Is Command, Example, Necessary Inference an Error?

[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign. [00:00:08] Speaker B: Welcome back to the Think Deeper podcast presented by Focus Press. As always, Will Harb here, joined by Joe and Jack Wilkey. We are continuing a discussion that we started last week, not to toot our own horn, but from my perspective, a pretty interesting discussion, kind of addressing the critiques that people who have left the Church of Christ have. There's obviously a lot of people who have left the church, specifically left the Church of Christ. You know, deconstruction is a kind of a buzzword right now. But one of the things, what we did last week essentially is there, there is an ex Church of Christ Reddit thread. Obviously, we all know the, the wisdom of the Reddit threads say that, of course, facetiously, but there were a lot of posts, a lot of claims, a lot of critiques of the Church of Christ on, I mean, anybody can go Google that thread. But there was a lot of, again, just critiques of the Church of Christ. And so what we did last episode is just kind of took them. You know, some of them were memes, some of them were just kind of personal anecdotes. Some of them were, hey, here's why I left the church, specifically this teaching, this behavior, whatever it is. And we addressed several of them. Well, we didn't get to all of them. There was one kind of screenshot on this Reddit thread that there was this one individual had a lot of points, and within that, we're going to get to a lot of it. But within, within that was a discussion on command, example, necessary inference, or cine for short, which is commonly the hermeneutic that the Church of Christ uses to kind of determine how we're supposed to live, how we're supposed to worship, all those things. And so this is pretty well, pretty much a part two of discussing these, these people who have left the church, specifically why they left and how we can address those things. And as we covered last week, guys, just to kind of get us started before I hand it over to you guys for introductory thoughts, we didn't just come out and discount everything that they said and kind of, you know, wave our hand and say, well, that's just ridiculous. That's just, you know, if they were being honest, they would. So some of it was, to be honest, you know, the people who say, well, I left because people voted for Trump, you know, that was kind of a dumb thing to say. And so we kind of took a baseball bat to that. But some of the other things that they said, we did point out, okay, there's some legitimacy to this as far as like that as a complaint, as a critique, there's some legitimacy to that. And what we're going to get to today, again, I would say there will be some legitimacy to that. Now, when I say legitimacy, I'm not saying, okay, cool, they're justified in leaving the Church of Christ or they're justified in leaving Christianity or whatever it is. What I mean is and what we mean is they make a fair point. And so we need to figure out kind of what is our response, how do we address that, how do we handle that if it is a fair point and is contributing to people leaving? So yeah, that's kind of the introduction to this episode. Guys, do you have any thoughts to add to that as we kind of take on week number two of addressing people who have left the Church of Christ and their criticism, sometimes constructive, sometimes not. [00:02:55] Speaker A: We started the already started the discussion off air. I think this will be an intriguing episode for that reason. Is there, there's some of this that's challenging, no doubt. Not the, the, the Reddit thread stuff. Not as challenging, we'll get into that. But one of the parts of, of the command example, necessary inference in this hermeneutic. There's some challenging things. And so stay tuned as we get into this. This is not a slam dunk as many people would like to think that it is. A. Well, that's just the way that it is. There's some wrestling that I think needs to be done, that we in the Church of Christ need to engage with this discussion a little bit more than just, oh, well, those stupid denominations, atheists whatever it may be, they just don't understand there are some legitimate critiques. And yeah, we do want to get into that. We want to wade into the muddy waters to some degree. Doesn't mean we have all the clarity, doesn't mean that we are the clear water. It means we're willing to engage with that and say, hey, this is maybe a little bit difficult. So I just want to throw that out there that Stay tuned as we get into this and we really. This is one of those. Please get your comments in on, on Focus Plus. If you're not a member of Focus plus, make sure to join it, engage in the discussion with us. We'd love to have this on our deep end segment. A lot of discussion surrounding this because I'm very curious to hear everybody else's thoughts. I'm sure everybody's thought of this to some degree as to how we interpret the Bible. We're going to get into that. So Jack, any other introductory thoughts? [00:04:13] Speaker C: I don't think so. Let's go ahead and jump in. I'm going to do the screen share again. Last week the video came up very weird. We were really tiny. The picture was really tiny. I had to redo that whole thing. So hopefully it's working a little better. It's a little more visible. For those of you watching on YouTube or Focus plus, this one had a few critiques and I don't know if it was this post or another one that linked us to a guy on YouTube that we'll get into his critiques here in a bit, but it's just kind of one of those cascade of one leads to another. But this one starts with the thief on the cross argument and we're not going to spend a whole lot of time on this. I'm just going to say briefly, if your church didn't tell you how to refute that argument, that church failed. But if you didn't find any convincing argument to the opposite from the Church of Christ, you didn't look very hard. It's everywhere. I've done it. GBN's done it. WVBS has done it. Wayne Jackson has done it. Google Church of Christ, Thief on the cross. It's been done to death. It is the weakest argument in the world. And it's kind of frustrating that somebody. [00:05:12] Speaker B: Got derailed by this Jack, just because people can't. Everybody can't see it. Will you read that? They're kind of critique real fast for, for the podcast listeners, Audio listeners. [00:05:20] Speaker C: Yeah, they. And so speaking of the Church of Christ, they always say that only the baptized go to heaven. And for a while I believe them. But then I got to thinking, what about the thief on the cross? He wasn't baptized and Jesus let him enter paradise. There can't possibly just be one exception. [00:05:32] Speaker B: Yeah, this, this one. We've handled this before. As Jack said, there's a dozen podcast videos you go watch. They always present it like it's such a slam dunk, like, wow, you haven't thought of the thief on the cross. Yeah, like, man, you know, how about the thief on the cross? And yeah, just in case anybody is wondering, you know, kind of, well, what is the answer for that if you don't happen to know? Two things. One, Jesus had not yet died. If he's clearly saying, you know, I'm going, you know, today you will be with me in paradise. His essentially that what we, you know, the baptism that we see for the remission of sins is something that took place after Acts 2. The baptism prior to that was a baptism of repentance. A lot of people would argue maybe this individual was baptized for repentance through John. Not necessarily a scriptural case for that, but it is a possibility. The other thing is, this is what I always say. If Jesus Christ himself is standing next to you and says, okay, you can go to paradise with me. Okay, sure, then you can have your trump card there. But that doesn't happen anymore. And so it's kind of a ridiculous thing to bring up. But, yeah, this one you hear a lot. Any additional thoughts from either one of y' all? [00:06:41] Speaker C: You can't be baptized into the death, burial and resurrection. If the death, burial and resurrection, none. [00:06:44] Speaker B: Of those have taken place yet. [00:06:47] Speaker C: So, I mean, it's as simple as that. So we'll set that one aside. We're not mocking this person. It's just a little frustrating. Like, he didn't look very hard. They do a lot of manipulation and control, they say about the church. They had several services per week, and if I couldn't come to one of them, several people from the church would call my phone asking me why I wasn't there. If I was honest and said, I'm having a mental health day, or explained that my disability makes me really burnt out sometimes on any days to myself, they'd sort of guilt trip me by implying that I was neglecting the fellowship of the church. So you'd rather me neglect myself? Okay, so there's some self care going on here. We'll turn to our resident therapist. What might you say to this. [00:07:24] Speaker A: Man? What an excuse. The mental health day couldn't have taken it on a Saturday. Did you call out of work on a Monday? Was this a mental health week or did you just take a mental health day on a Sunday? Yes. At some point you're neglecting the fellowship of the