Since I wrote part one of this series on the Dever-Minnick interview, a mini-stir has erupted on the internet regarding an interpretation like mine of what Pastor Minnick said in his answers. The fundamentalist Baptist pastor on Vancouver Island in BC, Canada, Don Johnson, has written a few evaluations of this interview (here [before I wrote mine], here [afterwards], and here again). CurrentChristian, operated by fundamentalist Baptist pastor in Marshal, MN, Greg Linscott, has linked to my first post and quite a few comments ensued. Mark Dever himself has written a blog at 9Marks about separation, almost as if he has been reading the reaction to his interview. Quite a few comments follow his article by professing fundamentalists and others.

Not Ready

After all of the recent comments, I still hold to what I wrote in the first article, probably even more so. Some give Mark Minnick a pass because “doing interviews” is difficult. I wouldn’t expect Mark Minnick to be as smooth as he is in a sermon from notes. He probably doesn’t anticipate every question that Dever could ask. However, Dever’s questions weren’t some great mystery for someone who has been in the ministry for over 25 years. I’m accustomed to talking to people spontaneously about what I believe. I do it every week going door-to-door. Regular bold presentation in impromptu situations will prepare someone to defend his belief and practice. Should I assume that Minnick is rarely challenged about his beliefs, so he is not accustomed to defending them in a relatively hostile situation?

Minnick also knew what he was going to be questioned about. He could have readied himself with some talking points to potential questions. I would have prepared myself for several different likely scenarios, especially what to do with a Southern Baptist church, especially since Dever is, well, Southern Baptist. A BJU professor, David Beale, wrote a whole book on the subject, House on the Sand. What’s the point of BJU publishing a book like that if it isn’t about separation? I recognize it was published in 1985, and now the SBC is more conservative, but have the issues fundamentally changed? Is there any liberalism in Southern Baptist seminaries or on their mission fields? I know that one of the six seminaries, Golden State Baptist Theological Seminary, still harbors liberals that are still supported by the SBC cooperative program. The SBC also has moderates who fellowship with liberals. I would assume that Dever would want to know why Minnick wouldn’t fellowship with him. Wouldn’t Minnick be thinking about the same kind of thing in preparing himself to talk to Dever? My only two explanations for why Minnick did so poorly are: (1) He doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or (2) He was afraid. Neither of those are good choices, but I’d be glad to know what a third option would be.

My friend, Bobby Mitchell, independent Baptist pastor in Maine, made a good point to me over the phone that Bob Jones University has “owned” the issue of separation, like Maranatha Baptist Bible College once owned the local church issue among fundamentalists. When you thought of fundamentalists and separation, you thought of BJU almost instinctively. Of all the people who could answer a few soft-lobbed questions about separation, it would be a foremost BJU representative like Mark Minnick. If you read the transcript of Minnick’s response to the last question of Dever (that you can read here at Don Johnson’s blog), you will read something so evasive it is almost comedic. I don’t mean that to hurt anyone’s feelings or to take a shot at anyone. It is how it reads, almost like a skit in which someone is attempting to give a humorous example of evasiveness to illicit laughter.

You’ll read among the comments over at CurrentChristian some from Dr. David Doran, fundamentalist pastor in Michigan and president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, who says that he believed that Minnick did a “great job” in the interview and that he did give an “answer” to Dever to his last question. I can appreciate the loyalty and friendship of Doran. I would likely appreciate that if I was Minnick, despite the incredulity of the support. It could provide a case-study for why it is difficult to get anywhere in a self-critique of fundamentalism. Doran says Minnick answered the question. I have to think that he meant “responded to” the question. Saying words doesn’t constitute an answer, let alone a good one. He could have given a good answer, perhaps one unpopular to Dever and his crowd, although I don’t think Dever would have been offended. I think it was what he wanted, really wanted, but could not get it from Minnick. As a result, Minnick gave a very poor representation for the importance of the doctrine of separation.

Minnick’s Key Passages

During the interview Minnick focused on two passages of Scripture to teach Dever separation. Both of the examples were to explain to Dever separation based upon a principle of association—there are people and institutions that God doesn’t want His people associating with. His first example was from 2 Chronicles 17-19 and the character of Jehoshaphat. Minnick points out that Jehoshaphat made an alliance with Ahab’s son, Ahaziah, and it wasn’t even for a spiritual purpose, but a commercial one, and yet God is angry with the association and breaks Jehoshaphat’s ships to indicate his displeasure. Minnick mentions that God, Who had thoroughly credited Jehoshaphat until that point, said that Jehoshaphat acted wickedly in this.

