BIBLICAL  AUTHORITY

 Mike Johnson

  “For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.” (1 Thess. 2:13)

  WHY IS DIVINE AUTHORITY NEEDED?

“By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?” These questions were asked of Jesus in the Jerusalem temple by certain Jewish chief priests and elders (Mt. 21:23). Although not sincerely motivated, these questions bring out two vital principles. First, there is a need for authority in religion; second, it must come from one who has the right to grant it. Jesus then asked them this question (v. 25), “The baptism of John — where was it from? From heaven or from men?”  These verses establish that there are only two sources of authority: heaven and man. Therefore, it is essential to understand the need for authority in our service to God and where it resides.

Standards of authority exist in almost every realm and relationship. For example, in weights and measurements, we know sixteen ounces equals a pound, twelve inches equals a foot, and three feet equal a yard. These standards are acceptable in our country, and a great deal of confusion would exist if everyone had their own standards of weights and measurements.

Further, practically everyone is subject to some form of secular authority today. For example, many are employees and are subject to the rule of their employers. Further, we are all under the authority of our government, regardless of how we feel about it.   There is one form of authority we put ourselves under by choice and another type of authority we find ourselves subject to due to circumstances.

But where does authority rest in religion?  First, there is internal human authority. This type of authority involves people guided by their consciences, judgments, and feelings.  The second area of authority is external human authority. Examples of this type are customs, traditions, and human creeds.  The third realm is divine authority, in which God is the originator, the center is Christ, and it proclaims itself in the Bible. This third source should be our authority today.

We must realize that people need divine guidance because they cannot guide themselves to heaven. Jeremiah 10:23 says, “O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.” We need frequent reminders of this very profound statement. There is no way people can get to heaven by following their own councils. Doing so, they are doomed to failure.

Also, authority, which originates with man, causes strife and division; it produces denominationalism instead of the “one church” we can read about in the Scriptures.  Proverbs 14:12 says, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.”   Even good people will differ; therefore, we need divine authority.

In John 17:17-21, Jesus prayed for unity among his followers.  Paul, an inspired writer, told the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:10) there should be no divisions among them, and they should be “. . . perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”  How can this unity ever be achieved if we follow various man-made standards?  Following the one uniform standard of God’s Word is the only possible way to be united as Christ desires.

In the Old Testament, our life here on earth is compared to a journey. When Pharaoh asked Jacob how old he was, Jacob referred to his life as a pilgrimage (or sojourning — NASB). Today, we are on a journey to heaven; thus, we must follow God’s divine “road map” to get there (James 1:21). Nothing anyone can come up with will take the place of the Scriptures to show us the way.  Without God’s guidance, we are helpless and doomed to failure.  Consider now three realms of divine authority.

THE AUTHORITY OF GOD, CHRIST, & THE APOSTLES

 The Authority of God

Authority can be either inherent or delegated. The word “inherent” means “intrinsic.” According to the dictionary, it exists “in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality, characteristic, or right.” Thus, it is an indwelling essence or characteristic. On the other hand, Delegated authority is authority given or appointed to or by another. God possesses His dominion inherently or, as it might be said, intrinsically. Since this is the case, God received His power from no one; it did not come to be. God has His authority simply BECAUSE OF WHO HE IS.

Consider three reasons why God inherently has authority.

1. He is the Creator of the universe. Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”  Thus, the Creator does not need to obtain His rights from what He has created.
2. God is the owner of all things. Psalm 50:10-12 says, “For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the mountains, and the wild beasts of the field are Mine . . . . For the world is Mine, and all its fullness.” 
3. God is the sustainer of all (note Acts 17:25-28). We need God — He does not need us.

Sometimes a person will ask, “Who gave God the right to tell people what to do?” The person who asks this question does not understand the inherent nature of God’s authority. As we have seen, no one gave God His power. Further, no one can deny Him His rule. We must be willing to submit to God’s dominion. 

The Authority of Christ

God recognized the authority of Christ. At the baptism of Jesus, God said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mt. 3:17). On another occasion (at the transfiguration), God said the same thing (Mt. 17:5) but added: “hear HIM.” Christ was the one they were to hear instead of Moses and Elijah, who had appeared with Jesus on this glorious occasion. The Law of Moses was to be done away with soon (Col. 2:14). Also, according to Matthew 16:17, it was God who had revealed to Peter that Jesus was His Son, and God bore witness to His divinity (Jn. 8:18).

Consider what Jesus Himself had to say. When Jesus went to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles, he told certain Jews, “. . . “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me” (Jn. 7:16). Jesus later said, (Jn. 8:28) “. . . I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things,” and He further said, “The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works” (Jn. 14:10).

Various ones recognized the authority of Christ. Many were astonished at his doctrine and noted, in contrast to the scribes, He taught “as one having authority” (Mt. 7:28-29). In Matthew 16:16, Peter said of Him, “. . . You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Please also note John 6:68-69.) Also, the centurion, who was involved in the crucifixion of Jesus, said, after Jesus’ death, “. . .  Truly this Man was the Son of God!” (Mk. 15:39).  Further, with reverence, Thomas, seeing Jesus after his resurrection, said, “My Lord and My God” (Jn. 20:28).

The devils, or demons, also understood his authority as James 2:19 says that even they “believe and tremble.” When Jesus was in the country of the Gergesenes (Mt. 8:29), demons, who had possessed two people, cried out to Jesus, “. . . Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?”

Various other passages speak of the authority of Jesus. After Jesus’ resurrection, but before his ascension, He said, in sending the apostles out to teach God’s Word, that all power, or authority, was given to Him in heaven and on earth (Mt. 28:18-20). The Bible also teaches that Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18). His headship of the church certainly carries with it authority. Hebrews 1:1-2 further reveals that God had spoken unto the fathers by the prophets, but then says that He “. . . has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds.” In another passage, we learn that God told Moses he would raise a prophet (Deut. 18:18). Peter quoted these words in a sermon in Acts 3 and applied them to Christ. Peter said ( v. 22), “For Moses truly said to the fathers, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you.”

Understanding the authority of Christ is essential, and we must be subject to it.

The Authority of the Apostles

Many acknowledge the authority of God and Christ but do not accept or understand the Apostles’ authority.

Some people today say we only need the words of Jesus to guide us. Some who take this position place a great deal of emphasis on the “red-letter” edition of the Bible—a version in which all of the words of Christ are in red.  They might say, “If it isn’t in red, I don’t accept it.”  Christ has authority (Mt. 28:18, 17:1-8), but we must understand the authority, which also resides with the apostles.  Jesus always taught the truth, but He did not teach all of the truth during His ministry.  We need the words of Jesus, but we also need the teaching of the apostles and other inspired teachers.

During Jesus’ ministry, He told the apostles that after He left, God would send the Holy Spirit, who would teach them all things and bring to their remembrance all things He had taught them (Jn.14:26, 28).  In John 15:26, He said, “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.”  Jesus said (Jn. 16:13) that when He left, He would send the Comforter (or Holy Spirit) and informed them, “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.” Before Jesus ascended to heaven, He also gave the Great Commission, in which He told the apostles to go and preach the gospel to all nations (Mt. 28:18-20, Mk. 16:15-16).  He also told them to wait at Jerusalem, and they would be endued with “power from on high” (Lk. 24:49).  Christ revealed that He would send the promise of His father upon them (Luke 24:49-52).  This promise was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, a short time later (Acts 2), when the apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and preached the first gospel sermon.

Jesus also told the apostles that they would receive the “keys” to the kingdom of heaven. After speaking of building the church, Jesus said to Peter (Mt. 16:19), “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Later, in Matthew 18:18, he said the same thing to all of the apostles. A key is symbolic of authority. The apostles would have the authority to “bind” and “loose.” They did not have legislative power but had the authority to carry out heaven’s decisions, guided by the Holy Spirit. They announced heaven’s will to everyone.

In 2 Corinthians 5:20, Paul referred to himself and the other apostles as “ambassadors for Christ.” The word ambassador means “one entrusted with a message from one sovereign to another.” This office entails great respect. An ambassador carries on the business of the sovereign in the way he would if present. Thus, the apostles functioned as representatives of Christ to all people. It was the same as God pleading with the Corinthians through them, and the purpose of their work was so that people might have reconciliation with God (v. 20b). Thus, the apostles spoke for Christ.

In Ephesians 6:20, while in Roman imprisonment, Paul referred to himself as an “ambassador in chains.” He was an ambassador, but it is interesting to note that he, as an ambassador, had been imprisoned. For the Romans to treat Paul this way was to insult the great king he served.

The apostles were representatives of God and Christ. There were, consequently, severe repercussions to rejecting their message. In John 13:20, Jesus told the apostles, “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.”

