A Debate On
Necessary Inferences
Resolved: "Necessary inferences are essential to doing the will of God on any subject."
Affirmed: Terry W. Benton
Denied: Lynn Trapp
2008
Agreed Rules For This Debate
Hi Terry,
I'm looking forward to the opportunity to discuss the place of necessary inferences in an understanding of scripture. I would propose that we follow the format below.
1. Each of us will write 4 articles on proposition 1 -- you in the affirmative and me in the negative. We will then reverse the order for proposition 2.
2. Each article will be a maximum of 4 pages double spaced (using 12 pt type).
3. Each of us will have a maximum of 4 weeks to complete the next article in the series.
I'm open to modifying any of these suggestions in a manner that is agreeable to both of us. Just let me know what you think.
I don't have any particular ideas on publishing. Let me know what you have in mind for that.
Lynn Trapp
Hello Lynn,
I would modify the pace of point 3, and shoot for 4 weeks but be flexible enough to allow up to 8. I have lots of projects, meetings, studies, family health issues, and have only brief stretches of time to devote to this project. We will be flexible with each other's needs, I hope. After we complete the exchange, we will proof it for typos, finalize it, and publish it in full on any web-site without alteration, addition, or subtraction or further review. Each is free to print it, sell it, and distribute it, if they so deem it a worthwhile debate, but we will agree to post it free on any web-site we choose without comment or review. Who knows but what we will find it to be immediately to be too shallow or unworthy of distribution, or we may find that it will open minds more to the will of God and be worthy of wide distribution. I'll start in the next few weeks and hopefully have my first affirmative to you in 4 to 8 weeks. I'll shoot for 4, but this is a busy, busy year for me. The less pressure, the clearer and better our presentations as far as I am concerned.
Shooting for May 17, but flexible enough to allow up to June 17:
Resolved: "Necessary inferences are essential to doing the will of God on any subject."
Affirmed: Terry Benton
Denied: Lynn Trapp
Resolved: "Necessary inferences are NOT essential to doing the will of God on any subject."
Affirmed: Lynn Trapp
Denied: Terry Benton
Hope this is agreeable to you.
Kindly,
Terry
Hi Terry,
That kind of flexibility is fine with me. Keep in mind that, at a total count of 16 articles, the whole project will take anywhere from 64 to 128 weeks -- unless we are both able to push it along some. I was primarily concerned that it not take much more than a year to complete. I would suggest that we might be flexible with the length of articles and set it at any length from 4 to 8 pages -- still maintaining the double spaced, 12 pt type requirement.
I don't know if there has ever been a formal debate on this specific topic or not and, therefore, believe it could be a very profitable tool for many brethren. I'm definitely ok with the publishing suggestions you have made. I would think that, if either of us chooses to print the book for sale, we share any royalty payments equally, since we will essentially be co-authors. Or, we could agree that we only make it available for free on some website, unless both of us decide to print it and we each get whatever payments come from our own sources. We can talk about it later, but if we choose to print it for sale, we might want to not do the website thing, as that would effectively kill any possible sales of a book. Let me know what you think.
I'll look forward to receiving your first article in 4 to 8 weeks.
Lynn
Hello Lynn,
8 pages is the maximum. Now, can you tell me if there is a way to set MS Word to a double-space setting or mode? I've never used that format before, so have have not seen any commands or examples from which I can necessarily infer what to do. :) I've got both Word 2003 and Word 2007, but prefer using 2003. Do you have any expertise in this matter?
Terry
PS: There may be times when it goes much faster than even 4-8 weeks. There may be times when I can do it in 1 week, but setting it at 8 weeks allows us the breathing room we may find we need at times.
First Affirmative of First Proposition
Resolved: "Necessary inferences are essential to doing the will of God on any subject."
Affirmed: Terry Benton
Denied: Lynn Trapp
I’m glad to start this discussion with Lynn Trapp about the place of necessary inferences in our efforts to determine what the will of the Lord is and how to do that will. In essence it is about the place and essentiality of reason and judgment in determining and doing the will of God. My position is that we do have to use reasoning and there is information that we must reason from, and we are to draw conclusions that are necessary to doing the will of God. That makes this study very important.