church. Do I condemn somebody for missing a Sunday here or there? No. But yeah, I'd expect a phone call. If I'm missing Sundays, that shows that they care about me, that they do want me there. And if that means that I'm getting guilt tripped because they're saying, hey, don't neglect the fellowship of the church, then I guess the book of Hebrews is guilt tripping me. Which would be God, right? [00:07:58] Speaker B: The inspired writer there. Yeah. [00:08:00] Speaker A: Maybe I'm supposed to make sure that I'm getting to church. And the other thing is, as far as the framing of a mental health day, sometimes the thing that we do need is people. The mental health day is, well, I'm going to take one for myself. There's a. On Parks Recreation. Treat yourself right. Treat yourself where we think that it's. We just get to treat ourselves to whatever it is. We do have an obligation to those around us. The same way that you can't take a mental health day when your kids are, you know, when you're a homeschooler and your kids need you. How many mental health days can you have before you're neglecting them? At some point we have to think about, yes, our mental health. There are a million and one options other than just not going to church, in my opinion. And by church, I mean not going to worship. Yes, Being around the church and showing up for them is important. So I think this is a pretty big excuse. We do need to care about mental health in the church, but I don't think quitting or not going is the answer. [00:08:52] Speaker B: I want to focus in on a couple things. One, kind of the use of those therapy words, the manipulation and control. Those are very individualistic words. Those are, again, no offense to Joe, therapy heavy words of, you know, people typically talk about their parents being manipulative or, you know, this person's manipulative, or in this case, the church is manipulative. And I would just point out that as Joe very well already did this, you know, not forsaking the assembling of the saints together and being kind of being there, worshiping together. That's not manipulate. That's what the Bible teaches. That's not manipulation. That's not control. And I'm glad you used the word care, Joe, to say like that. It's, it's not a matter of, you know, the, the teacher at school calling and saying, why wasn't. Why weren't you in class today? I'm going to have to give you a demerit. You know, that's not what it is. It's, hey, we care about you. Want to make sure that you're here. Want to make sure that you're assembling with the saints just like you're supposed to be. It's a, it's a, it's a matter of care. And the fact that this person did not see that, maybe that's on the church, maybe it wasn't carried out in, you know, a loving way. But then the last thing that I'll say, they say that I was. They'd sort of guilt trip me by implying that I was neglecting the fellowship of the church. So you'd rather me neglect myself? Question and my answer to that is. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. And that's what Jesus said when he said, hey, you're going to have to deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me. Like, just to frame it in that way of like, well, if I have to choose between neglecting the fellowship of the church and neglecting myself, I'm going to choose myself every time. Like, sorry, that's. [00:10:16] Speaker A: That's as though it's an either or. [00:10:19] Speaker B: As though it's an either or. And again, this is not to paint this, you know, cast aspersions on this person. As Jack already said, that's literally what being a Christian is all about, is putting yourself to death and putting your own desires to death. You know, as Joe said, doesn't mean you can't ever miss a service. But to frame it in that way at the end of that sentence to me, perfectly illustrates the problem. Yes, Christ does ask us to basically deny ourselves and take up our cross and follow him, put our own desires to death. And so if you're not willing to do that, then that's a problem. [00:10:52] Speaker A: Let me say this real fast before Jack jumps in. The other thing is, I have a tough time believing this, I'm sorry to say, and I know that you always got to believe the person. Several people from the church would call my phone asking me why I wasn't there. Now, fellas, I've missed before, I've had some phone calls early on. I obviously, as a preacher, don't do that too much these days. When you get a phone call, how many people are willing to go, hey, why weren't you there? That is a very uncomfortable question. And by and large, most people will avoid the discomfort unless it's somebody, hey, we missed you. [00:11:21] Speaker B: I was thinking, correct, if it's your. [00:11:23] Speaker A: Brother or your mom or something like that, they might ask, hey, why weren't you there? What's going on? The average church member is not usually going to be that forward and asking that question. So I picking at this a little bit, saying, I've made those phone calls myself. I literally made a phone call earlier this week for the same reason. And it wasn't, why aren't you there? It's hey, we're really missing you, hoping you're doing all right, you know, is there anything we can pray for? Anything, Anything we can help with? That's what it was. That's not me. Hey, why aren't you there? Why aren't you there? So if that's how they interpreted somebody saying, hey, you know, we've been missing you hope you're doing okay, then that's on them. So, Jack, what are your thoughts? [00:11:59] Speaker C: I mean, people can guilt you into it, but you know, what if it's. If they're saying the right thing, kind of you need to get over that and say, yeah, I should be there. The whole mental health thing, weakening yourself and saying, I just need to do less. Like it's church. This is important. You're better off for might feel like you're neglecting yourself by making yourself go to church. That's not how it works. It's. Anything done in the service of God is not neglecting yourself. And the other thing that Hebrews 10, it's not just not forsaking the assembling of yourselves. It tells you why you're supposed to get together to encourage one another to love and good works. So you can't go do the your job as a Christian by encouraging other people. There's a mutual benefit thing here. It's not just a box checking. So unfortunate that that was kind of the view they had on it. Number three, they have that the doctrines and teachings are very exclusive. That, hey, the churches of Christ weren't around until the 1800s, but you think you're the only ones going to heaven and the one true church. Took me a while to realize this, but any church that makes this claim is likely a cult. I'm going to push that kind of more to our command example, necessary inference, part of the episode. We'll go ahead and get to the fourth one, which was a very frequent recurring one among those who left the church. This forum that we were reading, they say they wouldn't let women do anything other than teach children or ladies Bible classes. They always told us that women are made to submit to their husbands and that's it. Which really bothers me because women are so much more than wives and baby makers. They taught that women should always be quiet and only teach young children or other women. And they can't even lead prayers or be a song leader. If women preaching is really a sin, they should at least be allowed to lead songs and prayers if they want to. I don't see why that would be wrong. Okay. Why it would be wrong. It's not. It says, you know, first Timothy 2, first Corinthians 14 is 34, 35, that women keep silent in the church. And then first Timothy 2, I don't allow a woman to lead or have authority over a man. I want the men to pray in every place. We'll talk about that chapter a little bit more later, but it just lays out what it is. That's not for us to argue with. As I've made the point before, nobody but Levites got to be priests and a guy. Benjamin can't go, hey, I'd be just as good as making that sacrifice as him. I'd be just as good at taking the incense in there. Why can't I? Why are you saying that I can't? I don't know God. Well, I do know, actually. God said, we're going to have it this way. Male leadership is baked into all of creation. I mean, this is. I was listening to a sermon where a guy was kind of given that. I don't know why God chose it this way, but that's just what he said. So that's what we got to do. I think that's too weak. We do know why God made men and women different and for separate purposes and for kind of leading out front and support and all of the things in the home and society and the church. I mean, you're created differently. And a man is leading in his teaching and all of these things because he's the one fighting off wolves. Worship is a very. A particular thing that we don't often treat it like. But I mean, that's something that you really need to understand. [00:14:56] Speaker A: They also said in James 1, let not many of you become teachers, meaning not every man is called to be a teacher either. Well, that's not fair. Like, some men have the gift and some men are called to be teachers and others aren't. Like it incurs a stricter judgment. So even within the male allowed