In Matthew 19, the apostles witnessed the rich young ruler refusing to sell everything he had. This situation prompted Peter to say, “. . .  See, we have left all and followed You.  Therefore what shall we have?” Jesus told them, “. . . Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”  Jesus has ascended to heaven to His throne and will be seated there on the Day of Judgment (Acts 2:31-35; Heb. 1:13; Mt. 25:31; 1 Cor. 15:24-28). The regeneration period started after the ascension on Pentecost (Acts 2) when the apostles preached the gospel, and it will continue until the end of time. The twelve thrones and twelve tribes are not literal. The twelve tribes sustain no literal relationship with the apostles. Jesus uses the figure to refer to the true Israel, the church (Rom. 9:6, Gal. 3:29). The apostles are our judges as, guided by the Holy Spirit, they revealed the mind of Christ to everyone. They told us what “truth” was on matters of faith and practice. They judged in person in their lifetime; now, we have their written communication (the Bible), so they still judge us in this sense, as God’s Word is our standard.

After the church’s establishment, we learn it was the apostle’s doctrine (Acts 2:42), not Moses’s teaching, which the early church continued.  Paul said, in Philippians 4:9, “The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you.”

In conclusion, God and Christ serve as our authorities. However, we must also recognize the apostles’ role as our authority.

                           OBEDIENCE AND THE OLD TESTAMENT              

Many passages in the Old Testament emphasize a basic principle—we must obey God!  They make it clear that we are to follow God’s instructions and not deviate from them in any way.

An example of this is Deuteronomy 4. Earlier, Moses had addressed the people and surveyed the events in their history, showing what God had done for them. In this chapter, he admonishes Israel concerning what they should do as subjects of God.

Verse 1 says, “Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers is giving you.”  Israel needed to both listen to and obey God’s Words. Many today are interested in religion and might even like to hear a good sermon occasionally, but they have no desire to obey God. It is not enough to just listen to teaching from the Word of God — we must also be willing to obey God’s commandments. (In the New Testament, James 1:22 says, “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.”)

Verse 2 says, “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”.  This verse is like a New Testament passage (Rev. 22:18-19), saying we should not add to or take away from God’s Word.  Verse 3 gives an example where they had disobeyed the Lord, which resulted in many receiving punishment, and then says, “But you who held fast to the Lord your God are alive today, every one of you.” The Pulpit commentary points out that the word used here “is expressive of the closest, most intimate attachment and communion,” and it is “frequently used of devotion to the service and worship of the true God.” (p. 58)  Verse 6 points out that we must “observe,” or keep, God’s commandments. Thus, the law did not exist merely for their information, but God expected them to obey it.

In Deuteronomy 5:32-33, Moses pointed out to the people the importance of strictly obeying God’s commandments. It says, “Therefore you shall be careful to do as the Lord your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. You shall walk in all the ways which the Lord your God has commanded you, that you may live and that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days in the land which you shall possess.” Moses pictured God’s Word as a highway from which one could not deviate in any direction.

After Moses died, Joshua became the new leader of the people. He also pointed out the importance of obeying God’s Word. Israel was now on the verge of entering the land God had promised them. So Joshua told them (Josh. 1:7), “Only be strong and very courageous, that you may observe to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may prosper wherever you go.”

In Numbers 22, Israel was about to battle Moab. Israel had been very successful militarily, and Balak, the king of Moab, feared them. As a result, he tried to get Balaam to prophesy against Israel. Balaam was greedy (Jude 11) and wanted to prophesy against Israel for the rewards offered. Nevertheless, Balaam stated it correctly when he said to the servants of Balak (22:18), “. . . Though Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not go beyond the word of the Lord my God, to do less or more.” He said later (24:13), ‘If Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not go beyond the word of the Lord, to do good or bad of my own will. What the Lord says, that I must speak’?” We need to have that same attitude today toward the Word of God.

Consider a few other passages emphasizing the need to adhere strictly to God’s Word. Proverbs 4:26-27 says, “Ponder the path of your feet, and let all your ways be established. Do not turn to the right or the left; remove your foot from evil.” Proverbs 30:5-6 says, “Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.” In Leviticus 18:4-5, God told Moses to tell the people, “You shall observe My judgments and keep My ordinances, to walk in them: I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the Lord.”

Today we are no longer under the Old Testament. However, the Old Testament is for our learning today (Rom. 15:7, 1 Cor. 10:11). God required respect for His Word under the Law of Moses, and various passages, as we will see in the New Testament, make it clear that we must respect it today. What is your attitude toward God’s instructions?

THE NEW TESTAMENT:  GOD’S MESSAGE

The Scriptures teach the authority of God, Christ, and the apostles (Ps. 50:10-12; Heb. 1:1-2; Mt. 16:19, 17:5, 18:18; 2 Cor. 5:20; Phil. 4:9).   Also, the Holy Spirit played a role as He guided the apostles “unto all truth.”  Consider now the authority of the New Testament, which is our guide today.

God gave the apostles the authority and responsibility to reveal God’s Will to everyone (Mt. 18:18; Jn. 16:8).  However, the apostles eventually died.  What then is our guide today?  Our guide is to be the inspired Word of God — the Bible.

Consider the teaching of Paul in Ephesians 3:3-5.  This passage says, “How that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets.” God revealed this “mystery” to Paul, an inspired writer, who wrote it down so people can read and understand it.  This message is a “mystery” in the sense that previously, God had not revealed it.  Paul, and other inspired individuals, guided by the Holy Spirit, made God’s mind known to man.

1 Corinthians 2:12-13 says, “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”  The NASB renders the last part, “combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.”

In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul wrote, “For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.”  Negatively, he states they had not received his preaching “as the word of men”; positively, they had received it as the “Word of God.”  Paul was thankful they had accepted him as an inspired teacher of God’s Word.

There are other passages in 1 Thessalonians where Paul points out that his message was from God. For example, in chapter 4, he revealed that the commandments taught were “through the Lord Jesus,” and the person who rejects their teaching “does not reject man, but God who has also given us his Holy Spirit” (vs. 2, 3, 8).  Later, when instructing them about the second coming of Christ (4:15), Paul said, “For this we say to you by the word of the Lord . . . .” Finally, in 1 Corinthians 14:37, Paul stated, “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.”

The Bible is the inspired Will of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17).  It is the “oracles of God” (2 Pet. 1:3); it is the final revelation for us (Jude 3); it is all that we need (Jas. 1:25); it will save us eternally (Rom. 1:16, James 1:21) if we obey it (James 1:22).

Paul, and other inspired people, revealed God’s commandments through the written word.

Adhering to the Gospel Message

From the Old Testament, it is clear that God intends for the Scriptures to be followed and not deviated from in any way (Deut 4:1-4, 5:32-33; Josh. 1:7; Num. 22:18, 24:13; Pb. 4:26-27, 30:5-6; Lev. 18:4-5). Consider now the same concept from the New Testament.

Jude (v. 3) told the early Christians they should “. . .  contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” The meaning of the Greek word here means to fight or to contend strenuously in defense of, in this case, “the faith.”  Vine defines it as “to contend about a thing, as a combatant . . . to contend earnestly.” The word “faith” used here, which we are to contend earnestly for, is used in the objective sense.  It refers to the system of faith, i.e., the sum of all that we are to obey and believe (note also Acts 6:7, 1 Tim. 4:1, Phil. 1:27). Thus, we are to stand firmly on God’s Word; we are to defend the truth against attacks from false teachers, and obviously, we are to adhere to it ourselves. How do we do that? Do we accomplish this by teaching that people can believe anything they want or add to and take away from God’s Word? No, we obey Jude 3 by demanding of others and ourselves the necessity of following the New Testament pattern. We observe it by requiring Bible authority for everything we believe and practice.

In Galatians 1, Paul said he marveled that the Galatians were so “soon removed” unto “another gospel.” He also pointed out that some had troubled them and had “perverted” the gospel of Christ. Then (v. 8), he warned them, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” The word translated “accursed” (NKJV) is the Greek word “anathema.” It is a word that involves delivering to divine wrath or destruction. So if the apostles, an angel, or “any man” (v. 9) preached a different gospel, Paul said, “Let him be accursed” (or anathema). There is only one gospel, and we cannot change it. Authority from God’s Word is essential for any belief or practice — we have no right to pervert the teaching of God’s Word.

Consider another warning found in 2 John 9-11. These verses say, “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house, nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.” It is very clear from these verses that we stand condemned if we teach or practice anything contrary to God’s Will. If we transgress and do not abide in Christ’s doctrine (or teaching), simply put, “we do not have God.” If we do “abide in” the doctrine of Christ, then we do have God. We also stand condemned if we “greet” a false teacher (“bid him God speed” KJV). We should not do anything to encourage false teachers or make it seem like we endorse them. People who teach and practice false doctrine do not abide in the doctrine of Christ, and they do not have God.

Revelation 22:18-19 says, “For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”  The writer has a specific reference to the book of Revelation in these two verses. Would this principle apply only to the Revelation? Can we “add to” or “take away from” other books of the Bible? We certainly cannot! If we are not allowed to “add to” or “take away from” one book of the Bible, then obviously we cannot “add to” or “take away from” any book of the Bible, especially in light of the teaching of such passages as Galatians 1:6-10, Jude 3, and 2 John 9.

Consider the following example. The Bible teaches that the Lord’s Supper consists of unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. Thus, to add potatoes as an element of the Lord’s Supper would be wrong as that would be adding to God’s Word; to take away the fruit of the vine from the Lord’s Supper and to have only the unleavened bread would be wrong as that would be “taking away from” the Scriptures.