Definition of the Proposition and its Terms
I will begin by defining the proposition. By “necessary inference” I am referring to conclusions or judgments that are forced by the total evidence of God’s word. A NECESSARY inference is a CONCLUSION that is logically inevitable or unavoidable if the assumptions or premises on which it is based are true. For example, if the facts are stated that a man “came up out of the water”, then based upon the premise that we can assume the truth of that statement, then we MUST of necessity infer or conclude that at some point in time that man “went down into the water”. It is a necessary inference. It is logically inevitable or unavoidable. So, now we move to the next part of my proposition which says “Necessary inferences ARE ESSENTIAL”. By these two words I simply mean that you cannot avoid the use and necessity of drawing the unavoidable conclusions that are forced upon us by the statements of the Bible. By “to doing the will of God” I mean whatever God wants us to believe or do to please Him and avoid displeasing Him. By “on any subject” I mean that God’s will is diverse and involves many issues. For example, if I am looking at the subject of God’s will about baptism, there are statements in His word I must examine on that subject, and when I do, it will be necessary for me to make certain unavoidable (necessary) inferences (conclusions) from that available information. One necessary inference will be on whether God wants ME to be baptized at all. There is no direct statement that says “Terry Benton must be baptized”. So, I have to reason from the evidence and draw from that evidence a judgment about whether I should be baptized. It is inescapable, and Lynn will not be able to show otherwise. In fact, he has to USE what thinks are necessary inferences to reason to his conclusion that you don’t have to use necessary inferences. I don’t envy his role in this debate. Another necessary inference will be on whether any specific mode or action can be correctly called “baptism.” I also will have to unavoidably conclude from the total evidence what God’s will is as to the motive and reason to be baptized. So, here is one subject, and regarding that subject and all other subjects, it is essential that I draw the necessary inferences from the available information, because that is essential to doing the will of God on that subject. I think I have defined my proposition clearly enough for a relatively careful reader to grasp or understand. But, let me state further in regard to necessary inferences that I understand that many inferences are possible inferences, but only some can be necessary or unavoidable. When the evidence says a man “came up out of the water”, a POSSIBLE inference is that someone had thrown him into the water. That is possible, but not NECESSARY. Another POSSIBLE inference is that he “jumped in the water”. That is possible, but not necessary. The ONLY necessary inference is that he did indeed “go down into the water” (no matter how he arrived there), because a man cannot come up out of the water without first going down into it. The Law Dictionary says,
Inference or deduced fact that "is inescapable, or unavoidable from the standpoint of reason; an inference is not inescapable or unavoidable if another and a different inference may be reasonably drawn from the facts as stated."
So, we are talking about doing the will of God, and there is first the exploration (the study and examination of the record), then the determination of what the will of God involves (what applies to me and what does not apply to me). The exploration of God’s word presents to us the available information, and that information is processed. When the information is processed, it is tested through proper reasoning, and necessary conclusions or inferences are drawn from the information. A necessary conclusion is a tested conclusion and is essential to determining WHAT the will of God is, and also how to carry it into practice or operation in thought and/or behavior. Lynn denies that we have to do this. I will show that it is unavoidable. By signing this proposition Lynn has already reached what he considers a necessary inference. In this case, he thinks it is a necessary inference that the Bible shows or forces one to the conclusion that necessary inferences are not essential to doing the will of God on ANY topic. Amazing!
Proof of the Proposition
Hebrew Writer Appeals to Psalm 110
While the Levitical priesthood was still in place, David was inspired to write Psalm 110 in which he prophesied the Messiah would be a “priest forever after the order of Melchizedek”. The Hebrews writer (I’ll say “Paul”) draws a necessary inference from this statement. He concludes that it proves an insufficiency about certain aspects of the Levitical priesthood (Heb.7:11). He is saying that there is a necessary implication that there was a NEED for another priesthood to do something that was not being done by the order of priests under Aaron. He is trying to get the readers to see that something is “of necessity” (lodge that word in your memory) to be concluded from the Old Testament information. The necessary inference is that there was to be a change of the priesthood. That is an inescapable conclusion from the statement made in Psalm 110. But, there is also another necessary inference that follows from that conclusion. He says, “For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also the change of the law”. (Heb.7:12). Please notice how that Paul uses the references to statements in the Psalms to bring his readers to the “necessary inference” or conclusion that the Messiah had intended to change the priesthood to a different order (the Melchizedek order), and that to do this, there is the necessary conclusion that the law would have to be changed too. He goes on further to draw some more necessary inferences from what is “evident” (our Lord sprang out of Judah) and what is even “more evident” (another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek). From his sources, he is reasoning to the necessary conclusions that those biblical facts force him to. But, let me point out that this necessary conclusion is “essential to doing the will of God” (see the proposition). Paul’s readers must consider the available facts from what tribe Jesus was from, from the statement in Psalm 110, and draw the necessary inference that they must give up the Law of Moses with its Levitical priesthood, and conclude that they have a better Priesthood in Jesus. When they draw the necessary conclusion, they can do the will of God in believing in Jesus. Thus, I have shown beyond doubt that my proposition is true: "Necessary inferences are essential to doing the will of God on any subject." A reader, who had not looked at this evidence and had not reached this conclusion, would not be doing the will of God. But, reasoning has to be used (of necessity) on the evidence in order to reach proper conclusions (necessary inferences). The Jews had overlooked this evidence. Paul is bringing it to their attention so they can draw the necessary inference that will help them give up their blind allegiance to the Law of Moses and start doing Gods’ will through believing in Jesus Christ.