roles, there are still things that not every male should or can do, in my opinion. And so, yeah, I think this is a pretty weak one. I think your Benjamin Levite article or illustration is perfect for this situation. The other thing that I don't like about it is the way that it phrases like it frames it as women are so much more than wives and baby. [00:15:31] Speaker B: It's a straw man. That's exactly what I was gonna bring up. [00:15:34] Speaker A: Okay, what's wrong with being a wife and a baby maker? As though, well, we're so much more than that. When what you mean by more is like, I could frame the other thing as guys are so much more than just the breadwinners going out there. There's so much more. Like, we should be able to be a baby. Why isn't that fair? Like, it's the framing of the discussion. I could easily flip around my role and make it look like that's all I'm called to do, quote unquote. Well, to be a wife and a baby maker and a stay at home wife. Like there is a beauty to that that I think this woman is clearly framing it from the well, anything you can do, I can do better. The Mia Ham Michael Jordan commercial, that is just ridiculous. Like no, I think we can say that there are certain roles and if we can say there are roles in general society, men are going to work on oil rigs, not women. Well, they're okay with that one. So it's just a level of degrees. They want most of it. But when it comes to the true manly roles, they don't really want that. They, they want the. That's when they'll appeal to. Okay, well we can't really do those things. So come on. I think it's weak. [00:16:35] Speaker B: But Will, I mean you guys took all the good points. I do think it is feminist, feminist ideology, you know, just completely draped all over this comment. I don't have a ton to add. I think at the end of the day, anytime that you are trying to take the way society currently views men and women and their roles and try to make it fit with, with the way that it's just they're incompatible the way that, the way that society views men and women's roles. Again as you, as you referenced Joe, women can do anything a man can do and they can probably do it better. Obviously now with the trans movement, like to try to make that make sense with the way that God lays it out is just like no wonder people are going, well no, that doesn't make sense. That's because you have to completely reject the way that society views men and women's roles. And most people don't. They try to blend them, they try to compromise both. And so that's where they eventually can get to the conclusion of well, I don't see why a woman can't be on a praise team or lead a song or lead a prayer or whatever it is as long as they don't preach. You just have to completely outright reject the society's view of those roles. Because as Jack spoke to God, God laid it out. God laid it out. And, and in First Timothy 2 that we will get back to, as Jack referenced, he appeals to creation. He says Eve sinned, for Eve is the one who sinned first. And this is the reason why. This is one of the reasons why this is the way it is. And unless you're got a time machine and can go back and change 6,000 years of history, then that's not going to change. And so yeah, that was the only addition that I had there. [00:18:10] Speaker C: In depth, but easy to understand. That's how war in heaven, War on earth. What the book of Revelation meant to the original readers and what it means for us today has been described. An Amazon reviewer said it was the best commentary on Revelation he had read in 50 years. Bradley Cobb spent literally thousands of hours researching and putting together this material, showing how first century Christians, the ones the book was written to, would have understood the book, how it matches with the rest of the Bible and how it was something that was about to happen when John wrote it. Thoroughly biblical in his approach, including the dating of the book and supported with first century history. This 550 page book does not gloss over any details and includes points of application throughout each of the book's 48 studies. Great for personal study or for a year long Bible class. Available on Amazon.com in hardcover, paperback or Kindle. We're going to move forward from that to what we said. This was something linked by the Ex Church of Christ forum. It's a man named Bob Balch or Balk, who couldn't really tell, but has a YouTube channel called that's Jesus Channel. And he's done a series on why he left the churches of Christ. Very clearly familiar with, with the teachings of the churches of Christ. He used the phrase a lot old school churches of Christ will teach such and such. And you kind of understand what he means by that. Kind of some of the more hard line, but things that a lot of us have been around and understand and some of the things that we espouse ourselves. But in his series he did a couple of videos on the command example, necessary inference approach to the Bible and applying the Bible. And that's how we get our doctrine to restore the church of the first century and be the church God wanted us to be. That I mean it's undeniably a big part of the churches of Christ. Right. The command example necessary inference. [00:19:57] Speaker A: Explain that for those that are just briefly give a like a 30 second blurb on what that means. [00:20:02] Speaker C: Yeah, well sometimes you'll hear it said direct command approved example. And then the necessary inference. When the Bible says thou shalt, that's a command. When it says and the apostles did such and such, that's an example. And then the necessary inference. So this man used the example of take the Lord's Supper. That's a command. Then what was the example was Acts 20. [00:20:24] Speaker B: They took it on the first day of the week. And the inference was that they took. [00:20:27] Speaker C: It every year, right? So that's why do we take the Lord's Supper every first day of the week in the churches of Christ, all three are at play. We're supposed to take the Lord's Supper. Jesus said this do in remembrance of me. And the example is that they got together to do it. And we infer from that that, yeah, it was weekly. So that's a really good way of laying it out. And it's all three of those are used in one way or the other to essentially set out all of our policies, beliefs, things like that. The other side of it is the idea of the silence of Scripture. If it's permissive, if it's prohibited, if Scripture hasn't spoken on it, are we allowed to do it? Are we not allowed to do it? And generally, it's viewed as prohibitive. As he kind of points out, there's some inconsistencies on some of these things. So all in all, I don't think it's a bad tool. I do think he has some fair critiques on it. So do you guys have any other thoughts on kind of the general overview of command Example, necessary inference? [00:21:25] Speaker A: I had looked up an article and I think I still have it pulled up, an article about where this came from, that this was a man. I'm trying to find the article here, but there it is. So when you're getting into Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone, guys like that, this guy had done a really good job of showing how they kind of derive this, how they came to this. Thomas Campbell, 6 proposition, the declaration and Address. So obviously the. The father of Alexander Campbell and how his son, Alexander Campbell, originally opposed the idea of binding inferences from Scripture, though his position seems to have shifted as the years progressed. And so he goes in. A little bit of the history gets into McGarvey, Moses, Lard. I thought that was really interesting that you can tell early on in the Restoration movement, they're wrestling with these things. How do we understand Scripture? Is this permissive? Is it prohibitive? Is this something that we should follow, shouldn't follow? How do we understand Scripture? This is something people have been wrestling with for literally 2000 years. But to see the kind of peel the curtain back or pull the curtain back on the Restoration movement, they did have some difference of opinion. They did sway one another to some degree on how this works. But I do think that's the foundation to some degree of command. Example, necessary inference. Just how we know it today that it did start to get the groundwork laid in the late, what is it, 1700s into the 1800s type of thing for the Restoration movement. So I thought that was very interesting from that article's point of view, that there is some history to this, because I was. I was wondering, where do we get this, this is kind of a church Christ thing. And it is from McGarvey, it is from Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell, things like that. So I just thought I'd add that in. I thought that was interesting. [00:23:03] Speaker B: Just to add one kind of more layer of context. My. I remember my first introduction to the idea of necessary inference. I had never really heard that before until I was a teenager in our high school class on Sunday morning and somebody was teaching on why we don't use instrumental music and worship. Of course, what Church of Christ is most famously known for. I do think it is unfortunate that's what we're most famously