How much can we “add to” or “take away from” God’s Word and still be acceptable to God? Is practicing just a “little” error, OK? 1 Peter 4:11 reveals, “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified.”

The Bible also teaches that the Word of God will be the standard by which Christ will judge us when He returns (Jn. 12:48). Christ will judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:30-31), and we will be judged according to our deeds (2 Cor. 5:10, Rom. 2:6). The facts should motivate us to abide by the teaching of God’s Word.

Various passages show us that God’s Word must be our authority today. Therefore, we must have authority for all we believe, teach, and practice — it is imperative to abide in (adhere to) the teaching of God’s Word.

DIRECT COMMAND

How do we establish Bible authority?  It seems clear from the Scriptures that God intends for us to determine biblical authority in four ways.  These are direct command, direct statement, approved apostolic example, and necessary inference.  (Sometimes, direct command and direct statement are combined.)  A broader classification of these forms of authority is: direct (command or statement) and indirect (approved apostolic example and necessary inference). In this study, we will consider the Direct Command.

The basic definition of the word command is “to give directions or orders authoritatively.” Commands can be either positive or negative. For example, it may be “Do this” or “Don’t do that.” The Ten Commandments found in Exodus 20 illustrate this principle. Of the Ten Commandments, eight are negative (Thou shalt not), and two are positive (Thou shalt).

We must understand that not every command in the Scriptures applies today. Consider a few Old Testament examples. For instance, God told Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:16-17) that they were not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He intended this command to be only for them and no one else. While there are lessons to learn from this commandment, it does not apply to us in its details. Another example involves God commanding Noah to build an ark out of gopher wood (Gen. 6:14). Again, it is clear that He gave this command to Noah and his family only. However, there are principles for us to learn from this, such as each person is obligated to obey God. However, the specific details of this command do not apply to us today. Today, a person who goes out and builds an ark out of gopher wood would not be performing an act of obedience before God. Also, notice Genesis 22:1-2, where God commanded Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice. Again, this commandment was for Abraham only. There is no indication that this commandment was for any other person who lived in the same dispensation as Abraham did. It certainly would not apply to us today.

There are also direct commands in the New Testament that would not apply today. For example, 1 Corinthians 14:1 says, “Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophecy” (NASB). In general, the early Christians were to desire spiritual gifts, but more specifically, they were to desire to prophesy. Paul wrote in verse 39, “Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues” (NASB). Should Christians desire the spiritual gift of “prophecy” today? Is this a commandment for today? It is not as God intended spiritual gifts to exist for a limited time. Spiritual gifts were for when there was no complete revelation, and they were to confirm God’s Word. (Heb. 2:1-4, I Cor. 13, Acts 8:1-25, James 1:25). Today, we have a complete revelation, and God’s Word has already been confirmed.

When determining whether a command or specific statement applies today, we must consider three areas. First, we look at the immediate context (the material immediately before and after the specific statement or command). Then we look at the remote context (all relevant to the specific statement or command found in the rest of the Bible, other than the specific statement and the immediate context). Finally, we can determine the proper application of a particular statement or command by taking the total context (the specific statement itself, the immediate context, and the remote context).

Consider now some examples of commandments that are applicable today. In Mark 16:15, Jesus said to the apostles, “. . . Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” Someone might point out that Christ addresses the apostles, and this command is not for us today. We know, however, from the remote context (Mt. 28:18-20) that the commandment to “go and teach” is part of what the apostles were taught, and Jesus told them to teach others “all things” they were taught. The command to “go and teach” is certainly for people today. Acts 2:38 contains another direct command. This verse gives two commandments (repentance and baptism) as necessary for “the remission of sins.” The Bible commands wives to submit to their own husbands “as unto the Lord” (Eph. 5:23), and husbands are to love their wives (Eph. 5: 25). It also says we are not to lie to one another (Col. 3:9), not steal (Eph. 4: 28), pray without ceasing (1 Thess. 5: 17), give as prospered on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16: 1-2), and repent (Acts 17: 30). The Bible also tells us to partake of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11: 23-24) and assemble with the saints (Heb. 10: 25). There are many other examples of direct commands found in God’s Word. It is clear that these commands pertain to the dispensation we live under today; they are a part of the “perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25), the law of Christ, which is for us.

A direct command should be the easiest of the forms of authority to understand. Yet, some will teach the opposite of what the direct command states (note Acts 2: 38). Many years ago, Satan sought to “get around” God’s commandment to Adam and Eve about not eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and evil by telling them they would not die if they violated God’s commandment (as God said they would). Many today insult God by doing the opposite of what He commands and encouraging others to do the same. We need to obey what God’s Word commands.

DIRECT STATEMENT

The Bible teaches direct command is one form of Bible authority. (Others are approved examples and necessary inferences). However, other kinds of statements do not occur in the command form but still serve as our guide. They have the same force of authority as a direct command. Consider the various types of statements that serve as our authority today.

Declarative Statements

A declarative statement is one “which states that something is or is not the case, that a particular object has a certain property or that it does not have that property, or that a certain state of affairs exists or does not exist.”

For example, a restaurant owner trying to sell a large number of rib-eye steaks might say to his servers, “Whoever can get at least 100 people to order the rib-eye steak during the next week will receive a bonus of $50.00.” The owner does not give a command, but he makes it clear that a specific achievement (selling one hundred steaks) is essential to gaining a particular blessing (the fifty dollars).

A college administrator might tell incoming first-year students, “To receive the Bachelor of Arts degree from this college, you must complete at least one hundred and thirty semester hours of classwork with a grade point average of 2.5.” In the strictest sense, the administrator has not given a command. Yet, he makes two achievements essential to getting a B.A. degree from the college. Thus, his statement would have the force of a command — at least for the student interested in graduating.

Consider a few Biblical examples of declarative statements:

• Mark 16:16 says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” This passage makes a declarative statement and does not contain a direct command. (A direct command is in verse 15.) Although verse 16 is not a command, it has the same force as a command; it implies an obligation for those who want salvation—belief and baptism.
• Matthew 7:21 says, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.” Again, this verse is not a direct command but has the same force as a direct command. It tells us what people must do to “enter into the kingdom of heaven,” revealing an obligation for everyone.
• 1 John 1:7 points out, “But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.” Although not in the form of a direct command, this verse demands that we walk in the light just as much as if commanded.
• Matthew 5:1-12 – The beatitudes are also simple declarations, but the obligation is clear for us to be poor in spirit, meek, and to hunger and thirst after righteousness, etc. If we want to receive the blessings associated with each, we must be as Jesus said.

The Interrogative

Another type of direct statement is the interrogative. An interrogative statement asks a question. We ask some questions to gain information and some to give information. For example, on the road to Damascus, Saul said, “Who art thou Lord?” Saul asked this question to gain information. Consider now some examples of interrogatives designed to give information.

• 1 Kings 18:21– Here Elijah said to the people, “. . . How long will you falter between two opinions?” Elijah was not asking this question to gain information; he asked it to give information. By this question, he demanded that the straddlers take a position.
• Acts 22:16 – Ananias asked Saul, after his experience on the road to Damascus, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Ananias was not asking for information, but he demanded that Saul not wait any longer to obey the gospel.
• 1 Corinthians 1:13 – Paul asked, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” By asking this series of rhetorical questions, Paul is giving the information that Christ is not divided, Paul had not been crucified for them, and they had not been baptized in the name of Paul. This section of Scripture teaches that followers of Christ should strive for unity, and no one has the right to call himself after anyone who has not been crucified for him or into whose name he has not been baptized (v. 12)
• Acts 10:47 – In connection with the conversion of Cornelius, Peter asked, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” Peter was not asking for information, but he gave it. Thus, he showed that Cornelius and his family (Gentiles) were proper subjects for baptism, just as penitent believers among the Jews. Peter did not issue this command, “You Gentiles must be baptized in water just as the Jews must” Instead, he asked the above question, which would have the same effect as if he had commanded it.

There are some actions authorized by more than one kind of statement. The Bible, for example, teaches baptism to be essential by direct command or an imperative (Acts 2:38), a declarative statement (Mk. 16:16), and by an interrogative or question (Rom. 6:3). Likewise,  the Scriptures show love for the brethren to be essential by a command (Heb. 13:1), a declarative statement (1 Jn. 3:14), and an interrogative or question (I Jn. 3:17).

The Hortatory Statement

Another type of statement is the hortatory statement. This statement expresses a strong wish or desire and imposes binding obligations on people.  Consider Romans 5:20-6:2. A false position in Paul’s day seems to be that grace is good; where sin abounds, grace abounds; thus, one may continue in sin. Verse one of chapter 6 says, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” He answered this with the hortatory statement, “Certainly not!” He says, “Oh, that such would never come to pass!” Through a hortatory statement, Paul sets forth a prohibition condemning the position of continuing in sin that grace may abound. Other examples of this type of statement are Romans 6:15 and Romans 7:13.

The Conditional Statement

The final type of declarative statement for consideration is the conditional statement, which some call an “if/then” statement. There is the condition and the consequence. The conditional statement expresses the object, or state of affairs, gained if the requirements of the terms are met.