This is only one example, but it is a legitimate example that shows that reasoning upon the available evidence necessitates the necessary conclusions or inferences that God did not directly state in the Old Testament, but surely implied in the scriptures.
The Judgment Concluded In Acts 15
The argument presented at Antioch by certain men was that one could not be saved unless circumcised according to the custom of Moses (Acts 15:1). The discussion was moved to Jerusalem and the evidence was considered. Examples of salvation without circumcision were presented. Statements of the prophetic word were considered. They also considered the fact that the apostles had not taught this. After considering the available information, James drew a judgment (a necessary inference). He said, “I judge that….” But, the judgment was based on the available evidence. The evidence forced a necessary inference (Acts 15:19). But, this is what would decide “the will of God” on this issue. In other words, "Necessary inferences are essential to doing the will of God on any subject." But, necessary inferences are always used when trying to determine what the will of God is. There is no way to dismiss logic and reasoning when it comes to understanding the will of God. Even if there is a direct command written to someone else in the scriptures, one still has to draw a necessary inference that what was stated to others ALSO applies to us. There is no escaping the fact that "necessary inferences are essential to doing the will of God on any subject."
If it is essential to dismiss logic because God’s will is not discerned and judged as to its application to us, but is always explicitly stated, then it was wrong to do anything at Antioch and Jerusalem but appeal only to explicit statements and declare that no judgment need be made. But, they did the very thing that my proposition says is necessary to doing the will of God. They considered the total evidence and drew the necessary inference that is forced by the total evidence. Thus, I have now shown in two cases that my proposition is true. There are so many more examples that I could appeal to, but space limitations will not allow for it at this time. One more example will have to suffice for now, but the reader is encouraged to watch carefully to see if Lynn will deal with these examples in a way that shows the opposite of the proposition is true.
Reasoning to a Necessary Conclusion
In Acts 17: 1-4 Paul “reasoned” from the scriptures (statements) to the necessary inference that the “Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead”, and from that inference to the conclusion that “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ”. There was no direct statement that said: “Christ had to suffer” or “Christ had to rise from the dead”. There was reasoning upon the evidence and the evidence forced the necessary inference. But, unless they reasoned upon that evidence and drew that necessary conclusion, they would not be doing the will of God. Therefore, "Necessary inferences are essential to doing the will of God on any subject." My proposition is proven to be true.
In order for Lynn to disprove my proposition, he will have to prove that Paul did not draw necessary conclusions from Psalm 110 about the necessity of a changed priesthood and law, and he will have to prove that no one else could draw from the evidence he presented any necessary conclusions at all. Further, Lynn will have to show that the judgment James stated in Acts 15 was not a necessary inference from the available evidence. Further, he will have to say that after the evidence was examined the men who taught circumcision was essential could not now draw a necessary inference that they were wrong. Furthermore, in order for Lynn to disprove my proposition, he will have to show that Pauls’ reasoning to the conclusions that “Christ had to suffer and rise” is not a necessary inference from the scriptures. I don’t know why Lynn inferred that my proposition was wrong and that he could prove it was wrong, and judged that he should write this proposition and deny it, because that very premise is at least a “necessary inference” to him. If it is not a necessary inference to him, then why did he sign the proposition as if he could reason us to his conclusions? It will be very interesting to see if a man can prove that necessary inferences are not essential without using reasoning that brings us to that necessary conclusion or inference. See if Lynn can do that.