Dever countered the first passage by asking if that means that Christians aren’t supposed to work for a non-Christian company. Minnick, it seems, could have easily swept aside that bogus comeback, but he sheepishly retorted that his example showed that “alliances were important to God.” Do you think that Dever doesn’t already know and preach himself that alliances are important to God? I thought that the Jehoshaphat reference was fine to use, but Minnick should have been prepared to explain exactly how it applied to separation with something stronger than “alliances are important to God.” So we were done with the very first passage, Minnick’s locus classicus, liquified in one minute.

OK so on to passage number two, Paul confronts Peter in Galatians. Minnick starts off by establishing that these are two Christian brothers and even leaders. Peter had associated with Judaizers who corrupted the Gospel, so Paul confronted Peter to his face. I don’t know about you, but I was thinking that moment about how great it would be if Mark Minnick would confront Mark Dever to his face. That would have been a very appropriate, immediate application of that Scripture. Anyway, Minnick says that Peter had given credit to the wrong side by not practicing separation. Peter accredits the Judaizers by doing so. Peter wasn’t himself wrong on the issue, but he associated with those who were. This is significant, says Minnick, because it is tied to the gospel. Men are swept along with the hypocrisy, including Barnabas.

This is the one point in the interview that Minnick really did pin Dever. Dever is affected by the interaction and seems under conviction after Minnick shows this passage. This was the best of Minnick in this interview in my opinion. However, it was right then that Minnick could have really helped out Dever by going further and making the application. He didn’t. He backed away, as if he was not comfortable with Dever’s conviction and so he lets him off the hook.

The Final Question

Dever asks for admonition from Minnick when he asks him the final question, which is: “What would we have to do to change for you to be free to preach here?” Minnick evades the question. After a paragraph of stammering, Dever asks again: “Ok, so what do we have to do to change in order for you in good conscience to be able to preach in a church like this?” I’m thinking, “Come on, Minnick!” At the very end, Minnick hints toward an answer if Dever wanted to latch ahold of it, but Minnick never does actually answer the question.

What’s the answer? How about “Leave the Convention”? That’s a simple answer. Dever and Minnick both talked about relatives who had left the convention. Being in the convention keeps someone in fellowship with everyone else in the convention. Dever in the midst of the interview says that he stays in the convention so as not to lose the money that people had given and that is wrapped up in the seminaries and the buildings. This is complete pragmatism. Minnick could have pointed that out. What we believe is more important than the money that had been given and then, why not trust God? He also could have answered: “Separate from the false worship practiced and worldly practices of Mahaney. If you separate from friends, you’ll shame them, and help them get right with God, which is far better for them. It’s the most loving thing to do. If you couldn’t join someone’s church, doesn’t that tell you that you can’t be in fellowship with them either, based on their disobedience to the Word of God?”

Not often can we eavesdrop on a conversation about separation between a well-known evangelical and fundamentalist. When Mark Dever interviews Mark Minnick as part of the 9Marks organization, we can, and I did. A Duke graduate and PhD from Cambridge, Mark Dever is senior pastor of the SBC Capital Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC. A graduate of Bob Jones University, Mark Minnick is senior pastor of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church in Greenville, SC, and long-time BJU faculty member. I listened with an open mind, as objective as possible, in order to give an honest, Scriptural, personal assessment of what I heard from both men. I’m interested in what men are saying about the doctrine of separation. I do have respect for both of them—Dever because of his stands within the Southern Baptist Convention and Mark Minnick for the excellent pattern he provides for the exposition of Scripture and for his informative break-downs of historic Christian writings often found in FrontLine magazine.

Overall Evaluation

Dever treated Minnick very respectfully and by the time he ended, I sensed some conviction in Dever from the interaction. Mark Minnick is a very gifted expositor; however, based on this and other interviews I’ve heard, he surprisingly is poor at spontaneous or impromptu and he sounds, to put it graciously, very tentative, in this conversation. Although he made a few good points, Minnick didn’t seem to have a strong grasp on the practice of separation. He had a great opportunity to speak up for separatists, at least for his brand, but he fell short in my opinion. Later in this commentary, I will tell you why I think that was the case.

