REVIEW OF “A BINDING EXAMPLE OLDER THAN SIN ITSELF” (6) As I come to the final part of these posts, I quote again my statement which I believe served as the primary impetus for the series I have been reviewing: “I certainly believe that examples and inferences are useful—even necessary—tools in understanding the Bible, but there is simply no scriptural basis for elevating them to the level of divine commands. The Old Testament Scriptures are preserved for our learning and understanding. But where, in all the Old Testament, do we find any indication that God’s laws were to be discerned from examples and through inferences?’” As I have said before, I appreciate Brother Allan’s desire to understand another person’s viewpoint and to not misrepresent it. I commend him for not simply restating arguments that do not really answer the challenge. He apparently sees the viability of the argument and thinks it demands an answer. I do not believe his case has been established, but I commend the effort. Allan finally comes to the major issue that all this is about: “the time has arrived for me to present the reasons why I believe Acts 20:7 is a binding example.” He says it has now been “established that both the Old and New Testaments held men accountable to binding examples and necessary inferences…” I think it has been demonstrated that this proposition has not been established. But let us follow his reasoning on Acts 20:7 being a binding example. His first point is the Lord’s institution of the Lord’s Supper as He told His disciples that “as often” as they partook, to do it in remembrance of Him (Matt. 26:26-29; I Cor. 11:17-34). Next, he says this was something practiced “regularly/continuously,” citing Acts 2:42. Then, he observes: “If it were not, then, for Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2, we would have no idea that churches of Christ came together regularly on the first day of the week. But when all this is combined with the fact that both the Lord’s resurrection and the beginning of His church occurred on the first day of the week, it does not seem strange that His followers would have been instructed to regularly assemble on this day—a day that became so familiar to His followers that it even started to be referred to as “the Lord’s day” (Rev 1:10). When this is further viewed through Paul’s statement that he taught the same thing “everywhere in every church” (1 Cor 4:17), it seems perfectly consistent with this that the church at Troas would be gathering on the first day of the week just like the church at Corinth, and the churches of Galatia, had been instructed to do.” My problem with this is not the practice of taking the Lord’s Supper each Sunday. I have never partaken at any other time and don’t wish to. Furthermore, I believe brother Turner’s inductive reasoning for doing so is persuasive. But my problem is in binding as a law of God something that is not clearly defined as such. It is obvious as we analyze the phraseology he uses that the contingency of his position is recognized to some extent: “it does not seem strange;” “it seems perfectly consistent;” such is not the language of absolute certainty, but of probability. And indeed, such is as close as we can get by inductive reasoning. In other words, I agree that he presents a probable case, but it is simply not established beyond all reason. It is not nailed down as tightly as we have generally insisted. My questions is: IS THIS THE WAY GOD DECREES HIS LAWS? It was not the case under the Law of Moses. Why should we think He has decided to become so vague and ambiguous in His new and better covenant? Here are some obstacles that are in the way of our brother’s conclusion. First, “breaking bread” is a term that could be applied to any meal. I also think, as Allan does, the context of Acts 20:7 favors the sacred memorial meal of the Lord’s Supper. But this is not absolutely clear from the text. There is nothing in the text itself from which we are obligated to conclude that those people assembled every Sunday to eat the sacred meal – if that’s what it was. I Cor. 16:1-2 speaks of the first day of the week as instructions were given to those Christians to, on that day, “lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I [Paul] come” (NKJV). The verse is not as cut and dried as we have generally taught. Translations vary, but most render it “every” or “each first day of the week” (NASB, NIV, ESV, for example). Nothing is said of an assembly in the passage. It seems reasonable, however, to conclude that such is involved if “collections when I come” are to be avoided. I am not saying that such an interpretation is unreasonable. I am saying that it is simply not crystal clear! It is not clearly and absolutely established. But those who are bound by their traditions and what they “have always thought” don’t like such realities to be exposed. Also, other passages which should seemingly be considered are not. Acts 2:42 is mentioned, but not Acts 2:46. The breaking of bread in v.46 is understood in CENI theology to be a common meal while v.42 is the Lord’s Supper. These references are in