you see NI as an reproach to SS; does not the idea contradict the term SS?



Perhaps it may contradict _Solo Scriptura_, but to think it contradicts Sola Scriptura is a misunderstanding of what that really is.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 10, 2005)

> Perhaps it may contradict Solo Scriptura, but to think it contradicts Sola Scriptura is a misunderstanding of what that really is.



Chris,
So you are saying that it only contradicts the literal term, not the discipline?


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 10, 2005)

Ok Chris, and please correct me if I'm wrong and remember I'm stuck between a Baptist and a Presbyterian mindset.

I think the PCA holds to a strict subscriptionism but the OPC will allow an elder to disagree with the WCF is he or she (I'm joking) can show good and necessary consequence for the disagreement. Because of that the OPC is seen by some as a bunch of liberals. I say NI should be included in SS but it disallows for a strict subcritionism.

Also, don't our differences on Baptism and RWP stem, not from a lack of devotion to the Word, but from our different inferences? Forgive me if I've wrongly generalized what I think I've seen in the PCA and OPC.


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 10, 2005)

Another question Scott, isn't NI dependent on our rules of hemeneutics and at times even the editorial fashion of compiling texts and lexicons for the particular period of time.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> Another question Scott, isn't NI dependent on our rules of hemeneutics and at times even the editorial fashion of compiling texts and lexicons for the particular period of time.



Bob,
I don't know that It is my goal to take this discussion to the next level yet as you are doing; which is fine, don't misunderstand me. I simply was inquiring of the idea that can one reject NI and still hold to those items that are derived by inference in the scriptures, i.e. the trinity. Would that not be inconsistant?

Example: "I don't see the word "movies" in scripture, hence, all movies are ok.


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 10, 2005)

Sorry Scott, your question got my mind racing down all kinds of mysterious side streets. Yes, for sure there is an inconsistency in not including NI in the SS package.

But, what are the mechanics of NI? NI is not inspired so we must view the doctrines we arrive at as sub-standard to Scripture.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> Sorry Scott, your question got my mind racing down all kinds of mysterious side streets. Yes, for sure there is an inconsistency in not including NI in the SS package.
> 
> But, what are the mechanics of NI? NI is not inspired so we must view the doctrines we arrive at as sub-standard to Scripture.



I don't know if I would say the mechanics are sub-standard. I guess that has alot to do w/ a couple of things:

1) Gods Spirit

1Co 2:14 But a natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 
1Co 2:15 But the spiritual one discerns all things, but he is discerned by no one. 
1Co 2:16 For "who has known the mind of the Lord?" "Who will teach Him?" But we have the mind of Christ. Isa. 40:13

2) Hermeneutics

3) History
a) presuppositions


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 10, 2005)

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. I:



> VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, *or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture:* unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]
> 
> VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 10, 2005)

Andrew,
Do you not agree with my premise; If one rejects necessary inference, to remain consistant, they must abandon all items derived by this discipline?

In regards to what the WCF states: Is there a standard? Where does the PCA draw the line?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > Perhaps it may contradict Solo Scriptura, but to think it contradicts Sola Scriptura is a misunderstanding of what that really is.
> ...



No, I've _never_ tried to even imply that it contradicts _Sola Scriptura_ in any way, but have been agreeing with you from the beginning that it is in fact a necessary part of it, and that without it one could not do systematic theology. What it may contradict is _Solo_ Scriptura, which is the "me and my Bible, absolutely nothing else for any reference" mindset.



> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> I think the PCA holds to a strict subscriptionism but the OPC will allow an elder to disagree with the WCF is he or she (I'm joking) can show good and necessary consequence for the disagreement. Because of that the OPC is seen by some as a bunch of liberals. I say NI should be included in SS but it disallows for a strict subcritionism.



Unfortunately, that is at least just as true in the PCA as in the OPC. There are very few, small denominations today who hold to a strict subscriptionism.



> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> Also, don't our differences on Baptism and RWP stem, not from a lack of devotion to the Word, but from our different inferences? Forgive me if I've wrongly generalized what I think I've seen in the PCA and OPC.



As Scott said above, the differences arise from various hermeneutical issues, one of which indeed often is a difference in inference.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 10, 2005)

Chris, 
Sorry. The brain went into auto pilot. I see now that you said "solo" scriptura.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Andrew,
> Do you not agree with my premise; If one rejects necessary inference, to remain consistant, they must abandon all items derived by this discipline?
> 
> In regards to what the WCF states: Is there a standard? Where does the PCA draw the line?



I agree with your premise Scott. If one tosses out "good and necessary consequence," then one is left with fundamentalistic "Solo Scriptura" as Chris has noted, which overthrows systematic theology and leads to all sorts of erroneous conclusions and intepretations. 

I don't think the WCF tries to _define_ "good and necessary inference" in all situations, nor could it, but we see it _applied_ in its treatment of all the doctrines it addresses, as well as in the exposition of the ten commandments, for example, in the catechisms. 

