There are not too many issues in the religion of our Lord that are more important than Bible authority. All of the religious divisions that exists today comes as a result of someone acting without authority. Think of all of the errors of modern denominationalism. Musical instruments, annual or quarterly observance of the Lord’s supper, women preachers, recreational use of the Lord’s money, infant baptism, creed books, business functions to raise money, etc., are all things done in the religious world today without any Bible authority. You think the issue of Bible authority is not important? Well know this—as long as man acts without it, the religious world has no hope of true scriptural unity. Sure, there will always be unity in diversity, but there can be no unity of the Spirit (Ephesians 4:3) as long as people insist on acting without Bible authority.
How do we establish Bible authority? For one to have Bible authority to do or teach something, one or more of three things have to exist: Direct command, Apostolic Example, or a Necessary inference. Since the days of the restoration movement, sound local churches of Christ have applied these hermeneutics and have remained on solid ground so far as Bible authority is concerned. The reason why so many local churches of Christ are alike in so many ways is not because we are sectarian in nature (each local church is completely autonomous or self-governing), but rather because we apply the same hermeneutic principles in establishing Bible authority.
Once in a while, these principles are called into question by some brethren. This is because they want to have a broader range of fellowship with those who practice error. For example, some wish to extend the right hand of fellowship to those who use musical instruments in their worship. Thus, they call into question the hermeneutical principles used to reach the conclusion that musical instruments are unauthorized. The question is, is there something wrong or flawed about our hermeneutics? The answer is no. The principles that we use to establish Bible authority today are the same principles that people use in everyday life. More importantly, they are the same principles used by Jesus and His inspired apostles. Let’s look at this for a moment of two.
- Direct command or statement. What we mean by this is a command or statement given in the New Testament by Christ or one of His inspired men. We know, for example, that we must partake of the Lord’s supper because we have a direct command concerning this (1 Corinthians 11:24,25). Did Jesus ever use direct commands or statements from the scriptures to establish something as being authorized by God? Yes, He did. In fact, Jesus is often found quoting scripture in His conversations with man (Matthew 4:1-11: Luke 10:25-28; Matthew 19:3-6, etc.) These scriptural references are, of course, from the Old Testament because that was the law of God which was in force while Jesus was here on earth. By quoting scripture Jesus demonstrated the authoritative nature of those scriptures.
- Apostolic or Approved example. By this we mean something practiced by the church in the New Testament under the guidance of the apostles. The Lord’s supper once again serves as a good example of this . In Acts 20:7 we find the church at Troas coming together to break bread. The context of that passage verifies that the breaking of bread there has reference to the Lord’s Supper. When did they come together to break bread? On the first day of the week. That gives us authority to do the same thing. Now, did Jesus or His inspired apostles ever use examples from the scriptures to establish authority? Yes, the apostles did to establish the fact that Gentiles could be saved without being circumcised.
In Acts 15 Peter showed that God did not demand Gentiles to be circumcised by using the example of Cornelius (Acts 15:7-9). Salvation came to Cornelius and his house by them hearing and obeying the gospel of Christ. When Peter preached to them, he said nothing about being circumcised, nor keeping the Law of Moses. Cornelius was not circumcised nor was his house circumcised. Had they really been converted? Is Cornelius a Christian? What about the other Gentiles that were present at his house who were baptized? Are they saved or not? Peter affirms that they are and gives as evidence the fact that God gave them the Holy Spirit (ver. 8) and made no difference between those who had been circumcised and those who had not (ver. 9). Today men are purified by faith, not by observance of the law of Moses. Peter’s conclusion, based on the example of how He dealt with Cornelius and his house, is that salvation comes by God’s grace, not by the law (ver. 11). If Peter used an example to establish something as being authorized by God, why shouldn’t we do the same thing?
- Necessary Inference. What we mean by this is something which is not expressly stated but is necessarily implied. For example, when Jesus was baptized, the record says that He came out of the water. That necessarily implies that He went down into the water, even though the text does not expressly state such. We know that Jesus went into the water because He could not have come out of the water unless he first went down into the water. That is a necessary inference. Did Jesus and His apostles use this method of establishing authority? Once again, we find that the answer is yes.
In Matthew 22:31-32, Jesus proved to the Sadducees, those who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, that there is a resurrection. He did this by necessary inference. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. When God said, after the death of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that He was their God (Exodus 3:6, 15-16), that necessarily implied that those Patriarchs did not just cease to exist. If God was still their God after they died physically, they must still be alive, i.e., their souls did not cease to exist, for God is the God of the living, not the dead. Later on in the chapter, Jesus uses a necessary inference to prove the superiority of Christ over David (Matthew 22:41-46).
Paul used a necessary inference in Acts 15. After Peter proved by example that God accepts Gentiles apart from circumcision, Paul and Barnabas proved it by necessary inference (Acts 15:12). The fact that God performed miracles by the hands of Paul and Barnabas necessarily implies that they did that which was in accordance with His will. Remember, miracles were for the purpose of confirming the word (Mark 16:20; Hebrews 2:3-4). If Paul was teaching a doctrine that was contrary to God’s will, would God confirm that word by signs and wonders? The answer is no. But God did confirm their word by miracles, necessarily implying that they taught truth. Now, what did Paul and Barnabas teach? They taught salvation through Christ apart from the law of Moses. Paul used the miracles he and Barnabas performed among the Gentiles to show by necessary inference that it was not necessary for Gentiles to be circumcised or to keep the law of Moses.
So, there you have it. Jesus and His apostles used direct statements, examples, and necessary inferences to establish authority. Should we not take the same approach? Is there another way to establish authority? Those who have put down this hermeneutical approach usually have a hidden agenda, and the result of denying this way of establishing authority almost always leads to the practice of something sinful.
Don’t you think if we use the same principles to establish authority as Jesus and His apostles did, we are on solid ground? Remember, we use these principles in every other walk of life every day. There is no reason to take a new approach, when the approach taken works just fine.