In closing, let me remind the reader to watch carefully. Lynn is obligated to stay with the PROPOSITION. We are not discussing anything but the validity of this proposition. I do not have to defend anything that others may have said in some other work. I aim to keep focused on proving this proposition is true. Lynn is obligated to answer MY arguments. He will have his turn later to make his affirmative arguments on HIS proposition. Right now, he is in the negative of THIS proposition, and the obligation now is for him to show how my arguments were not sound and why he drew that conclusion. He must deny that “necessary inferences are essential to doing the will of God on any subject.” To do that, he must follow each of my arguments to show them invalid. Can he do that without reasoning to a necessary inference? It will be most interesting to watch and see. I appreciate him being bold enough to sign this proposition, and I hope good things come out of this study for us both and all who read it for years to come.
Terry W. Benton
First Negative
Let me begin by saying that I am very happy to be engaged with Terry on the subject of the place and purpose of necessary inferences. Terry and I have never met in person, but are acquaintances through an internet email list. I find him to be a very congenial gentleman and his method of argument always focuses on the issue at hand. My position in this part of our debate is to deny that “necessary” inferences are “essential” to doing the will of God on “any” subject. While Terry says that his position “…is that we do have to use reasoning and there is information that we must reason from, and we are to draw conclusions that are necessary to doing the will of God,” I will be showing that he actually has a much bigger job than that. I will show that, as the proposition is worded, Terry must prove that “necessary inferences” are the only way that we can know and do the will of God on any subject.
Terry begins with a set of definitions and they are quite acceptable. However, in making them I believe that he betrays the difficulty he will have in proving his proposition. For example, in defining the term “are essential” he says, “By these two words I simply mean that you cannot avoid the use and necessity of drawing the unavoidable conclusions that are forced upon us by the statements of the Bible.” Yet, there are many ways, other than “necessary inferences,” that can lead us to doing the will of God. Terry seems to be under the mistaken impression that I am denying the use of logic in biblical studies. Quite to the contrary, I am a very strong advocate for the use of logic, but I recognize (as I believe Terry does also and will have to admit) that there is much more to logic than “necessary inferences,” and there is more to doing the will of God than logic.
Human beings actually engage in 2 primary kinds of logical thought – deductive and inductive. Terry’s proposition could actually have been worded, “Deductive arguments are essential to doing the will of God on any subject.” My argument, in both the negative here and in my affirmative later, is that we actually use inductive logic to determine the will of God much more than we use deductive logic. Most of the things we learn from reading the Bible are the result of arguments from analogy (some of which Terry used in his first article), inductive generalizations, arguments from authority (also something that Terry used), and causal inferences (again Terry used this too). These are all types of inductive arguments and they do not lead to “necessary” inferences, but to “probable” inferences. We learn much about doing the will of God in a probably manner – not always in a necessary one.
I should also make an observation about one of those types of argument – “argument from authority.” Patrick J. Hurly defines it this way, “An argument from authority is an argument in which the conclusion rests upon a statement made by some presumed authority or witness” (A Concise Introduction To Logic, P. 35). The fact that we use the Bible as our “authority” for what we do suggests that virtually all of our reasoning, when it comes to knowing and doing the will of God, is actually inductive reasoning. Even if we write deductive arguments about what the Bible says, we are still working from a “presumed authority or witness.” Any “necessary inferences” that we make are based on premises that are drawn from a type of inductive argument.
Terry sets out, in the course of his article, to present a series of examples that are intended to show that “necessary inferences” are, in fact, used by biblical writers. I won’t deny that, although I will look at the details of his examples to see if they are what he really thinks they are. I believe in and use deductive logic to reach “necessary inferences” quite often. One of the strongest types of “necessary inference” is drawn from an “argument from definition.” The argument that we make regarding the “mode” of baptism is based on that. The Greek word “baptizo” means, by definition, “to immerse.” Therefore, we may necessarily infer, from our authority – the Bible, that baptism must be administered by immersion, but it is still, ultimately, and argument from authority.
Another very strong type of deductive argument is a “categorical syllogism.” Terry argued that we can necessarily infer that someone who comes out of water must, necessarily, have gone down into the water. What he didn’t show you is how that “necessary inference” is reached – it is by means of a categorical syllogism.
· All people who come out of water are people who go into water.
· Jack came up out of water.