In 1 Corinthians 15:12-20, there are a number of these “conditional” statements. The main point is “if there is no resurrection of the dead (the condition), then Christ was not raised from the dead” (the consequence). Paul also states in these verses many consequences, which would be the case if Christ were not raised from the dead.

The next example is Romans 7:2-3: “For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.” If a wife is married to another man while her husband is alive (then), she would be an adulteress. (The exception to this is in Matthew 5:32, 19:9.) However, if her husband dies and she marries another man, she would not be an adulteress. Other examples of conditional statements are in Romans 8:12-13 and Romans 8:17.

Direct statements from God’s Word govern us today. The type of statement is one of the forms of Bible authority. Do you give heed to the statements of God’s Word? Do you use them for your authority?

APPROVED EXAMPLE

What should be our attitude toward the concept of “example” as an acceptable form of Bible authority? There are three possible attitudes one might have. First, a person might say that all examples are binding. However, this attitude is unlikely, and, as we will see later, this would be a ridiculous position. A second attitude one might have is that no examples are binding today. Some take this position, saying only direct statements and commands guide us. The third position, which is the correct one, is that some examples are binding, and others are incidental. Thus, in addition to appealing to the direct statement or command and necessary inference, we rely on an “approved example,” also known as a “divinely approved example” or “accounts of action.”

Defined

Consider some definitions of the approved example by some brethren who have written on this subject.

• “By this, we mean the practice of the people of God in the New Testament under the guidance of the apostles” (Ferrell Jenkins, Biblical Authority).
• “An example is a recorded instance of a direct order (command or statement) being executed” (Gene Frost, Gospel Anchor).
• “A description of the conduct or activity of people in the Bible, primarily New Testament disciples, that act as a pattern that we may imitate or avoid” (Maurice Barnett, Understanding Authority).

The approved example describes what someone did; it teaches by “show” rather than “tell.”

Are All Examples Binding?

God never intended for every example to be binding on us today. If every case is binding, we would have to:

1. travel by ship to preach the gospel since Paul did,
2. have all things commonbecause the early Jerusalem church did (Acts 1:44-45, 4:32,34-35),
3. assemble daily(Acts 2:46-47),
4. always partake of the Lord’s Supper in an upper room(Lk. 22:12, Acts 20:7-11),
5. have the same person give thanks for the bread and fruit of the vine in taking the Lord’s Supper(Mt. 26:26-29; Mk. 14:22-25).

This list could go on and on.

It is also essential to remember that the New Testament is full of examples of sinful actions and incidents that are a part of the historical narratives and have no bearing on our service to God.

To determine when an example is binding, one must look at the specific statement, the immediate context, and its remote context (i.e., what the rest of the Bible says about it). Also, there are specific logical rules which would need consideration.

One must determine whether an example is binding. We probably already do this as we make the same determination for each direct statement or command.

Old Testament Examples

It is essential to understand that the old law is not in effect today. It was specifically for the Jews (Deut. 5:1-3), and it could not take away sin (Heb. 9:11-12; 10:3-4). When Jesus died, the old law was taken away (Col. 2:14-17). Yet, it is clear that we learn from the examples of the Old Testament. According to Romans 15:4, the old law is for our learning today.

Many New Testament passages refer to people in the Old Testament as examples. In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul discussed the children of Israel in the wilderness. In verse 7, he urged the Corinthians to learn from this Old Testament example stating, “And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, ‘The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.’” In verse 11, he said, “Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” Hebrews 11 calls attention to the faith of various people from the Old Testament. The writer brings up these examples to learn from (12:1). This chapter teaches the importance of faith, and that obedient faith is necessary to please God. In Luke 17:32, Jesus said, “Remember Lot’s wife.” Her example teaches the importance of obeying God.   2 Peter 2:4-11 mentions various ones from the Old Testament who were wicked and received punishment. If God did not spare these people who sinned, He would not save us either.

How do we learn from the Old Testament? The specific details of Old Testament examples are not binding, but the principles involved are. For example, the fact that people offered animal sacrifices under the old covenant would not require us to do so today.

Today, Christians still learn from the Old Testament. Consider various Old Testament characters and events. From the story of Cain and Able, we understand that it does matter how we worship God. We do not learn from Noah to build an ark today, but we realize that God will punish people when they sin. God told Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice (Gen. 22:1-18). From this case, we determine that it is crucial to have faith in God and to obey Him. However, we would not follow Abraham’s example by offering our children as sacrifices.

We also learn principles about God from the Old Testament. We know, for example, that God is omniscient (has all knowledge) and omnipotent (all-powerful). We also learn of His love, wisdom, mercy, and wrath.

New Testament Passages

The New Testament tells us to follow Christ’s example. 1 Peter 2:21 says, “For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps.” In the context of this passage, Christ is our example in how He dealt with mistreatment, but Christ, generally, is to be our example.

Paul, an apostle, said in 1 Corinthians (4:16), “Therefore I urge you, imitate me.” He also told the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:1) to “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.” Another significant passage in Paul’s writings is Philippians 4:9, where Paul wrote, “The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you.” Thus, not only were they to follow what they had learned, received, and heard, but the Philippians were also to follow what they had seen in him. They were to “put it into practice,” as the NIV puts it. On other occasions, Paul spoke of following his example (1 Th. 4:6; 2 Th. 3:7; Acts 20:35).

Consider some areas where an “approved example” can be applied. On what day are we to take the Lord’s Supper? “Sunday,” someone might respond. How do we know this? We know it by “approved example.” In Acts 20, we learn that Paul and his companions came to Troas, and they stayed until the first day of the week and then took the Lord’s Supper. Verse 7 says, “Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.” Paul, an Apostle, was present; they took of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week; there is no example, or any other authority, for taking of it on any other day. Thus, the day we are to take the Lord’s Supper is established by an “approved example.” In Acts 14:23, after having started churches in various places, we learn that Paul and Barnabas revisited them and appointed elders in every church. By this example, we understand that there must be “elders” in every church, and we learn that there must be a plurality of elders in each congregation. We also learn by example that “water” is the element to use in the baptism of the Great Commission. The Bible teaches that baptism is a “burial” (Rom. 6:4, Col. 2:12), but many elements may be used to “bury” something. An examination of the conversion of the Ethiopian (Acts 8:36-39) along with Cornelius and his family (Acts 10) provides an example of water as the element of baptism. There are no examples in the Scriptures of the use of anything else.

When Is an Example Binding?

We have already noted that not every example is binding on us today. Some cases are limited, and we must consider generic and specific authority.

Consider some essential rules that can help us understand an example’s proper application. There is no list of these rules in the Scriptures; the Bible does not explicitly say which examples are binding and which are not. However, God expects us to use some logic and common sense. These concepts, as you will soon see, are apparent.

• Rule of uniformity – To be binding, all other examples of the same matter must be in complete agreement in all essential details. It is not binding if there is variation. This rule helps eliminate incidental actions. For example, Paul traveled by ship to fulfill the Great Commission of “go” and preach the gospel. Must we travel this way today to go and preach the gospel? No, we have other examples of people traveling by land. On the other hand, we have many cases of conversion coming about by the teaching and learning of God’s Word. There was no conversion without the teaching and learning of God’s Word; thus, we see uniformity demonstrated by the various examples.
• Rule of harmony –To be binding, an example must harmonize with all other teachings in the New Testament. For example, the Lord’s Supper was first instituted in an upper room (Lk. 22:12) and was taken later in an upper chamber (Acts 20:7). Must we observe the Lord’s Supper in an upper room today? The answer is “No.”  These examples are not binding since Jesus taught that the place where one worships God is not significant (Jn. 4:21-24).
• Rule of universal application – Since the gospel is for people of all generations, whatever is binding must be within the ability of everyone to perform in every generation. Today, it is impossible for all populations to ride in a chariot on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, reading the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah when they learn they need baptism (Acts 8). Likewise, it is impossible to go into Herod’s temple at the hour of prayer (Acts 3:1). An upper room would not be available in all areas of the world—preachers are not to teach that you must build a multi-structured building to please the Lord.
• Rule of materiality – For an example to be binding, it must be material and not just an incidental matter. For example, the Bible tells us to baptize.  It does not matter whether the water is running or cold, indoors or outdoors, warm or cold.  A person is still only baptizing regardless of whether the water is warm or cold.  These variations are not relevant to the action or purpose of baptism.   Further, the Bible tells us to preach, and it does not matter if it is in a home, rented building, tent, or church building.  The place has no essential relationship to the action.
• Rule of limited application – Some matters pertain to unique situations which existed at one time but do not exist now, while some issues might pertain to a custom of the time. For example, in I Corinthians 7, Paul told the Corinthians that it was better not to marry.  However, it is clear from the chapter that he spoke regarding the time frame of “present distress” (v. 26), i.e., during a unique set of circumstances.  The holy kiss, spoken of in the Scriptures, was the form of greeting employed during that time.  Today, we are to have a sincere, non-hypocritical attitude toward others.  Feet were washed as an act of kindness and hospitality due to circumstances that existed in Bible times.  The way to show hospitality may vary, but Christians are always to show hospitality.
• Rule of competence – Competent evidence must support an example. Infant baptism, for example, is sometimes defended by people based on the “household” baptisms of the New Testament (Acts 16:32-34).  Some assume that just because of the use of the word “house” or “household,” infants were baptized.  They draw the improper conclusion that all households have infants.  This conclusion to defend infant baptism would also be incorrect as they violate the rules of harmony and uniformity.  From other passages and conversion cases, it is clear that those baptized were penitent believers.