known for, but it is a reality. And that was kind of my first introduction to it. And the point they made is, is there a command to not use instruments? No, not really. Is there an example of them not using instruments? Sort of. But what we can necessarily infer based off of Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3, of course, were the two verses that were used that when he says to sing with our voices, sing with our mouths, or whatever it is, that that excludes all other forms of praise to God. And so that's what necessary inference was. And so, yeah, just to add that level of layer of context there, that's generally also when you'll see that brought up is typically in defense of the doctrines or the worship practices that the Church of Christ holds is they will, you know, refer to one of those three. And then, of course, forgiving is another one as well, for they'll go to First Corinthians, chapter 16, verses 1 and 2. Well, there's an example right there of them taking up a collection on the first day of the week. So that's why we do it on the first day of the week. I don't know where we're headed next. Here's. Here's what I'll say as we get into this discussion, specifically for this video, like the video that, that we are kind of basing a lot of this off of and kind of just generally command example, necessary inference. I do think there are a lot of legitimate gripes with, with command example, necessary inference as a hermeneutic. And I don't know if y' all want me to kind of hold my thoughts on why if you had a different direction you want to get into, Jack. But I, I do think as we, as we dive into this, it is important to say, I don't think it's perfect. I don't think. I don't think that everybody who expresses discontentment with it is completely off base for several reasons. But, Jack, where did you want to go next? I don't necessarily want to spoil the rest of the episode here. [00:25:16] Speaker C: Yeah. So Balk's critique was basically, this is what leads to the. They're the only ones going to heaven. The exclusivity, the critiques we just had a minute ago. [00:25:24] Speaker B: He compared us to the Pharisees, is what he did. [00:25:27] Speaker C: A lot of comparing the Pharisees, putting everyone back under law. Because you're trying to come up with a system of law. And I get some of that. The problem is, it's that quote about, like, capitalism is the worst of all economic systems, except for all the other systems. Like, everyone can see the flaws in it, but it's still better than everything else. And I kind of feel that way about command, example, necessary inferences. It does have flaws. It is not a perfect comprehensive thing because there's. There's interpretation and guesswork and things like that that we don't always factor in. But when I see this critique and I come to the end of it, and John Mark Hicks has a book, something about the pattern, not beholding the pattern, because that's kind of what he was playing off of going the other direction. If I think of it. I'll think of it in a minute. And he was kind of downplaying the command example, necessary inference. And he has some valid critiques. He goes to a church searching for the pattern, searching for the pattern. And he goes to a church where they let women preach. And so it's like, okay, so maybe we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater when we go a little too far with these critiques. So we want some balance in this discussion. [00:26:28] Speaker B: Yeah, I was going to say, I think what he started the video with, which is basically describing the way that people read the New Testament as a law book, looking for basically rules to follow and regulations to keep. And his point is that that's basically an incorrect way to read the New Testament. Look, the New Testament, overall, I agree with that. And we've made that point before that, hey, if you're just looking for the list to follow and just looking for what rules, you know, what's your yes, what's your no? And basically, so that you can do as little thinking as possible that that is a very. That's not what God intended is for us to be looking for the list of regulations. And so I agree with that. The problem is it seemed like he was making the point that basically there are no commands in the New Testament. He. He said several times, the New Testament is basically not a book of law. It's not meant to be read like that. And again, largely I agree, but there are some commands in the New Testament that we have to follow. And to Jack's point, he just brought up like, so do we throw everything out? And it's just kind of a free for all. It's every man for himself. It's kind of. He didn't. And you know, full disclosure, I didn't watch every single video I did watch. He has like five parts at least. And I watched part five where he debunked command example, necessary inference, quote unquote. He didn't really give an answer to that of like, okay, so then what do we follow? What, where, what. What is a command that as Jack spoke to the women not speaking, he clearly doesn't really abide by that. So I think that's pretty well, again, I agree overall with the premise of like, hey, we shouldn't read the New Testament like that, like the Pharisees did of, hey, what do we, what do we need to do? Just give me the list. But there are still some things that are expected of us as Christians as far as the way we live now, as far as the way we worship. Maybe different story. But Joe, let's bring you in here. What thoughts do you have? [00:28:16] Speaker A: Sure, yeah. I mean, he had that as his number one point is like, it attempts. And if we use the word cine, C, E, N, I can't make some necessary. So Seni attempts to establish rules and laws from literature that was not intended to provide rules and laws. Its purpose is to enslave Christians. I think that's a bit much. And like you said, will the rules. There still are rules, like you have to be baptized that we can call it a rule, we can call it. People call it a work, whatever it. [00:28:38] Speaker B: Is, cheat on your wife. Like there's all kind of stuff, right? [00:28:40] Speaker A: There still are things that are in play here that. But he looks at it as that relationship. You hear this a lot is, hey, well, it's not about rules. It's about relationship with Christ and doing what is most pleasing to God. Well, what's the problem with that? That is up for interpretation. That's what is Subjective as to what pleases God. And if somebody looks at it and goes, well, as we hear, I come to God my own way. And honestly, I don't think we have to show up. There's me an example of necessary inference. Throw that out the window. I don't have to show up. What's pleasing to God is me taking a mental health day. I think that really is what pleases God. So who are we to come in? We can appeal to scripture, but whoa, whoa, can we use that hermeneutic? Is that what it's intended for? Is that the time? Is this a cultural thing to have to show up to church? Don't forsake the assembly. I think you can really. You have to have some rubric. You have to have some structure to it. [00:29:30] Speaker C: I'm going to jump in just for a second to point out, when he says what's pleasing to God, what do you have to do? Well, you're going to look to say, well, if he commanded me to do it, it's pleasing to him. If you're taking mental health day, I think it's pleasing God. Well, how'd you get there? Well, I inferred it. And so, you know, you might argue about the necessity of the inference and to say, well, maybe have a loose grip on that because you can't be. Be too Right. Dogmatic about it. But yeah, I mean, like in one way or another you're gonna use these things. So throwing the whole thing out is basically just saying, well, we all get to do what we want. Which that can't be your interpretive path either. [00:30:08] Speaker B: And that was. Yeah, go ahead, Joe. No, obviously that was the problem that I had with this video because as we're going to get to the Joe, I think you were going to go through his points. I agree with points four and five that we're about to get to as far as his. His gripes with it. But this one, it's like, okay, if you're going. And I think that's what Jack is saying. If you're going to reject command example, necessary inference outright, what are you replacing it with? What is your measuring stick for? How you're supposed to live, how you're supposed to worship, how you're supposed to do xyz. That's the problem. And I very rarely do I see anybody come out with and say, okay, it's not command, example, necessary reference, but it is this. I don't see that often. [00:30:46] Speaker A: That is the struggle. What do you replace it with? There has to be some structure of interpreting the Bible. And if you interpret everything, and a lot of people do, and they interpret it through the cultural lens. Well, so much is cultural, then every. Okay, everything's cultural. The entire Bible is written 2,000 years ago. It has no application to today. Like you can. If you take a lot of these to the logical conclusion. There is. There's nothing like then. Then you might as well just throw out the entire Bible. We have to be able to engage with it to some degree. And to what degree? I think his second point