· Therefore, Jack went down into water
Thus, as you can see, I’m not at all opposed to the use of “necessary inferences” to understand how we must do the will of God. What Terry has to prove is that the use of “necessary inferences” is ESSENTIAL regarding “any subject.”
Terry’s Proof
Let me now take a look at the arguments that Terry presented as “proof” for his proposition. Keep in mind that showing that biblical writers sometimes used deductive arguments to draw “necessary inferences” really isn’t sufficient proof of Terry’s proposition. He has to prove that we cannot do God’s will on “any subject” without the use of a “necessary inference.” However, even the “proof” that he offers is not nearly as strong as he wants our readers to believe.
Hebrews 7
Terry presents 2 cases of “necessary inference” from this passage. The first is (from verse 11), in fact, a deductive “hypothetical syllogism.” This is a formal argument that is presented in the following form:
· If P, then Q
· P
· Therefore Q
Thus, the argument in Hebrews 7 can be worded like this.
· If the Levitical priesthood is imperfect, then we need a new priest after the order of Melchizedek.
· The Levitical priesthood is imperfect.
· Therefore, we need a new priest after the order of Melchizedek.
I have no quarrel with this part of Terry’s argument, although this still doesn’t prove his case – which is that we are required to draw “necessary inferences” for “any subject” in order to be able to do the will of God. However, in his second example from verse 12, Terry gets tripped up on the presence the indicator words “of necessity.” Things can be “necessary” for reasons other than being the valid conclusion of a deductive argument. In this case, I believe we have an example of a “causal inference.” A causal inference is an argument that “…proceeds from knowledge of a cause to knowledge of the effect…” or vice versa “…from knowledge of an effect to knowledge of a cause” (Hurley, P. 35). In the case in Hebrews, the effect of changing the law is certainly one possible conclusion that could be drawn, but the writer could have also argued for some other approach, such as an antinomian approach that said we don’t have to follow any law any more. Thus, there are at least 2 possible conclusions and maybe more. In spite of the presence of the indicator words, this is not an example of a “necessary inference.”
Terry then goes a step further and wants our readers to believe that we must “…draw the necessary inference that they must give up the Law of Moses with its Levitical priesthood….” However, it is far from certain that the writer of Hebrews is arguing for giving up the entire “Law of Moses.” What he said in verse 12 is, “of necessity there is a CHANGE of the law.” So it could be argued that the writer is only arguing for a modification in the Law of Moses that would allow for a priestly order different from the Levitical order. Clearly, this is not an example of a “necessary inference.” Terry suffers from the same problem that many church of Christ people do in assuming things are “necessary inferences” when they are nothing more than “probable inferences.”
Acts 15
Terry next argues that he has found a “necessary inference” in Acts 15 where James made a “…judgment…based on the available evidence.” He then says, “The evidence forced a necessary inference (Acts 15:19).” However, this is actually a case of “argument from authority.” James quotes Amos 9:11-12 as his authority that the Gentiles would call on the name of the Lord. James concludes that the Jewish Christians should not “trouble” then Gentiles because of what Amos said. However, there are other possible conclusions that could be drawn – such as having 2 separate groups of Christians, one Jewish and one Gentile. There might be other possibilities too. Still, even if this were a case of a “necessary inference,” it doesn’t prove Terry’s proposition.
Terry then makes this statement, “If it is essential to dismiss logic because God’s will is not discerned and judged as to its application to us, but is always explicitly stated, then it was wrong to do anything at Antioch and Jerusalem but appeal only to explicit statements and declare that no judgment need be made.” I’m not quite sure who Terry may have in mind as believing it is “essential to dismiss logic” and depend solely on “explicit statements,” but it certainly is not Lynn Trapp. Toward the end of his article Terry says, “I do not have to defend anything that others may have said in some other work.” I agree and believe that should apply to me also. I do not believe in dismissing logic. I clearly believe in reasoning and drawing conclusions, both “necessary” and “probable.” It should be clear to the readers by now that I believe there are many means, only a small portion of which is “necessary inference,” required for discerning and doing the will of God.