An argument is made that logic is employed to determine which examples are binding. However, we also use logic to determine which direct statements and commands apply to us today.

The approved example is a valid form of Bible authority, along with the direct statement or command and, as we shall see, necessary inference.

NECESSARY INFERENCE

Three forms of Bible authority govern us today. These are direct commands or statements, approved examples, and necessary inferences or conclusions. Most are willing to accept direct commands or statements as Bible authority. However, some may question the concept of approved examples, and a growing number challenge the use of necessary inference as an acceptable form of Bible authority. People challenge necessary inference based on it involving the use of the human mind, i.e., one needs logic to draw the conclusion and call it a “clumsy interpretative procedure.”

Understanding the Bible in the same way as any other written message is essential. As with any document, we read it, translate the words into mental images, accumulate information, and draw conclusions.

We may often use necessary inferences when interpreting the Bible without realizing it—for example, no statement in the Bible addresses, specifically us. Ananias, for instance, told Saul, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’” Yet, most would correctly infer that this command is also intended for them since people today live under the same law and since God does not show partiality (Acts 10:34).

People regularly reason by inference. It would be difficult to conduct our life without this mode of thinking. Therefore, it is absurd to think we should not use necessary inference to interpret the Scriptures.

What Is Necessary Inference?

Typically, we convey information either in an “explicit” way or in a way that is “implicit.” Explicit means there is nothing implied, as we fully state the subject. On the other hand, the term “implicit” indicates that something is not expressly stated; it is without detail, something we imply instead of directly saying. For example, if we take what we hear, put “two and two together,” and draw a conclusion, we conclude by implication. Another word for “implicit” is “inference.” An inference is simply a conclusion reached from the premises. (The premises are the two’s in the two plus two.)

More specifically, a necessary inference is one in which “we reach a conclusion because the evidence demands it.” It is a conclusion that unavoidably follows from the premises. However, a conclusion must be NECESSARILY inferred. As stated, the evidence demands the conclusion drawn! Necessary inference is not a hunch or a guess.

Consider some examples from everyday life. Suppose a person is driving down the road, passes a baseball field, and notices it is wet. He might infer that it has recently rained, but he could not necessarily assume this.  The person would be unable to conclude that it had recently rained because of the possibility that someone may have just sprayed the field with water to keep it from being dusty. On the other hand, a person might wake up one morning and see snow covering the countryside. Upon seeing this, he might necessarily infer that the temperature is, or at least has been, that which is necessary to produce snow.

Consider a few simple biblical examples. On the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), some people inferred that they were drunk after hearing the apostles speak in foreign languages (v. 13-15). Their inference was wrong. In Acts 16:15, we read of the baptism of Lydia and her “household.” Some have inferred that this serves as an example of infant baptism. People might assume this, but they cannot necessarily conclude it because all households do not have infants. Finally, John 9 records the healing of a blind man by Jesus. The healed man determined that Jesus must be a prophet (v. 17) and must be “of God” because, as he said, “Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind. If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing” (vs. 32, 33). He eventually concluded that Jesus was the son of God (v. 38). The healed man drew “necessary” inferences.

Examples in the Scriptures

To begin with, note two simple examples. First, we learn from Genesis 12:10 that Abraham and Sarah went down to Egypt. Lot was with them earlier, but the Scriptures do not tell us that he went with Abraham and Sarah to Egypt. However, Genesis 13:1 says, “Then Abram went up from Egypt, he and his wife and all that he had, and Lot with him, to the South.” It did not say that Lot went down to Egypt, but we would necessarily infer that he did since he came up out of Egypt. The second example involves Jesus’ baptism. Matthew 3:16 says, “When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water. . . .” Again, the text does not say Jesus went down into the water, but one must necessarily infer He did since He “came up immediately out of the water.”

The Sadducees were a sect who did not believe in the resurrection or consciousness after death. In Matthew 22:23-33, they questioned Jesus about the resurrection. In response, Jesus said, “. . . But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had been dead for around four hundred years when God made the above statement to Moses (Ex. 3:6, 16). When God spoke of the three who were dead, He spoke of them in the present tense. He did not say “I was” their God, but “I am” their God. Thus, God IS the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; God IS the God of the living, not the dead. The necessary inference that Jesus expected the Sadducees to draw was that the three, though physically dead, were alive as spirits.

Consider Luke 15, where the Scriptures record the parables of the lost sheep, lost coin, and lost son. The publicans and sinners had drawn near to Jesus to hear him. Meanwhile, the Pharisees and scribes complained because Christ received and ate with sinners. For Jesus to get His point across, they had to draw inferences from the three parables presented. For example, with the parable of the lost sheep, he noted that if a man had a hundred sheep and lost one, he would leave the ninety-nine, go out, and find the one lost. When found, the man would rejoice with his friends and neighbors. Those listening to Jesus should have inferred this point: “As you seek and receive a lost sheep, coin, or son, so will I seek and save a lost sinner.” Jesus does not explicitly state this, but he expected his critics to draw the necessary inference.

In Acts 10 and 11, we can read of the conversion of Cornelius and the Gentiles. Cornelius saw a vision, and an angel told him to send for Peter, who was in Joppa. In the meantime, Peter fell into a trance and saw heaven open.  Acts 10:11 says he saw “heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth.” Within were all kinds of unclean animals. Then the voice told Peter to rise and eat, but He refused to, even though the voice told him to do so two additional times. Peter was not sure of the meaning of this vision. Finally, the Spirit told him to meet and go with the people who had arrived. Peter went with them, and when he got to Caesarea, he said to Cornelius and those gathered (10:28), “…You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. . . .” God did not tell Peter this by direct statement. Still, He gave Peter the information so he would have to draw that conclusion. The vision, and the Spirit telling him to go, forced Peter to draw the inescapable conclusion that he should not call any man common or unclean! He thus went, taught the Gentiles, and they became Christians.

Hebrews 7:17 cites a prophecy from Psalms 110:4 about Christ. Verse 17 says, “For He testifies: ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.’” From this passage, the author necessarily infers three facts: 1. There was to be a change in the priesthood (v. 12a); 2. There was to be a change in the law (12b- for a change in the priesthood necessitated a change also in the law). 3. Perfection was not obtainable through the Levitical priesthood (v. 11- for had it been, there would have been no need for another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec).

Various Questions

Consider various passages and questions where necessary inference comes into bearing.

• The establishment of the church -The Scriptures speak of its establishment on the day of Pentecost in connection with the events of Acts 2. The Bible does not specifically cite this as when the church started, but from many passages, we can necessarily infer that it was (Mt. 16:18; Mk. 9:1; Acts 1:8, 2:47; Col. 1:13).
• Preaching Christ meant preaching baptism– Acts 8:26-40 records the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip. The text says Philip joined the Ethiopian in his chariot and “preached Jesus to him” (v. 36). As they were traveling, “they came to some water. And the eunuch said, ‘See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?’” How did he know the need for baptism? We can necessarily infer that “preaching Jesus” means “preaching baptism.” (Also note: Acts 2:38; 22:16; Gal. 3:27; I Cor. 2:2/Acts 18:8.) Some erroneously say that people should just “preach Jesus” and quit preaching about baptism, ignoring the conversion case of the Ethiopian.
• The frequency to partake of the Lord’s Supper– Acts 20:7 says, “Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.” This verse shows an example of the early disciples partaking of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week. How often are we to take of the Lord’s Supper? We determine this by necessary inference. They took of it on the first day of the week; every week has a first day; therefore, we are to partake of the Lord’s Supper every week. The Old Testament tells people to (Ex. 20:8) “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Yet, the command does not say to remember every Sabbath day, but this is the meaning. Also, if it is true that there is no frequency taught for the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, a person could partake of it only once and would never need to retake it, having satisfied the command to observe it. We must remember that the Bible does not teach the frequency to partake of the Lord’s Supper by direct statement, direct command, or by approved example. There is, however, a frequency shown by necessary inference.

Just as there are specific logical rules to determine when an example is binding, particular rules can prove beneficial with necessary inference. Consider them now:

1. If a cause always brings forth a specific result, and the causeis stated, then it must be necessarily inferred that the result As we have seen, the Ethiopian (Acts 8:27-39) was taught and baptized by Philip. But nothing is said about “why” Philip baptized him. Other passages, however, show that baptism is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Therefore, we can necessarily infer that when Philip baptized the Eunuch, he received the remission of sins.
2. If a cause always brings forth a particular result, and if the cause is the only way to obtain the result, and the resultis stated, then it must necessarily be inferred that the cause   Acts 18:8 tells us that Crispus believed on the Lord with his entire house, but the passage says nothing about what produced his faith. However, Romans 10:17 tells us that faith comes by hearing God’s Word, so it can be necessarily inferred that Crispus listened to the gospel just as the other Corinthians had (8b).
3. If the language structure requires a particular conclusion, though unstated, the conclusion is necessarily inferred. An example of this would be the “frequency” of the Lord’s Supper, as discussed above. The instance of observing it on Sunday would lead us to conclude that we must take it every Sunday.