I don't know where the PCA draws the line. I'm not sure that the PCA itself knows where to draw the line.


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 10, 2005)

Here is how I have taught the way we hold to our system of beliefs.

We have a continuum that runs from Scripture to doctrines to principles to convictions.
Scripture is the rule for all truth, it is unchangeable. From Scripture, by good and necessary consequence we arrive at our doctrines. Doctrines are not Scripture, they are solidly based on scripture and can be changed but only with great study, fear and trembling. From our doctrines we form our life principles - the big ideas that we base our living on. We hear some good preaching and it may change a principle but not too quickly. We test the new principle against doctrine based on scripture.

Our principles help us to form our convictions. If Scripture is a rock then our convictions are sand. They are important in that they are based on the previous 3 levels of truth but they can and should change fairly easy.

So we need to remember that in this progression, we go from unchangeable to ever changing. We will find it hard to coerce others to follow our convictions but we must require that all recognize the immutable quality of Scripture.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 10, 2005)

Bob,
I'm not trying to go round & round here, but you said:


> but we must require that all recognize the immutable quality of Scripture.



What would you say to someone who says that you are abandoning this premise by utilizing Good and Neccessary Inference?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> But, what are the mechanics of NI? NI is not inspired so we must view the doctrines we arrive at as sub-standard to Scripture.



The problem with that statement is that to even arrive at the very doctrines of the inspiration of the New Testament canon and Sola Scriptura after beginning with Jesus as the starting point requires such inference.

EDIT: To clarify, I am not disagreeing that we must view our body of systematics and doctrine as being on a lesser level than Scripture itself. But what you seemed to be saying above was that NI is a lesser means to arrive at such doctrine than is simple obervation of individual Scriptures, and that is what the first part of my post was addressing. Sorry if that's not what you were implying.

[Edited on 10-2-2005 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> ...



That's right. And you can add the doctrine of the Trinity to the list as well. It is never explicitly stated, but only (properly) inferred. But it is a fundamental tenet of Christianity nevertheless.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 10, 2005)

Chris, Andrew and Bob: That is my point.

Thank you


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 10, 2005)

Regarding G&NC (NI), doesn't the regula fide come into play?

Bob,

The PCA is not a strict subscriptionist denomination. For TE's they have what is termed "good faith" subscription. The OPC is considered more of a strict subscriptionist denomination, but does allow exceptions depending upon the nature of the exception.


----------



## Sancta-fixation (Feb 10, 2005)

Perhaps I am not understanding all of your arguments, but even those who practice SOLO scriptura still infer a life-style from the text. One might as well have doctrines.They are still basing thier lives upon thier inferences about God from the text.

I am more than likely restating what was said above, but it is impossible to read a text with out inference.

[Edited on 10-2-2005 by Sancta-fixation]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 10, 2005)

I believe that it is true that those who practice solo scriptura (great term, Chris) do indeed overlay their own interpretation upon Biblical texts, though they likely won't admit it. No one comes to the Scriptures without presuppositions. That's why it's important to remember the old adage, "A text without a context is merely a pretext."


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 10, 2005)

I didn't come up with the term, though - I first heard it in Matt's article on Sola Scriptura.

That last sentence is neat, I'll have to remember it!


----------



## JohnV (Feb 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> Do you not agree that if one denies NI that the thelogical system falls apart? Do you see NI as an reproach to SS; does not the idea contradict the term SS?



I agree whole-heartedly, Scott. Here's why:

The key word, it seems to me, is 'necessary'. I know, I know, I've thrown that word out there so many time lately. There's 'good' inference, and then there's 'necessary' inference. As I see it, it has to be an inescapable inference. Such as the doctrine of the Trinity: there is one God; and He is portrayed in three separate persons. These are revealed as truths, and therefore are necessary, as they cannot be denied. It is 'good' that we see that this cannot be contradictory. We have to work with what is given, even if what is given does not make sense to us. So good and necessary inference shows us that God is a Trinity. The Bible doesn't say it overtly, but the 'necessary' inference is directly from the Bible. 

This is a long way from saying that, say, one of the Millennial views, or one of the apologetic views are necessary. It may be true that some of us can't see any way out of the one we are persuaded of, but that does not mean that there isn't one. We just don't have necessity from the Bible for such theories, no matter what men may say. The thing is that in such cases there may yet be something we haven't thought of as yet. But it is clear that we don't have the kind of information that makes such things 'necessary'. I argued the same thing in the Exclusive Psalmody thread. Necessity means that there is no possible other understanding of the thing in question, with the givens that have been given in Scripture. 

That is only one of the reasons why we need to see the Word of God as infallible and true in every respect. The Bible is not mine for us to glean out our own whims and fancies. Sola Scriptura means nothing if we can't use it to regulate church polity and doctrine. We just can't make out of the Bible what we want. We always have to compare our beliefs out of the Word to the witness of the invisible church throughout the ages, and continue in our study of the Word. To differ with our forefathers is a huge undertaking. The infallibility and the truth of it is basic to this. 

That's my understanding of it so far.


----------