is interesting to me. He says sinning is used so we can trust a pattern instead of trusting Jesus. It was established to fool us into believing that if we look like the early church on the outside, then we must be that same early church on the inside. This gets us a little bit into the. And Jack, we left this. I don't know if we want to enter the discussion here. It gets us into that historical discussion of like, where are we intended to look exactly as the early church, the first century church, if, you know, projecting out, like, is the church intended to grow at all in any different area? Yes, we have to be grounded in scripture, but is the church intended to look the exact same as it was in a persecuted Rome 2,000 years ago? I don't know. I don't know. And so when we look at. And we bring it all the way back to the early church, that is our example. That's what we're supposed to look like. But on the other hand, there's a level of is there any way that we are intended to almost not grow out of that, but engage with it a little bit differently than they engage with these things? Because he's saying it's to fool us into believing that if we look like the early church on the outside, we must be the same early church on the inside, trusting that pattern instead of Jesus. What are your thoughts on that? [00:32:24] Speaker C: We're also trying to get to an ideal that the New Testament church was not themselves. Every letter was written to a church that had problems was people not doing things right. That even, you know, revelation, the seven churches, there's some issues there. And so. Well, we want to look like the first century church. Well, in this framing of it, the first century church didn't look like the first century church. You're looking. You're trying to look like the church that the Bible, you know, the Bible paints the picture the Bible paints. But even with that, you're going to have to extrapolate some because church buildings, like, if we want to. And he Brings this point up early. Church didn't have church buildings, didn't have a sound system, didn't have some of these things that we have. So can we do those things? Well, yeah, because it's expedient because of all these things. Okay, but you are arguing from silence. You're arguing that, you know, you're necessarily inferring youth groups. [00:33:17] Speaker B: Yes, all the things that we've talked about before fall into that. [00:33:19] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:33:20] Speaker A: Right. [00:33:20] Speaker C: And like, so is it wrong? And so you go to something like instruments. We'll put that up against that. Is a youth group, an expedient addition, whereas instrument is an unnecessary addition? Yeah, I think so. I, you know, I think you can. Look, I don't, I don't think a youth group is a great idea in general. It's an addition to the Bible, but it's not counter to something we believe the Bible teaches, like instruments. But yeah, I mean, with, with all these things you're saying, do we look exactly like the first century church? Well, I mean, did they have pews? Did they have. There's so many physical things you can look at, but even ideological and things like that. I've talked about the political thing, Right? Well, they weren't interested in politics. Well, they were under Roman dictatorship. Okay. Like, it's a different world. And in a world where you do have a say, is it supposed to look different and thinking. I guess the point that all of this is you've got to think through a lot of these things and there's not a black and white answer. The Old Testament had the law. I mean, it. Had you read Leviticus? Yes, it's very dry. It's all listed out there. God could have done that again in the New Testament. And in some ways he did, and in some ways he didn't. [00:34:26] Speaker B: Can I make a point quickly, Joe? Then it's all you here. It's almost like both sides want to argue. You shouldn't have to think. Just don't think about it. [00:34:35] Speaker C: Right. [00:34:35] Speaker B: On the command example, necessary inference side, it's, you know, they're basically saying, well, you shouldn't have to. It's. It's right here. Just run it through that filter. Basically, no thinking, you know, and when I say no thinking, basically, like, no further discussion, no further study. You hear that? Couldn't be any simpler. No thinking. Right. And then you have the other side of, you know, this guy or people who, you know, are more progressive or reject commands and necessary inference. It's the same thing. Well, you know, don't think. No, no, Thinking, it's just relationship, it's, it's, you know, just pursuing Jesus, being more like Christ, all those things, it's almost like both sides want to take the thinking out of it. It's just, you know, it comes about in different forms. Does that make sense? That's kind of what struck me as Jack was talking there, is that it's almost like the two extremes. Neither side wants to go through the process of thinking through doing the study. Man, this is really difficult stuff. And it's not just on the one side, crystal clear, don't see how anybody couldn't see it, but on the other side it's not like, oh well, it doesn't matter. So just kind of live however you want to. And I know that guy and other people never don't come out and say that. But man, when you take away the kind of ways in which the things we're supposed to follow pretty strictly, so to speak, that's pretty much what you're saying, is that it is kind of every man for himself. So the, the no thinking on either side sticks out to me. [00:35:47] Speaker A: So that's a big sticking point for some people is the every man for himself. And this is why so many people make the historical claim. Orthodox are really big in the church, into the church being the authority. So yes, the Bible, but then they add the early church fathers and, and the church itself is the authority and orthodox. And it's for that very specific reason, which is there's a level of this that's kind of left up to everybody. And because the Church of Christ is, you know, we're non denominational, every single person is, or every single congregation is autonomous. Like what the people do down the road doesn't affect us per se. It does leave every congregation and every person to kind of figure some of these things out for themselves. That's a real big struggle. And so one of the things I want to come back to, the historical side, one of the things that I think is really interesting going back to that third point from the initial slide that Jack had, not from this guy, but from the initial one from Reddit, the doctrines and teachings, they claim to be the original church that Jesus established in AD 33. But the movement that birthed the Church of Christ didn't start until the 1800s. They also had preached constantly that members of the other churches were going to hell. And that church, Christ is the one true church. Took me a while to realize this, but any church that makes that claim is likely a cult. And so they're Looking at it as we were established in the 1800s, a lot of people make the. Once again they look at it as we need more history to basically prove our hermeneutic and to go back. And so part of their hermeneutic is we can see from church history all of these things. We get to this point, every man is kind of every man for himself. And that started with the 1800s is they shifted tradition. The, the restoration movement shifted a lot of the tradition and went back to the Bible. But then it's everybody's interpretation of the Bible. Whereas Catholics, Orthodox, things like that is not my interpretation, it's the church's interpretation for 2000 years or, or however several hundred years. What are your guys thoughts on that? I wanted to get to this and I know it's a little fitting it in maybe a little bit goofy at this position because I wanted to get to his third point. But this is also a major critique that I've heard from multiple people. We don't have the history to really go back and establish church as it is. Whereas Orthodox, Anglicans, Catholics, they all show that they have several hundred years or thousand years more than we do. And that's where they get their hermeneutic is the way that the church believed on something 2,000 years ago. We can track it throughout history and that's how we come to our conclusions for us, every man for himself. [00:38:09] Speaker B: Just off the top of my head, my problem with like the Catholics and the Anglicans is like I don't care how long your history is. If it doesn't add up to the Bible, if it doesn't measure up to the Bible, then you know, bully for you. Like so I, I know you, you've asked about this history question actually quite a bit in other episodes. Joe, I know it's a fascinating one for you. I, I do think that's a challenge for sure that, that you know and I know we've talked about that traces of the Kingdom book that tries to make the case that our history, you can, you can trace it back even though it's pretty, pretty tough case to make. But just briefly before Jack jumps in, that would be my rebuttal to the. Again with the Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican, like great for you that you can trace it back hundreds of years. It doesn't measure