Acts 15 records a discussion in Jerusalem about the question of circumcision. Certain ones were teaching that the Gentile Christians had to be circumcised as was required under the Law of Moses (vs. 1, 5). Employed are all three forms of Bible authority in this discussion. First, they draw necessary inferences from events that had occurred (Acts 10:17; 15:6-12, 19, 28). Next, they cite approved examples. They point out that God gave them the Holy Spirit even as he did the Jews (15:8), that they had labored among the Gentiles, and God did signs and wonders (15:12). Finally, direct statements, or commands, are employed. Peter told how God commanded him to go to the house of Cornelius (15:7), and James cited the words of the prophets (15:7).

We see all three forms of authority in various aspects of the Lord’s Supper. First, the fact that we are to take of it comes by command (Mt. 26:26-28; I Cor. 11:24); we learn the day that we are to take it by example (Acts 20:7); finally, we understand the frequency to partake of the Lord’s Supper (every Sunday) by necessary inference (Acts 20:7).

Necessary inference is a vital form of authority; we should not neglect it.

 GENERIC AND SPECIFIC AUTHORITY

Many have failed to understand the concept of generic and specific authority. These people may realize the need for a direct command or statement, approved example, and necessary inference for Bible authority. However, confusion can undoubtedly result if they do not understand the concept of generic and specific authority and the principles of aids and expedients. Moreover, a failure to understand these concepts can cause people to become frustrated in applying essential principles of Bible authority.

Defined

Generic authority is “a command authorizing the performance of some act without giving directions as to the manner or method of its performance.” In contrast, specific authority carries with it the manner or method of its performance. Thus, generic authority includes; specific authority excludes.

Some Illustrations

Consider this simple illustration regarding generic and specific authority based on an article that appeared some years ago in a book by Maurice Barnett called Understanding Bible Authority.

A man steps into a room full of people and says, “Go get some bread.” The man specifies locomotion with the word “go.” Also, he specified that “bread” was wanted, but beyond these specifics, several things are not stated that are essential to fulfilling the command. First, the man did not specify who was to get the bread, so anyone in the room could go. Second, he did not explicitly say where they were to get it or even how to obtain the item. It could be bought or borrowed, and someone could go to any store: close by or across town. Next, the man did not specify when the bread was wanted (although one might assume it was wanted in a short time) or how much bread he wanted (a small amount or many loaves). The man also did not specify what kind of bread to get, so a person could get wheat, white, rye, or any type. Although those in the room had to do, what the man specifically told them (get bread), there would be many unspecified options left for them to decide; they would be free to choose. This story illustrates generic authority. Suppose, on the other hand, the man went into the room and said to a particular person, “Here is the money; take my car right now; go to the grocery store on the next corner; buy one loaf of fresh, thin-sliced, white, sandwich bread, and bring it back to me.” This statement illustrates specific authority. There is much less room for choice in this statement.

Consider a few more illustrations. Suppose someone told another, “Go and climb a tree.” This command would be generic as to the kind of tree to climb. Any tree would do — a person climbing an oak, pine, or maple would obey the command. However, the command would be specific because the person could only climb a tree. Thus, someone could not climb a ladder and fulfill this command. Suppose someone commands you to offer an animal sacrifice. This command would be generic in that any animal would do. Offering a sheep, horse, or cow would be acceptable. However, the above command is specific: only animals could be offered — vegetables, as an offering, would not be allowed. If the command were “offer a four-footed animal,” then the command would be specific in that only quadrupeds could be offered (a bird would not do). But it would be generic from the standpoint of any four-footed animal being acceptable.

Old Testament Examples

Consider the Old Testament case of Noah. God told Noah (Gen. 6:14) to build an ark of gopher wood. If God had told him to make an ark of “wood,” he could have constructed the ark out of any wood. This command was specific, but God told him “gopher wood,” so the imperative eliminated all other kinds of wood. If there were different kinds of gopher trees, then the command would have been generic from the standpoint of the type of gopher tree Noah could have used. Noah could have used small or large gopher trees and would have been precisely doing what God told him. Also, aids and expedients (means) were needed to carry out God’s command. Noah probably used hammers, ropes, and oxen to carry out the instructions to “build an ark.” If so, would these have been authorized? Yes, they would have been “aids.” But, in using these, Noah would have been precisely doing what God said to do when He said to build an ark.

In Numbers 19:2, the Bible shows that the people were to offer a “red heifer.” A red heifer was a specific kind of animal. Since it was specified, this eliminated all other animals — all heifers, which were not red heifers, were excluded. If the command stated, “Offer a heifer,” a heifer of any color would have been acceptable. If God said, “Offer an animal,” the instructions would have been generic to the kind of animal. Thus, they could have used a rabbit, horse, or any other type of animal. Again, the worshiper could have used aids and expedients to carry out the above command.

New Testament Examples

In Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus spoke the Great Commission to his apostles. He said, “. . . All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” From these verses, we can make several observations. First, “go” is a generic command; it specifies movement, but Christ did not tell them “how” to go. Thus, they were free to choose any means of transportation. They could have traveled by boat, chariot, animal, or walking. Also, today, we can go by automobile, plane, bicycle, or bus. Next, there is the command to “teach.” Again, specific arrangements for teaching are authorized. We can teach by sermons, in classes, to a group, on the radio, on television, or using the internet. Also, we employ aids and methods in carrying out this command, such as blackboards, charts, PowerPoint, and public address systems. Whether one teaches a group or individuals, by radio or in person, the teaching command is still being obeyed.

There is also the command to baptize. Carrying out this command necessitates a place. For example, a person could be baptized in a river, pool, or lake. The water can be warm or cool, or inside or outside. A baptistery, for instance, is authorized as an aid in carrying out the command to baptize. However, remember that the Great Commission specifies that the “gospel” is what we teach, eliminating human traditions and philosophies. Therefore, these would not be aids or expedients but additions.

We also learn that the church is to assemble (Heb. 10:25). This command is generic concerning the place. The Bible does not tell us where to gather. The church could get together in a home, a tent, or a meetinghouse. Some say we do not have the authority for a church building. This statement is wrong, as the church has generic authority to spend its money on a meeting place. The church is to assemble; we are to gather for worship — a site is necessary. A building expedites the carrying out of the command to assemble.

The Bible also teaches Christians to “give” as they prosper on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1-2). This command specifies how the church is to take in its money. A church taking in money by raffles, suppers, or operating a business has added to God’s Word, not respecting the silence of the Scriptures. Baskets, or plates, to take up the money are aids in carrying out the command to give. When a church uses a basket or a plate, it is still merely giving, as God said.

The Bible also specifies the kind of music that Christians are to use in worshiping God (Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:19, 1 Cor. 14:15). These New Testament passages, and others, say we are to sing. Since God specified the kind of music — singing — all else is eliminated. If God had said, “Make music,” He would have given a generic command, and we could use any form of music we want. However, God specified “sing,” so He excludes all other types of music. We may use expedients and aids in carrying out the command to sing. Using a songbook, song leader, and four-part harmony would not be wrong. When these are employed, the church is still precisely doing what God said — Sing! The song leader sometimes uses a pitch pipe to get the right pitch. This item is not a different kind of music but is simply an aid. Sometimes people argue that an organ or piano is just an aid like a public address system, a blackboard, songbooks, and lights, i.e., it is an aid in singing. An instrument is not an aid; it is a different kind of music in the same way that beef would involve adding another type of food if added to the Lord’s Supper. The instrument is an addition to God’s Word.

Aids, however, must be subordinate, not coordinate (equal). For example, if a person is ordered to “walk,” he cannot use a car to aid in walking, as walking and riding are coordinates. Riding would be a different kind of transportation. On the other hand, a cane is an aid in walking; it is not another kind of transportation. A person who walked, employing a cane, would still be precisely doing what the command said. If a person told a tailor, “Stitch a suit for me by hand.” The tailor could use a needle, thread, scissors, and a thimble. These would be subordinates and would be acceptable. However, if he used a sewing machine, he would be using another way to make a suit and would have violated the order. A sewing machine would be coordinate to hand stitching the suit. In like manner, singing and playing are coordinates. They are two different kinds of music.

The Bible also specifies that the church has a three-fold mission. It teaches the lost, teaches its members, and relieves needy saints (1 Tim. 3:15; Eph. 4:11-12; Acts 11:28-30). This work is specified; thus, no other work should exist. The church is not to provide for entertainment, recreation, and secular education. Its job is not to provide for medical clinics or anything else that does not fall under its God-given work.

