Perrydox.com is devoted to the pursuit of truth, whether plain or paradoxical, whether simple or sublime, or simply absurd yet absolute.
Is Restoration and Inference Valid?
Two contrary views seen nowadays in the church are: 1) The “restoration” principle is flawed as a foundation; 2) Necessary implication/inference is flawed because it is a human deduction resulting in asking “necessary to who?”
Instead of deciphering these two complaints to see if they are valid, let’s notice how the same ones who make these complaints use both to bolster whatever position they are taking (if they use the N.T.). In fact, I would suggest it is impossible to not use both to some degree.
For example, a growing trend is interpreting Galatians 3:28 to mean there are no role distinctions between men and women since Paul wrote, “There is…no male or female; since you are all one in Christ Jesus. Instead of discussing whether or not their interpretation is contextually back or not; let’s see if they are using the two views above they say are flawed.
If Galatians 3:28 is saying there are no male or female roles, and if our patriarchal practice has made distinctions based upon whether someone is male or female, and if we should reinstate what Galatians 3:28 is teaching, then that is the restoration principle.
If Galatians 3:28 doesn’t specifically say anything about roles in the church, or even more specifically the role of a preacher or elder, and if those interpreting it as to include such, then they inferring that meaning.
The point of this short article is to show most everyone believes somewhat in a restoration principle even if they deny it; and everyone uses the deductive skill of inference from an implication because that is just part of normal thinking. In fact, we must use inference to determine what must be restored because it was pertinent; and what was simply cultural or happenstance.
None of us though must make a habit of just pointing out the errors of others. How are we doing in restoring not just what the first church did, but why? Do we understand their reasoning? If we did, we must necessarily infer our spiritual success depends on our being zealous due to the grace of God we have received.
Comments