Acts 17:1-4
Terry finally turns to Acts 17 for “proof” of his proposition. He says, “Paul ‘reasoned’ from the scriptures (statements) to the necessary inference that the ‘Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead’, and from that inference to the conclusion….” Unfortunately for Terry’s case, this passage is the farthest thing from a “necessary inference” that he has offered to our readers. The fact that Paul is said to have “reasoned” does not inherently lead to the conclusion that Terry wants. The process of reasoning involves much more than logical arguments. We all make many statements which lack any inferential claim at all. Paul’s reasoning process in Acts 17 is said to involve “explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead…” Explanations and demonstrations don’t necessary make inferential claims. I believe Paul was offering proof of a much different kind than logical proof. In my affirmative articles one of the things I will be talking about are the many different kinds of appeals that preachers, like Paul, make to convince people to do the will of God are, in fact, extra-logical – ethical appeals, pathological appeals, emotional appeals, etc. Thus, it will become obvious that there are many cases in which we may rely on other things besides “necessary inferences” to do the will of God.
Closing
In his closing arguments, Terry makes an interesting, satiric claim about what I have to do to prove his proposition wrong. He says, “I don’t know why Lynn inferred that my proposition was wrong and that he could prove it was wrong, and judged that he should write this proposition and deny it, because that very premise is at least a ‘necessary inference’ to him.” I love satire, and I suspect that Terry does too, but his attempt at it in this case misses the point altogether. Terry is dealing with the wrong person if he thinks he has engaged someone in debate who does not believe in “necessary inferences.”
Let’s look at Terry’s proposition again. It says, “Necessary inferences are ESSENTIAL to doing the will of God ON ANY SUBJECT.” If it read that “Necessary inferences are ESSENTIAL to doing the will of God on SOME subjects,” then I never would have signed to negate that. If it read that “Necessary inferences are HELPFUL to doing the will of God,” then I would not have signed to negate that either. But is says that they are ESSENTIAL to doing the will of God ON ANY SUBJECT. As I read Terry’s proposition, what he must prove is that we cannot do the will of God ON ANY SUBJECT without drawing a necessary inference about that subject.
I know that Terry recognizes what I’m saying because he said, “…I understand that many inferences are possible inferences, but only some can be necessary or unavoidable.” So, even Terry admits that there will be some instances – I say MOST instances – in which we will not need, or even be able, to draw a “necessary inference.” We are all involved in the process of reasoning when we read the Bible, or any other piece of literature. However, that reasoning may or may not involve processes that lead us to truly “necessary” logical deductions. There are many processes that can lead us to knowing and doing the will of God other than “necessary inferences.”
Questions
I have a few of questions for Terry.
1. Do you ever do the will of God as the result of being ethically or emotionally moved to follow God?
2. Are there any subjects in the Bible about which you are uncertain regarding what you need to do to do the will of God?
3. If your proposition is correct, then do we have to have complete and perfect understanding of the correct “necessary inferences” in order to do the Will of God?
Lynn Trapp
Second Affirmative of First Proposition
Resolved: "Necessary inferences are essential to doing the will of God on any subject." - Affirmed: Terry W. Benton; Denied: Lynn Trapp
Let me begin by saying that this debate looks like it will be almost totally useless from here on out. It seems now that we are in agreement to this much of the proposition: "Necessary inferences are essential to doing the will of God.” The only part left is: “on any subject”. This is the part that Lynn spent his first negative challenging. When Lynn and I were first introduced to each other on an email exchange list called Focus on Truth, I was in discussion with others about the necessity of gathering the total information available on a topic and drawing the necessary conclusions from that total information. It appeared then that Lynn was in disagreement with me and that he did not agree to the use of “Necessary Inference”. He made this statement in message #22572 of that email list:
Quote: Logically, inferences are never "necessary", merely logical or likely or
possible.
possible.
Then he signed a proposition saying: Necessary inferences are NOT essential to doing the will of God on ANY subject”. So, naturally I thought I was debating someone who did not believe in necessary inferences at all. Now, we enter the debate and learn that he does believe in necessary inferences. But, why would he agree to affirm his proposition if he believed that necessary inferences are necessary even sometimes? His proposition says”
Resolved: "Necessary inferences are NOT essential to doing the will of God on any subject."
But, now in his very first negative, he contradicts both the quote above AND the proposition he will be affirming. He says such things as:
“We learn much about doing the will of God in a probably manner – not always in a necessary one”.
But, this statement denies the two previous quotes above, because the previous two quotes say that necessary inferences are NEVER necessary “on ANY topic”, but now in his first negative he is switching from “NEVER” on ANY topic to “NOT ALWAYS”. Thus, we can see that Lynn could not hold his position right out of the starting gate, and that my affirmative arguments dealt him a fatal blow right from the start. But, he comes out and confesses that:
I believe in and use deductive logic to reach “necessary inferences” quite often.