the same context; the very same passage. Could it be that our practice is driving our interpretation? The fact is, as already said; “breaking bread” can refer to any meal. It is not possible from the grammar to necessarily reach our traditional understanding. SUCH IS NOT A NECESSARY INFERENCE. Then, there is the troublesome fact that our Lord did not institute the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week (Matt.26). There is some argument on whether it was Thursday or Wednesday, but we know it wasn’t Sunday. We generally argue that we should do what Paul did in Troas because he said to “follow me.” But, he said, “Follow me as I also follow Christ” (I Cor.11:1). Houston, we have a problem. Also, our Lord established the supper at night. The Pascha or Passover meal was eaten in the evening which was the beginning of the day. Paul wrote “For I received from the Lord…that the Lord Jesus on the same night…took bread…” (I Cor. 11:23). The events of Acts 20 are not specific as to when they “broke bread,” but certainly do not rule out the evening observance and, if anything, lend themselves to it. “Supper” where the word is still used signifies an evening meal. I am not trying to bind this, but bring it up to illustrate that for a people who place such emphasis on “making all things according to the pattern” we surely overlook a lot of things. There is also the matter of the “upper room” (Acts 20:8). Is this an approved example? Certainly so. Is it a binding, approved example? No. Not in our catechism which says: the upper room is incidental. But the problem is that we have no scriptural law by which to discern which examples are bound as divine law and which are incidental. We ask: “Well, why does it mention the first day of the week if it’s not important?” And we might as well ask, “Why does it mention the upper room if it’s not important?” And, for that matter, why does it mention the upper room a number of times? The standard answer is “neither on this mountain or in Jerusalem” (John 4:21), which has absolutely nothing to do with the question. Let me emphasize that it is problematic that we speak of “necessary inference,” but rely on a process of inductive reasoning to make our inferences. Inference is the product of deductive reasoning. It is as absolute as mathematic equations which are the purest form of logic. The word “necessary” in our speech is tautological. If it’s logically inferred, it is necessary by definition. Inductive reasoning can never be that absolute—that necessary. There is always the possibility of overlooking some clue, some iota of information that may disprove our conclusion. Sometimes another religious group from the past that used the same or a similar approach for biblical interpretation is brought forward to demonstrate, I suppose, that we are not alone in this. But the fact is that in their application of this paradigm they reached radically different conclusions on a number of subjects than we do. And, in fact, such has been the history of the fragmented heirs of our historical Restoration Movement. Besides, they no longer exist, which may be the destiny we approach. Why are we so divided? There are probably several factors. A lack of love is the primary one. But the belief that we have hit upon the sure formula for knowing absolutely the truth on every issue and question – when we are dealing with a document that does not supply such detailed and clear data – this is also an important factor. The bottom line is that we have built a house of cards with our process of establishing Scriptural authority for everything we do. We are inconsistent in many areas. Think of Paul going into the temple – not the synagogue, mind you, where he taught the gospel, but the temple where animal sacrifices were offered (instruments of music were also played) and participating in the ritual pertaining to vows (Acts 21:26). It’s in the Bible. It’s in the New Testament. Is it an approved example? Paul said to follow his example. Is it a binding approved example? What inferences are we to draw from this? Inquiring minds want to know. A couple of passages from Philippians and a few others from other epistles serve as the basis for the “approved apostolic example” doctrine. The contexts of those passages have nothing to do with strictly congregational activity and worship, yet this is solely where we apply them. We have emphasized the contextual difference between the church and the individual on the “saints only” subject, but use these passages as proof texts with no consideration of context. I believe there is no one who was more convinced of the CENI approach to interpretation than I. I preached it. I vehemently affirmed it. I avowed that it is common sense. It is reasonable. It is the way we establish the truth of anything. Command, example, inference. I still believe it is reasonable. It is part of reading and comprehending. But it is not the way God’s laws are decreed. It is not the way any laws are decreed. Ken Green
Posted on: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:04:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015