up to the Bible and so therefore it's discounted for me. But Jack, what thoughts do you have on that? Hey guys, Will Hareb here. Just wanted to take a minute and let you know that if you enjoy listening to The Think Deeper podcast. We wanted to make you aware of another podcast we have on the Focus Press podcast platform. It's called the Godly Young Men podcast, where myself and Joe, we tackle a lot of cultural issues that are facing young men. The target age range is around 15 to 25 years old, but we have young men of all ages listen to it. Our goal is just to restore them to godly masculinity and talk about the challenges and things that are facing young men in today's time. So if you're interested, check that out on YouTube or on any of your favorite podcast platforms. [00:39:34] Speaker C: Everybody's using opinion. Why does somebody choose the Orthodox Church? Like, if you. Because that's what they do. Well, we're the church, you know, that the apostles established. We've been there all along. All right, well, the Catholics say they are. Well, we are. Okay, well, what about the Philly? Okay, well, I believe this because of this, that and the other thing. Well, somebody else believes differently. Well, but I'm right about this. Why? Because of your personal interpretation. Because that's what you came down on with that. That thing. And so that it's kind of the same thing of what you were saying earlier, of everyone's trying to take the brain out of it in the same sense. Everybody brings opinion. And so the guy's critique was the command example. Necessary inference relies on opinion, and it absolutely does in a lot of places of what are you going to do with these verses? What do you think about it? Head coverings, you know, greeting with a holy kiss, lifting holy hands, things like that. Just all of that. That kind of thing. Yeah, there's opinion coming across in. In your interpretation of those. It would it help if, like, there was an official church book that they could hand you that says we believe this about it? Yeah, but as will saying, what if they're wrong? I mean, Pope Francis was wrong about all kinds of things. Speaking with a great authority that that doesn't solve your problem there. And so you come back to those same problems. But he had made that point. It relies on opinion. I think a fair critique is another one. He brought up this Church of Christ view. We can all understand every text the same way if we're all being honest. If I'm being honest and you're being honest. We're going to read head coverings and come to the same conclusion. We're going to read holy hands and come to the same conclusion. We're going to read Romans 14 about holiday and eating and drinking and come to the same conclusion. Because, you know, we're being honest with the text. The three of us probably can't agree on what color, what exact shade the sky is. I mean, like, that's everybody. You get enough people in a room, there's going to be disagreement on these things. I don't know. My rule of thumb, and I've told you guys this before, my rule of thumb for biblical interpretation is the longer it takes you to explain your interpretation, the less dogmatic you should be about it. The shorter the great rule of thumb. Just go right there. So you got to be baptized. It doesn't take me any time to explain that. First Peter 3, 21, Romans 6. Like, we can go. I can do that in five seconds. I can be pretty dogmatic about that. Something else about head coverings. It's going to take you, me, 20 minutes to explain why I stand where I stand of eschatology. New heavens, new earth versus disembodied heaven and spiritual bodies and things like that. That's going to take a good half an hour to get there and lay out all the cases. You're going to have the chalkboard, like from Goodwill hunting, where you've got, like, all the way across. If it's that if your explanation is that detailed and deep, you probably shouldn't be like. And therefore anybody who disagrees with me is a heretic who's going to hell forever and ever. I think that's kind of ridiculous. Women preachers. Is homosexuality a sin? It doesn't take very long to explain. I don't. [00:42:27] Speaker A: As clear as it gets. [00:42:28] Speaker B: Right? [00:42:28] Speaker C: We don't need to make a lot of room on those. Some of these other ones. I think we do. [00:42:32] Speaker B: I think anybody who says we can all understand every text the same way if we're on, it's just blatantly untrue. People have been debating these things for thousands of years. The, you know, Calvinism we've had episodes on before that obviously we strongly disagree with. They're looking at the same texts we are. They're looking at the same Bible that we are, and they are coming to the exact same conclusion on the opposite end of, like, they don't see how we can reach our conclusion that we are getting to being, you know, opposed to Calvinism and predestination. And so in their mind, again, you know, we're looking at the same Bible, we're looking at the same text. How are you not getting this concept? Conclusion? It's just a very. And as Jack said, even within the churches of Christ debates on Christmas debates On whether or not you can have a fellowship hall in the building, debates on, you know, alcohol, debates on marriage, divorce and remarriage, debates on. I could, you know, list five or six other things and to. For somebody to say, like, you know, because what they imply with that is essentially, if you disagree about this, you are either being dishonest or you're too stupid. Essentially either stupid or being dishonest with it. And again, people have been debating this stuff for thousands of years. And to just drop the. Well, we would all understand it if, you know, anybody who reads it honestly is going to come to the exact same conclusion as I have, is just a very precarious position to put themselves in. And that's where, unfortunately, the people who have left the Church of Christ and have this as a critique, it's a legitimate point that they make, is that you. You can't. You can't just drop that and make that be the conclusion and the. And the answer for everything. And yet a lot of people do. What thoughts do you have, Joe? [00:44:05] Speaker A: This is where we are called Pharisees for a reason. We lack empathy. We lack. We lack compassion for anybody. Well, those dirty dogs, they're just dishonest. They're dishonest with the text. [00:44:16] Speaker C: Like grace, I mean, I think would be a good. [00:44:18] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, exactly. We last. We lack grace. And the reason why I didn't go with grace is that's the conclusion. Concluding point is we're unable to give people grace. But really it's the ability to put yourself in somebody else's shoes and to. [00:44:32] Speaker B: Go the steps leading up to grace. [00:44:33] Speaker A: Is kind of correct. How do I. How would they get there? We view everybody as the enemy. Well, clearly they're dishonest, and clearly they don't care about God. And clearly, you know, if they. If they go to the Baptist church and clearly they don't care about the Bible at all, like, whoa, why is everybody viewed through a very negative lens rather than maybe they're trying to please God, they just don't know. So that ability to give a little compassion is what brings you around to grace. To say, okay, there may be grace for some of the topics that I'm passionate about, but as Jack said, maybe it takes me a long time to get there. There's no grace. They're just dishonest and they don't care about God. Why are we viewing everybody through a really negative lens? And that, to me, is the Pharisaical. Everybody's going to hell but us. That's really problematic for People, I hate to use the word problematic in this culture, what that means, but, like, that is problematic for a lot of people to wrestle with going, yikes. That means I have to get it all right. And there's a term I think he talks about rules. Give people comfort. People do like rules. But the problem is it does create this fear of one misstep, you get something wrong and we're going to hell type of thing. Well, I got to get everything right. Everything right. Everything right. Where does grace come in? And when you look at somebody else, and maybe they view the Bible differently than you, are you able to give grace? Are you able to view it from their point of view that we do the same thing with the mic drop moments. We talked about this, about Calvinism. Well, clearly, you know, second Peter three, nine, you just drop the bomb and, you know, drop the mic and hey, they have. They've never looked at that verse. Like, yes, they have. They have looked at that verse and they have answers to it as well. So let's not assume everybody's coming from super negative motives. These people love God. They just view it differently than we do. And I grew that. I heard that growing up is they just don't love God is pretty much what it is. That's really harsh to say about somebody else. We put ourselves in the seat of judgment telling everybody else, you don't care about God enough. Because if you did, if you were honest and if you cared about him, then you'd be where I am. That's a real dangerous place to be. Really dangerous. Because the measure by which we