Now we can see that Lynn has already moved from the position before the debate began (Inferences are NEVER necessary on ANY subject) to “not always” and then here to “QUITE OFTEN”. He then argues that:
One of the strongest types of” necessary inference” is drawn from an “argument from definition”.
And later he will say:
I clearly believe in reasoning and drawing conclusions, both “necessary” and “probable”.
How can he start talking about TYPES of something he says are NEVER necessary on ANY subject? Now, we have Lynn moving from inferences are NEVER necessary on any subject to giving us some of the strongest TYPES of necessary inferences. So, this debate will be a useless discussion from here on out because now he has admitted to the validity and correctness of my proposition. All that I will have to do is say that any subject has words that must be defined, and the argument from definition IS “one of the strongest types of necessary inference” (Lynn has conceded the debate right here). We saw the debate slipping away immediately from his statements made before the debate to now conceding that there are many very strong types of necessary inferences that he uses “quite often” and that he “clearly believes” in doing so. Additionally, all subjects have word definitions, and therefore all subjects that have to do with doing the will of God are subjects from which we draw one of the strongest types of necessary inference. Here are some questions that Lynn must not ignore in his next negative:
1. On what subject do we NOT have to draw a necessary inference? (Give a specific example):
2. On what subject do we not have to draw conclusions from definitions?
3. On what subject do we not have to draw necessary inferences as to what God wants us to do?
4. Is it a necessary inference that necessary inferences are not used on that particular topic?
It is a necessary inference that ANYTHING in the Bible applies to you. To do the will of God requires “walking by faith”(2 Cor.5:7). “Whatever you do in word or deed, do ALL in the name of the Lord (Col.3:17)”. It is a necessary inference that on any subject we must walk by faith and do all in His name. The beginning necessary inference that I must believe in Jesus, leads to the necessary conclusion that all else that I do in His name is to be done on the basis of faith in Him. My proposition is thus easily sustained. Is it a necessary conclusion from the Bible that I must walk by faith and do all in His name? That conclusion is both necessary and essential. Where does the Bible say that Lynn has to believe in Jesus? Give me one passage. When he does, I will show him that he drew a necessary inference. Thus, with all the admissions that Lynn has conceded right here in his first negative, we have drawn the conclusion that he will not be able to disprove my proposition and he has already disproven the validity of the proposition he has agreed to affirm. The rest of the debate will be a lot of nothing but smoke to try to cover his careless tracks. He will talk about words like “inductive” reasoning, but he necessarily infers that he must do so. So, that won’t help him. He will talk about “probable inferences” but when it comes to doing the will of God he necessarily infers that he has to do what is even probably inferred because faith in Jesus demands that we do all in His name. That still gets him nowhere, because he infers that even those probable inferences necessarily apply to him. Thus, he will not be able to escape using necessary inferences on even some of the unclear matters or probable inferences. He thinks he has really made a strong case for himself when he talks about “causal inference”, but that does not help him at all. The change of the law (Heb.7:11-12) was certainly caused by the prediction to change the priesthood, but still there is necessary inference that is drawn from the facts whether there is also causal inferences or not. They still had to necessarily infer or conclude from Paul’s arguments made on Psalm 110 what God’s will was for them regarding which priesthood to follow. There is no escaping the fact that all arguments made by Paul will lead to the necessary conclusion of what God’s will is for the readers of the book of Hebrews. He may use some “causal inferences”, but there will still be a necessary inference of what God wanted the readers to believe and do.
Lynn tried to cloud the issue of the discussion of Acts 15 by saying that it was a case of “argument from authority”. Well, even if we allowed him that argument, he “necessarily inferred” that it was an argument from authority. But, arguments from authority also necessarily infer applications. What application did they infer from the “argument from authority”? Well, they drew a necessary inference that circumcision was not essential to being saved or serving Christ. You see, there is just no way to escape using necessary inference on any subject.
Regarding Acts 17:1-4 Lynn said:
Explanations and demonstrations don’t necessary make inferential claims.