Misunderstanding Generic Authority

There have been divisions over the years because some have misunderstood the concept of generic authority. Many years ago, the church split over the Missionary Society issue. The Missionary Society was a separate organization from the church, set up to preach the gospel to the lost. Its support came from money sent to it from various churches. The argument was that the Missionary Society was simply a method employed by the church to preach the gospel. However, the Missionary Society was not a preaching method but a separate organization that used means and methods. The church is its own missionary society. It is to oversee its work of evangelizing, and it is not to turn that work over to some other organization, thus becoming just a money-raising organization. Many years later, brethren used the same argument to justify the church’s support of benevolent societies. The contention was that the orphan home was just a method for the church to carry out its work of benevolence. Again, these organizations are not merely methods but separate organizations which employ means and methods themselves. Just as the church is its own missionary society, it is also its own benevolent society. The church is to oversee its own benevolent work. It cannot become a fund-raising organization for human institutions. The question was not how but who in the two controversies mentioned above.

Sometimes we might ask for authority for a particular practice. When authority from God’s Word is not produced, people sometimes respond by saying, “There are many things we do for which we have no authority.” For example, when asked for the Biblical authority for the church to build what they often call “fellowship halls, i.e., recreation buildings, some have said the following when asked for the Biblical authority for the church. They say, “You endorse songbooks, restrooms, and drinking fountains, which are not mentioned in the Bible but oppose kitchens in the church building and recreation buildings not mentioned either.” This argument is trying to show inconsistency. (Proving inconsistency does not disprove another’s position; it only proves inconsistency.) However, we must realize that a water fountain is not the same as a recreation building. Under generic authority, there is authority for water fountains, lights, and heating and cooling units. The church is to assemble; this necessitates a place, and a place to gather would include the above items. If the Bible tells the church to “provide recreation” (being involved in the “social gospel”), then, under generic authority, a building and equipment are authorized to carry out this command. Since providing recreation is not revealed as a mission of the church, there is no authority to provide facilities to carry out this work. The church can provide facilities for anything, which is its work, but recreation, based on the Scriptures, is not its work.

We must have authority for all that we believe and practice. However, it is essential to understand the importance of generic and specific authority. Failure to do so can result in error and confusion.

THE SILENCE OF THE SCRIPTURES

What should be our attitude regarding the silence of the Scriptures?  What should we do regarding situations in which the Lord says nothing?  These questions are critical.  Disagreement regarding the silence of the Scriptures has caused much division over the years.  If we could agree on how to view the silence of God’s Word, we could do much to achieve unity among religious people.

There are two approaches often taken regarding the silence of the Scriptures. One view is that when the New Testament is silent, we are at liberty to act as we please and can do whatever we want in the service of God.”  This viewpoint is the “permissive” approach.  According to this view, we can do anything not expressly forbidden, and everything is acceptable unless God has said, “Thou shall not.”  The other approach might be called the prohibitive view.  Those who take this view say we must only do what the New Testament authorizes.  The law of exclusion prevails with this view, as the unmentioned is not permitted.

Where do we find the answer to how we should view the silence of the Scriptures?  It is essential to determine our approach from the Scriptures—the Word of God. We cannot answer this question based on our own opinions nor learn the position to take from the writings and views of others.  God has given us the Scriptures, which show us what our method of interpretation should be.

To begin with, consider how Noah had to regard the silence of the Scriptures.  In Genesis 6:14-15, God told Noah to build an ark out of gopher wood.  Further, the ark was to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide, and thirty cubits high.  Could Noah have used oak to build the ark?  God did not say he could not, but obviously, this would have been wrong.  Gopher wood was what God specified for the ark, which eliminated all other types of wood.  God did not have to say not to use oak, pine, or maple.  When God specified what he wanted, this ruled out every other kind of wood.  Could Noah have changed the dimensions of the ark?  After all, God did not say not to make the ark three hundred and fifty cubits long.  God did not have to say this.  When He said to make the ark three hundred cubits long, this eliminated every other possible length. Noah had to respect the silence of God.

Another Old Testament example is the case of Nadab and Abihu.  We learn from Leviticus 10 that these two priests offered “profane fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them.”   As a result of their sin, verse 2 says, “So fire went out from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before the Lord.”  It appears they got the fire, which they offered, from the wrong source rather than the altar of burnt offering (16:12).  Because God had not commanded the fire they used, it was sinful for them to use it.  Nadab and Abihu would have been wrong to argue that their sacrifice was acceptable because God had not prohibited them from using this other source.  When God specified the fire He wanted, this eliminated all other sources. These priests should have respected the silence of God.

Consider also the case of Naaman in 2 Kings 5.  Naaman was a “commander of the army” of the king of Syria and was an honorable man. His king highly regarded him, but he had leprosy.  He received information about a prophet in Samaria who could heal him, so he went and found this prophet—a man named Elisha.   Elisha told him to dip seven times in the Jordan River to cure his leprosy.  At first, he refused to do what the prophet said, reasoning that the rivers of Damascus were better than all the waters of Israel.  Finally, his servants persuaded him to do what Elisha said. It is clear that Naaman had to dip seven times in the Jordan if he wanted the cure —no other rivers were suitable.  God, through Elisha, specified the river to wash in, so because of God’s silence, all other rivers were unacceptable.  God did not have to say, “Wash in the Jordan River,” and then, to eliminate other rivers say, “You can’t wash in this river or that river to receive it.”  Further, Naaman had to dip seven times in the Jordan River for the cure.  Could Naaman have dipped five times and still received the remedy?  God did not say, “Don’t dip five times.”  NO, when God specified that Naaman had to dip seven times, other amounts were eliminated.

In the New Testament, consider Hebrews 7.  Here we find a discussion of the priesthood of Christ.  Under the old law, a person had to be of the tribe of Levi to be a priest. Christ, who was of the tribe of Judah, was not a priest under the Levitical system.  Although of the tribe of Judah, Christ is our priest today.    The writer uses this change in the priesthood to show that the old law was no longer in effect.  To illustrate the point of our discussion, consider verse 14, which says, “For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.”  Why was Christ unable to be a priest under the Levitical system?  A person had to be of the tribe of Levi; Christ was of the tribe of Judah, and concerning the tribe of Judah, Moses had said “nothing.” God’s silence eliminated Judah as an acceptable tribe for a priest to be from under the Levitical system.  God did not have to say that Levi was the tribe one had to be a member of and then name all the other tribes saying they were unacceptable.  When he specified Levi, this eliminated all other tribes.  If they had been there, many people would probably have erroneously noted that if one was of the tribe of Judah, he could be a priest because, after all, Moses did not say you could not.  This approach involves the reasoning often used today to justify certain religious practices.

Consider Acts 15, where there is a discussion of circumcision.  There was a controversy in the early church because some had gone out from Jerusalem, teaching that the Gentile converts had to be circumcised.  After a discussion in Jerusalem, they sent a letter to the churches stating, “Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, ‘you must be circumcised and keep the law’—to whom we gave no such commandment” (v. 24). These false teachers were wrong because of the silence of the inspired teaching.   God gave “No such commandment,” so it was wrong to require circumcision.  The false teachers would have been wrong if they had tried to justify their teaching by saying that God did not say it was not required.  These people had added to God’s Word (Rev. 22:18-19).

In Hebrews 1, there is a discussion of the superiority of Christ over angels.  Verse 5 says, “For to which of the angels did He ever say: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You?’ And again: ‘I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son?’” No angel had the right to claim to be the Son of God.   This fact indicates the superiority of Christ as the statement of verse 5 was to Him, not to an angel.  God’s silence (in not making this statement to angels) meant they did not have this honor.

Consider a few examples from everyday life to illustrate this point further.  In cooking, if a recipe calls for four eggs, it does not need to state, “Don’t use five eggs.”  The fact that it says four eliminates all other numbers.  When we give our phone number to people, we do not have to say all the numbers that it is not.  We do not have to say, “Don’t invert the order.”  When we name a child, we do not have to say what the child’s name is not— only what it is.  Zechariah only had to write that his name was John in naming his son. (Lk. 1:13, 60, 63)  He did not have to say his name was not George.  After announcing the hymn number to the congregation in worship services, the song leader does not have to say what the number is not.  If he says we will sing hymn number 33, this eliminates all other hymn numbers.  All of the above examples are obvious.

Consider the following application to the Lord’s Supper, instituted by Jesus (Mt. 26:26-28). We learn that the elements of the Lord’s Supper are to be unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine.  Jesus did not say not to use ham and eggs as the elements for the Lord’s Supper.  Would it be wrong to substitute ham and eggs as elements?  It would be wrong because Jesus specified what he wanted, thus ruling out all else.

Since the Bible also teaches that baptism is a burial in water (Rom. 6:1-4, Col. 2:12, Acts 8:36), it does not need to specifically say, “Don’t use sprinkling for baptism.”  Therefore, any other form that people might come up with when the Bible specifies a burial is wrong. Therefore, using sprinkling for baptism instead of a burial in water (as the Bible specifies) is incorrect because of the silence of the Scriptures.

Many religious groups use instrumental music in their worship.  The Bible, however, specifies we are to sing (Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:19, 1 Cor. 14:15).  When God specified singing, this rules out all other forms of music.  Sometimes people will say, trying to defend the addition of instrumental music to their worship, that God did not say, “Don’t use it.”  He did not have to; God said what He wanted.  Remember, Christ did not say, “Don’t use ham and eggs for the elements of the Lord’s Supper.”  Yet, most understand that He did not need to, having already specified the elements.  In the same way, the specification of “sing” as the type of music to use today in worshiping God eliminates “playing.”