judge, we will be judged. As it talks about in Matthew 7. There are some people in the Church of Christ that are not going to like the judgment. I'm going to tell you that right now. They are not going to like the judgment because God's going to scour their life with a fine tooth comb, say, this is what you did to everybody else. [00:46:44] Speaker B: Because that's what they did to everybody else. [00:46:45] Speaker A: This is what you did everybody else. So let me go through your life and pick it through. I don't want to be that guy. I don't want to be in that position where I'm not able to empathize with anybody, give compassion to anybody, and certainly to give grace to anybody and to be in the seat of judgment. We really got to back up in the Church of Christ and consider our position in how we're interpreting scripture and how we judge everybody else for their interpretation. One last thing I'll say to kick us off And I'm curious your guys thoughts is talking to somebody in church that I was trying to explain these concepts of. They just interpret it differently. Calvinists interpret it differently. Baptists interpret this differently. Well if they just, if they just read it the way that it is. Okay, what is it is the way that it is. What do you mean that it. Well it just says it right there. Okay, that's your interpretation of it. So I tried to show their interpretation. What would you say to this? And it was like never thought of that. That's just not what it is. Like that's there the way they view it. Perception is reality and they're perceiving scripture from this. Well if they were honest, they just perceive it my way. And what if they said the exact same thing? Reverse it. And they said well if Joe was honest, he'd see it my way. I'm honest, I'm honest. How would you prove you're honest? You disagree with them. So we can both play that game. Who's right? That's the struggle in this is everybody's going to have their own interpretation of Scripture. And when we stand on I am right and you are wrong, can I clearly show it in scripture? And this is Jack, your point is brilliant. If it takes me 30 minutes to get there. We had everybody knows our debacle from 2023 and everything that I'm not going to call it debacle, it's just a. [00:48:17] Speaker C: Controversy at the very least. [00:48:18] Speaker A: Controversy. Everybody knows that. And we would get these letters 3, 4, 5 pages long going deep into the Greek. But if you just understood this one point and then three page letter explaining it like if it takes me three pages and I got to be a Greek scholar to understand it and I'm about to send somebody to hell over that really. I mean it's just a brilliant point to say the longer it takes you, the less dogmatic you should be in terms of sending people to hell. [00:48:44] Speaker B: The last thing about this is we talked about the command example necessary relying on opinion. And to be clear, I do think I like the way Jack put it. It is a useful, it is a helpful tool. I don't think it is the end all be all for hermeneutics because it is very inconsistently applied in the churches of Christ. I think this was this gentleman's last point on there and he went to 1 Timothy 2 as his kind of evidence text for that. He makes some really good points. And Joe, you said that, you know, I think we need to find some empathy in the church of Christ. I think we also need to find some self awareness to realize. Yeah, I mean, Paul pretty clearly instructs people to lift, you know, lift holy hands in prayer instruction. Men specifically. And if I did that in our, you know, 40 member, very conservative congregation this Sunday, everybody, including you guys, would look at me going, what on earth is this guy doing? Hey, just following the command here. Paul commanded it. And then, you know, a few verses later, talking about women not wearing gold, pearls, expensive clothing, like, sorry, ladies, no Gucci handbags. Like, you know, we don't, we don't follow those commands specifically, but we do follow the one right after. And so I, I think I'm not really adding a point here other than saying we do need some self awareness to say, maybe it's not perfect. May. Maybe there some. Again, it's not just to turn your brain off. Don't think about it. Here's the answer. We have to wrestle with this. Joe, use that word to start the episode. You have to wrestle with some of this. [00:50:04] Speaker A: Sorry, just gonna say, greet one another, the holy kiss, confess your sins one to another, bear one another's burdens and thereby fulfill the law of Christ. Galatians 6. Right. [00:50:12] Speaker B: How many elders anointing heads with oil? James. [00:50:15] Speaker A: Correct. Laying the hands, the elders, the Presbyterian laying the hands on them in James chapter five. All of those are commands. [00:50:21] Speaker B: Those are commands. And those are examples. Yeah, correct. [00:50:24] Speaker A: Like, not even the inferences were just kind of scratching the surface here. Matter of interpretation. Like those are. And then what do we do? Well, that's cultural. That's cultural. Like, okay, to your point, Will, you can make the case in First Timothy 2 that it's cultural with the women wearing the braided hair and everything else. And I heard it, you know, literally like three feet high. The next later. Yeah, the next verse or two is, women are to remain silent, like, or. I don't permit a woman to teach. I don't permit a woman to lead, to have authority. Is that cultural? Well, no, that's not. Culturally appeals to Eve, which goes all the way back. It's not cultural. But pick and choose on what's cultural with a great one. Another holy kiss. That's a handshake. It's a bit more than a handshake. There's. There's more there. We don't. Even if you say, okay, that's a cultural way of expressing love. We don't express love. We're not fulfilling the command one way or the other. Whether you want to do the holy kiss or you want to do like A deep, heartfelt hug. We don't. We don't extend love in that way either. So that this grinds my gears as to how much we can once again be dogmatic on so many things. But then when we have multiple commands of greet one another with a holy kiss, we just blow right by that one because it doesn't matter. We will send people to hell over certain things that are mentioned in one verse, but we will blow over those that have six different commands. Who is being inconsistent? We have to think about it from that point. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be dogmatic on how we worship God. I think there needs to be a level like, hey, this is how we do it. Instruments are not authorized, so don't hear me say that they are. My point in this is if we're going to be dogmatic about one, we need to be dogmatic about the others. We need to step out and say, if command example necessarily what we're doing. Let's get serious about that. Jack, what are your thoughts? [00:52:00] Speaker C: So Caleb Griffith, I think he's at Brown Trail. Sharp guy, commented on a thing I had a while back saying, command, example, necessary inference isn't even a hermeneutic. It's just an application tool. The hermeneutic is your. You got to do your exegesis of studying the text and finding kind of the. Digging out the parts of what the text gives you and then interpreting what they're saying and then going to your application and pretending that command example, necessary inference is. The hermeneutic is how we circumvent the interpretation where people pretend we're not interpreting. Like, well, no, you are interpreting and you don't know that you're interpreting and you don't know the method with which you're interpreting. And so we brought up John Mark Hicks's thing and Balch on his video brought up things of. Some people just take a very philosophical kind of hermeneutical approach to, well, you know, kind of the way of Jesus and what would Jesus have me do? And things like that, and it's like, well, but that's so nebulous. And so how are we even making these interpretations? And when you kind of ask somebody to do their work, like I said earlier, get the chalkboard out and start doing the long division, they really can't. It's just, well, it means what it says. Like, well, it doesn't say what you say. It says, so how did you get there? And so realizing that, realizing you're taking some principles of reading it directly as literature, or I mean reading the Psalms, reading Revelation, reading Matthew and reading Leviticus, you're going to read differently. Those are you're going to bring a different hermeneutic to each of those. As for your application. And so when you're talking about some of these things we say are cultural, that's you're taking a hermeneutic that allows for that and it's not taking it all 100% literally on its face. And so acknowledging that I think is important. Having made all these critiques, I think we well, let me make one more critique. There's a bunch of verses he brings up that will come up in these discussions about Acts 17 says the times of ignorance are over, so therefore nobody has an excuse to miss anything. 