Well, then we ask: Is it a necessary inference that explanations and demonstrations don’t necessarily make inferential claims? If he says “yes”, then he thinks the evidence forced him to that conclusion, and that becomes a necessary inference to him. If he says “no” then he has called into question whether he has used a valid argument here. The necessary inference Paul wanted the Jews to reach from the total evidence he presented to them was that “This Jesus is the Christ”. That is a necessary inference from the total evidence presented. Lynn admits that he “quite often” uses necessary inferences and that word meanings are one of the strongest types of necessary inference, but he acts like that was not necessary in this case. He argues that there are other kinds of appeal that preachers make to convince people to do the will of God. He says there are also ethical appeals, pathological appeals, and emotional appeals. Well, that does not help Lynn at all, because the emotions come out of the necessary inferences that the evidence forces. The ethical appeals are based upon the necessary inference that all evidence was defined sufficiently to warrant the appeal to the ethics of the people. Then there is the necessary inference that the necessarily conclusion that “Jesus is the Christ” means that I must surrender to Him and serve Him. There is no avoiding the use of necessary inference on any subject.
Lynn thinks that my admission that there are times when an inference is only probable, is an admission that denies my proposition. Well, no it does not. I can admit that some statements are vague in nature like how a person may have gone down into the water (jumped in, thrown in, stumbled in, etc), without also agreeing that I can do the will of God without using a necessary inference as to what that will is and that it applies to me. In every case, I will always draw the conclusions that seem necessary (even probable) to accomplishing what I necessarily conclude that God wants me to do. I can conclude “necessarily” that He “probably” wants me to do this and not that, but even then it is a necessary conclusion that He wants me to use my judgment based upon principles I know to help me discern good and evil. “Necessary inferences are essential to doing the will of God on any subject” even when it is a subject on which “probable inferences” are discerned. Since none of the books of the Bible were written to me, there will, of necessity, be a judgment (a necessary inference) that I must apply any of it’s principles to me, because I have already necessarily inferred that I must walk by faith in Jesus and do all in His name. So, my proposition still stands as a necessarily correct proposition.
When Lynn tells us an example of where necessary inference is not used, he will have given us the evidence that forces us to the necessary inference that necessary inference is not used in this case. But, that will then be a “necessary inference”. So, there is no way for him to win this debate. He will be doing something that is self-defeating. He wants us to draw what he thinks is a necessary inference that “necessary inferences are NOT essential to doing the will of God on ANY subject”. Thus, he will be affirming the very things he denies in his first negative. He says he affirms that necessary inferences are essential to doing the will of God on SOME subjects. But, his affirmative proposition is “Necessary inferences are NOT essential to doing the will of God on ANY subject”. The two positions he is occupying already in this debate are self-defeating. He cannot sustain both positions. The reader should not ignore this huge blunder in his first negative and the affirmative proposition he has signed.
Lynn’s Questions
- Do you ever do the will of God as the result of being ethically or emotionally moved to follow God? - Answer: Necessary inferences will always move me ethically and emotionally to follow God. I cannot be moved ethically without first drawing the necessary inference that I SHOULD be moved ethically, and I will not be moved emotionally without first necessarily inferring that the truths learned demands this emotion and that I am following God and not just my imagination of God.
- Are there any subjects in the Bible about which you are uncertain regarding what you need to do to do the will of God?- Answer: I may not understand what the will of God is on a subject, and so I cannot act on what I have not been able to necessarily conclude IS the will of God. In those areas where the will of God cannot yet be discerned, we are a hung jury on that topic until more evidence can move us to decision or necessary conclusion. But, we are not discussing things of that nature. We are discussing “any” subject that involves doing the will of God (and that has to first be concluded or necessarily inferred from the total information on that subject). We cannot act on what we cannot know or do not know. We have to necessarily infer what the will of God is before we can do that will. If there are areas where a necessary inference cannot be drawn as to what the will of God is, then we cannot know what God would be pleased for us to do in that particular matter.
- If your proposition is correct, then do we have to have complete and perfect understanding of the correct “necessary inferences” in order to do the Will of God? – Answer: You cannot do the will of God without first understanding what the will of God is, but that demands that you only do those things that you can safely conclude are His will. So, as we grow we learn more of His will, and become responsible for more. But, we have to keep checking our steps to make sure that they are steps of faith and not just human desire and imagination.
Terry W. Benton
Note: At this point Lynn dropped out of the debate, being unable to answer the unanswerable evidence that we all MUST use necessary inference in determining the will of God. God bless all who read with an open mind. – Terry W. Benton