We can apply this same principle to many other Bible subjects. For example, God has specified the work of the church (teach the lost, teach Christians, help needy saints); the way the church takes in money (Christians giving on the first day of the week); the organization of the church (local autonomous congregations overseen by elders).  Further, God has specified the subjects for baptism (penitent believers) and the day to partake of the Lord’s Supper (the first day of the week).

The Bible does not have to say that the church is not to provide recreation and entertainment, and it does not have to say the church cannot function as a business to make money.  The Scriptures do not need to specify that having someone called a bishop overseeing several congregations is wrong.  It does not have to point out specifically that baptizing infants is contrary to God’s will or that it is wrong to partake of the Lord’s Supper on Saturday.  God has specified what He wants, which rules out all else.

Consider a final illustration.  You send your son to the store, give him twenty dollars, and tell him to buy milk and eggs.  The son returns, having spent the change on candy, ice cream, and soft drinks.  Would the son be wrong?  Yes, especially if you had told him, “When I send you to the store, you are allowed only to buy what I tell you.”  The son could not successfully defend himself by saying, “You did not say not to buy soft drinks, candy, and ice cream” (or everything else the store has).  No, when people specify what they want, this rules out all else.  We do not have to say, do not buy this or do not buy that.  If we understand this principle, we can understand the importance of God’s silence regarding the subject of authority (Rev. 22:18-19).  We must respect the silence of the Scriptures.

FALSE STANDARDS

Why is there so much division and confusion today in the religious world?  Why are there so many different doctrines and so many religious groups? One reason is that many have never received teaching or learned the importance of Bible authority. Some may acknowledge the need for guidance from the Bible, but they only pay “lip service” to Bible authority when all is said and done. When people do not follow the same standard (God’s Word), division and confusion are certain.

All authority rests in three areas. There is internal human authority, external human authority, and divine authority. God intends for us to receive guidance by divine authority (Col. 3:17, 1 Thess. 2:13), which originates with God, is centered in Christ, and is recorded and revealed in the Bible. Sadly, however, external and internal human authority guides many. Consider some external and internal sources of human authority commonly used today.

Feelings

Many have followed their “feelings” as a guide in religion. As long as they feel saved, they are satisfied. Questioning their salvation touches a tender spot because their feelings are often “sacred.” As they pat their chest, they may say, “I would not give up this feeling I have in my heart for all of the Bibles in the world.” Many people would rather die trusting their feelings instead of making a candid and honest investigation of their salvation in view of what the Bible says.

In secular matters, we know our feelings can deceive us. For example, we may feel that something is correct and later learn it is not. Also, people may think they are in good health just before they suddenly die.

Consider two biblical examples of deceptive feelings. In Genesis 37, Jacob was deceived into thinking that his son, Joseph, was dead. Jacob mourned as if Joseph had died. He might have said sincerely, “I know how I feel.” Saul, later known as Paul, felt his duty was to persecute Christians. He said (Acts 26:9), “Indeed, I myself thought I must do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.” Paul was laboring under a delusion. The fact that he felt he was doing right did not make his actions right.

Various Old Testament passages show the futility of trusting our feelings as a guide for what is right and wrong in serving God. Jeremiah 10:23 says, “O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.” Jeremiah 17:9 teaches, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”  People cannot depend on their hearts to lead them correctly. Finally, Proverbs 28:28 says, “He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, but whoever walks wisely will be delivered.”

Consider religious people (such as the Jews and Muslims) who do not believe that Jesus is the son of God. Are they saved? They, no doubt, feel they are. Yet in John 8:24, Jesus said, “...for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” These people may feel saved, but that does not mean they are. Likewise, if feelings are not evidence of salvation for Jews and Muslims, they are not evidence of salvation for Methodists, Baptists, and Pentecostals.

How can we have assurance about salvation or anything else we might believe? Our feelings can be fickle—one day, we might believe one thing; another day, something else. God’s Word assures us. It is our safe and steady standard. 1 John 5:13 says, “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. John also wrote (1 Jn. 2:3), “Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.” It does not matter how we “feel” about our salvation. God’s Word is essential in this matter. Can we determine from the Scriptures that we have obeyed the Lord? It does not matter how we feel; what God says matters. “Feelings” are produced by evidence; they are not evidence for salvation. It is indeed foolish for one to trust his feelings concerning his salvation.

Conscience

Others use their conscience as their standard of authority. They might say, “Just let your conscience be your guide.” This approach, however, cannot be a correct standard as a person can have a good conscience and yet be in sin. Some can steal and kill with a good conscience.

Consider the case of Paul. Before his conversion, Paul was a persecutor of Christians, and during this time, he had a good conscience.  In Acts 23:1, he said, “…Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.” As we noted earlier, according to Acts 26:9, he pointed out, “Indeed, I myself thought I must do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.” Paul was following his conscience, but he was wrong.

If conscience alone is the correct standard, there are as many standards as people. A conscience may be programmed incorrectly, and thus a person could have a good conscience and still be in sin. Undoubtedly, the conscience, by itself, is not a correct standard of authority. The Word of God needs to program our conscience.

How Much “Good” That

Something Does

Some people try and justify a practice by the good done. If asked for the authority for a particular practice their church is involved in, they respond by citing the good accomplished. This view is saying that the “ends justify the means.” They look at the good they think is achieved and assume that since “good” occurs, God must approve of what they are doing. This view attributes man’s feelings about matters to God rather than looking to God’s Word as the authority.

Consider a few Old Testament events.  God told Saul, a king of Israel, to destroy the Amalekites completely (1 Sam. 15). Saul did not do this; instead, he spared their king (Agag) and the best of the animals. When questioned by Samuel, Saul said (v. 21), “the people took of the plunder, sheep and oxen, the best of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal. Samuel rebuked him and told him that obeying is better than sacrifice (22). Saul was saying that the ends justify the means — that it was proper to disobey if good resulted. Saul was wrong and unjustified in his disobedience, no matter how much “good” he thought he had accomplished.

Another example involves Uzzah (2 Sam. 6), who was transporting the Ark of the Covenant on an ox cart during the reign of David. To begin with, he was not conveying the ark correctly. Then, when the ark arrived at Nachon’s threshing floor, the oxen shook the ark, and it was in danger of falling. Uzzah touched the ark to steady it, which violated God’s command. God immediately killed him. Uzzah might have contended that his steadying the ark prevented it from crashing to the ground and that good would come because of his disobedience. However, Uzzah was wrong for touching the ark, and he paid for it with his life.  The ends did not justify the means.

Instead of trying to justify a practice by pointing out the good that it does, we need to turn to a “thus saith the Lord.”

Belief of Parents

Others rely on their parents as their sources of authority in religious matters. These will not accept the truth on certain subjects because their parents did not believe that way. Admittedly, this is a wrong source of authority. We must always honor our parents, who may have been wrong in their beliefs and practices. However, we must not reject the truth simply because it contradicts our parents’ beliefs. Matthew 10:37 says, “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me . . . .”

The Majority

Some people use the concept of the majority as a standard of right and wrong in religious matters. They feel that it cannot be wrong if the majority is practicing something. For example, they might say, “Why there are millions in the religious group that I am a part of,” or “many who believe as I believe.” Does the fact that a majority believes a particular thing makes it right? Is it correct to use the majority as our source of authority or to believe a certain way simply because so many others do?

It should be evident that the majority are not our standard of authority because, if it is, “truth” will change as we change locations. For example, the majority’s beliefs about a particular matter may differ in the South than in the North. Also, the views of the majority may vary from country to country. Some nations, for example, consist of people who do not believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God. If people use the majority as their standard, they would need to change their beliefs every time they changed locations when most people in the new place believed differently than the majority in the area where they were previously. Considering the entire world, most religious people do not profess “Christianity.”

Consider a few Bible principles. Exodus 23:2 warns, “You shall not follow a crowd to do evil….” Jesus, in Matthew 7:13-14, tells us this standard is wrong when he says, “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” In some situations, there is safety in numbers. However, this concept is not correct in spiritual matters. We must not use the majority as our source of authority.

Great and Wise Men

Denominational people often quote a religious leader or scholar to prove their point. They might then say, “Are you smarter than this person?” Sometimes innovations are brought into the church and are defended because some respected preachers from the past believed the practice was Scriptural. There is nothing wrong with examining the teaching and reasoning of various scholars on some subject and then comparing their logic to what the Scriptures say. We can learn from other people. Yet, we cannot use such people as our authority. God’s Word is our authority, and we are to stand in the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 2:5). Even Peter practiced error, stood condemned, and was opposed “to the face” by Paul (Gal. 2:11-21).

It is essential to understand that teachers and scholars, although knowledgeable, can be wrong. Pick almost any issue, and knowledgeable people exist on both sides. We must not allow someone to lead us astray. God’s Word, not a mere human being, is to be our authority.

What Is to Be Our Authority?

What then is to be our authority? Our authority is to be God’s Word and not the external and internal sources of human guidance listed above. The Bible is to be our guide—our standard.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”   2 John 9 says that we must abide in the “doctrine of Christ.” We must accept the Bible and the Bible only as our source of authority. Human standards will lead us astray.