2nd Peter 1:20, 21 of no scripture is a matter of private interpretation. That doesn't mean that people don't interpret. That means that people didn't make it up like it was the writers it's talking about there. Philippians 3:16 Let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained. And so people say, well, that's standard or things like that. That means we've got to keep following the doctrine that we've had. Second John 9, anybody who goes beyond these things does not have God. And then 1 Corinthians 1:10, you be made complete in the same mind and the same judgment that one's taken to say, you've all got, everybody's got to agree about all these things. None of those say any of those things. None of those say that you have to agree on everything or that there's, you know, we've all attained to the same thing. Therefore we all agree on every last minute speck of doctrine. It doesn't say that that's an interpretation that somebody makes it say that and then they apply it to cut people off out of the kingdom. I think we've got to be better about those texts. So that's that side of it. We're very critical of that. On the other hand, when pushed, when, when he comes around when Balch does to his view, he says the old classic line, it's a relationship, so stop trying to find rules. If there's no rules, what are we doing here? I mean, you've got to have something. And that's where we come back to having some, having a positive view towards seni command example. Necessary inference is you got to have something, man, you got to have everybody has something. Everybody draws a line somewhere between what's a Christian and what's not a Christian? Everybody might agree there's some gray area, and I'm not one to judge on that much, but are Muslims going to heaven? No. Okay, so. Well, why? What? Mr. Balch has rules all of a sudden? Mr. Who is all relationship and no rules? You have to have rules at some point. And I think command, example, necessary inference gives us a great tool to apply rules. Being 100% dogmatic and saying everybody has to agree on every interpretation I make, that's where you get into trouble. But you got to have something, because. [00:55:56] Speaker A: Without it, why not take the Lord's Supper on a Tuesday? And while we're at it, why not take it on a Wednesday, Thursday, Friday too, the same week? Because, hey, it's just relationship. And if a little is good, then a lot is better. And so don't we want to please God and keep that top of mind all the time? So why wouldn't we take the Lord's Supper every day? And why not multiple times a day? Because there's a command and there's an example and there's an inference, as we talked about at the beginning of the episode, that seemed to indicate otherwise. That. And really it comes down to. And Will, you mentioned this. With instruments, is silence prohibitive? We talked about that. But that's really where you see it is. Okay, well, we're not seeing it any other way. Well, that means go for it, man. Have trumpets and have guitars and have drums and everything else. Because why not? It doesn't say you can't. It doesn't say you can. And that's the big part of it. But in the relationship element, anything goes, as long as you feel that it's justified. In the relational part, it's bringing me closer to Christ. There's a lot of people that can say it's bringing me closer to Christ is God understands my choices. So I'm going to go marry my fourth wife because he understands my heart. Where's the line? I can't say otherwise, Right? Because I can't point to scripture. No rules. There's no rules. It's just relationship. And I think my relationship with God is really good. How would you know that? Because I do. Right. There's no way to ever understand if you're actually in relationship with God, if there are not some binding principles here. But before we get to our. Think fast, fellas, I'm curious. Jack, this is. And sorry, Will, not to exclude you, but Jack has written on this, and he's talking about writing a book on this there's an element where the local church comes into play because somebody might listen to this and say, man, so I've got to exegete the Scriptures and I've got to come to my own interpretation. I don't know the Scriptures that much. I don't even know how to exegete. Therefore, what do I do? Where do I go to get this? And if I go to some community church, what if they give me really bad advice? But I don't know any different. So it leaves every Christian having to kind of make up their own rules or not make up their own rules, but, like, come to their own understanding of Scripture. Some are going to really know that. Some are not going to know that at all. How do we work through that? Where does the local church come into play? Because you've written on elders and things like that. What are your thoughts on that? [00:58:02] Speaker C: Good grenade to throw me right at the end of the episode. [00:58:05] Speaker A: Sorry. [00:58:05] Speaker C: You know, church autonomy makes it to where. Yeah, we've got. We talk about that. You've got to allow for differences. You got to allow churches to do things a little bit differently than you. That doesn't. But again, there's going to be a line somewhere. There's going to be a line at which you say, that's too much, gone too far. We're not in fellowship anymore. I don't consider them Christians, whatever the case may be. Like, if you don't have that line, then you're just universalist. Everybody's got the line somewhere. And so you say, for the person seeking, you pray, they keep seeking. You pray they just keep going because they don't know anything yet. They need to have a heart, and he who asks it should be given to him. And all those promises that we have, you need to believe. But I mean, on day one, how much is a person supposed to have? Right? How much. How good do they have to be at using command, example, necessary inference and understanding those things and all that? And I don't know, I'm just thankful that I'm not the one who's at the judgment. And people, anytime you say that, it sounds like, well, then it just doesn't matter. No, I'm not saying it doesn't matter. I'm saying it's very hard to make a judgment on people's ability to know, people's experience, people's heart, people's. All those things. Yeah, you want them to be in the right place for sure, but it also takes time to get in the right place. Sometimes it takes seeking. There's a journey there that you have to allow for. And again, I'm glad I'm not the one who's judging where they are in the journey. As I said earlier, there's some big things you really need to get right, some obvious things. There's other things that maybe you're going to take some time to come around to. I mean, if you haven't changed your mind on anything in the last 50 years, you're probably not seeking. And when you do change your mind, you're like, man, I'm really thankful that God had grace for the time. I didn't know what I know now and probably still know something wrong that I need to learn and there's still room to grow. I'm receiving grace right now too, so I'm thankful for that. So that's not, that's a long non answer to your question, I guess. [00:59:57] Speaker B: I think what I'd wrap with as we kind of wrap this two episode, you know, span here of talking to those who've left the church, we said at the start, you know, we love you, God loves you. We hope you come back. If you are honestly open and willing to, you know, seek and engage. There are people out there who, even if you've dealt with hypocrites, dealt with people who have treated you poorly, as I know there are people that do in the church. There are people that are the complete opposite in a really good way. So I would encourage anybody who might still be listening who has left the church or who has completely rejected God or Christianity in general. Of course the path is still open for you as well. So wanted to end with that. [01:00:42] Speaker C: All right. It's a good place to end on. I don't believe we have time for our think fast, so we're going to go ahead and skip that. There wasn't that much in the news this week anyway. Israel, Iran, it's already been covered. I did a video on Israel, so you can go check that out if you'd like. But we'll push that to next week. Lord willing. There will be. Well, hopefully there's nothing too crazy to talk about. You never know. You never know what's going to happen week to week these days. [01:01:05] Speaker B: But we need some like, like serious but also somewhat light hearted. Think fast. [01:01:09] Speaker C: Right? Right. We don't want World War iii, anything like that. So anyway, discuss the wnba, but I. [01:01:16] Speaker A: Don'T think anybody, I don't, I don't. [01:01:18] Speaker C: Want to give them any more press than they're already getting. Hey, everything I know about them I know against my will, so we'll avoid that for now. But again, thanks to everyone for listening. Looking forward to hearing your comments, whether on YouTube Focus plus, have a deep end with your responses to it. And yeah, I think that's all we have for this week. We'll talk to you guys on the next one. Hey guys, Jack Wilke here. If you enjoy our work with podcasts like Think Deeper and Godly Young Men and our books, articles, seminars and want to support the work that we do do, the best way to do so is to go to focuspress. Org Donate. That's focuspress. Org Donate. Thanks again for listening.