Dever asks good questions, ones that would allow Minnick to proclaim separation. For a separatist, they were some soft lobs that he could have hit out of the park, but he never did. I believe Dever on several occasions was setting himself up for a Minnick admonition. Minnick did succeed at presenting a few passages of Scripture that were themselves enough to give Dever pause. Even with them; however, he seemed unprepared to provide their application to the interview. Dever was obviously thinking about separation, especially in preparation for his talk, so with the little textual support that Minnick gave, Dever knew he wasn’t obeying Scriptural separation. Minnick repeatedly provided Dever excuses for his disobedience in separation, almost as if he was uncomfortable with Dever’s manifestation of conviction. Perhaps this is because of Minnick’s own inconsistencies in separation that were clearly exposed by the questions and comments that Dever made.

Between the two, I was left thinking that I’d rather talk to Dever about issues than Minnick. Minnick seemed shackled by the expectations of political fundamentalism, being very cautious in answers, afraid of who he might offend. Dever even picked up on this, saying at one point that he didn’t want to get Minnick in trouble with his group. That was sad really and a testimony to one of the major ills in fundamentalism. Out of fear of getting branded, men often don’t say what they think. This environment emasculates many of the men of the movement. Some might contend that this is the graciousness of Minnick coming out. I hope so. I don’t think so. He’s a gracious man, but his lack of boldness was unsettling. Minnick was so ambiguous in his description of separation that I could not understand how to even practice it based on what he said.

Toward the beginning in describing the “landscape” of fundamentalism in one of his questions, Dever showed his knowledge by mentioning Hyles, Bob Jones, and the Sword of the Lord, all proper nouns. Sensing the discomfort of Minnick and wanting to draw him out, he repeatedly said, “Without using proper names.” This does show a shift in fundamentalism. Naming was once a hallmark of fundamentalism. It is also characteristic of Scripture, as Minnick himself pointed out when he referenced Alexander and Hymenaeus.

In a certain way, Minnick seemed ashamed of being a fundamentalist. He laughed about the various groups or “sects” of fundamentalism. When asked who his heroes were, he did not name one fundamentalist—he named D. Martyn Lloyd Jones, John MacArthur, and the Puritans. He did not say Bob Jones, III, his former pastor, or any well known pastor who was a Bob Jones graduate. At the end, he heaped praise upon Dever for what he was doing, not pointing out in any way that Dever was violating the doctrine of separation. I believe that Minnick is separated from Dever, but he didn’t say anything that would reveal that.

What Is Fundamentalism?

After introducing Minnick to his audience, Dever asked him questions about separation. As we come to find out in the interview, Dever had a prominent family member who had himself separated from the SBC, so he himself was familiar with the practice. He asked questions that showed that he grasped the BJU type of separation.

Dever asked Minnick to define a fundamentalist and Minnick said that it was someone who held to “essential doctrines of the Christian faith” and then practiced separation based on a violation of those essential doctrines. I don’t have a problem with that definition of fundamentalism. It does fit into a description of an interdenominational movement. The “essential doctrines” part of the definition; however, is why Minnick is so inconsistent in his practice.

As the interview proceeded, Minnick had a difficult time explaining how to separate. When he talked about unity in the truth and separation from anyone who departs from the truth, I never knew what “the truth” was of which he was speaking. I think it might be what the Bible teaches, but I’m not sure. It’s easy to say “the truth” and leave it undefined—someone can make it whatever he feels like separating over. If it was the “fundamental fundamentals” as Dever explained it or the “essential doctrines” as Minnick offered, where does Scripture teach that? Later Minnick referenced 1 Corinthians 5. When you look at the list of sins there over which we must separate, it seems that there are more than just the “essential doctrines” of the faith as commonly taught by fundamentalists. This is where the BJU and fundamentalistic explanation of separation leaves someone befuddled. More questioning muddies the waters even more.

KJO

Towards the beginning we heard this exchange:

Dever: In order to better understand what separation is, maybe we can sort of turn the lights on the outside of what is legitimate separation. What is an example of what would be outside of legitimate separation?

Minnick: Well, the sectarian I was talking about. Where you make issues a test of fellowship that the Scripture doesn’t.

Dever: So like the King James Only thing.

Minnick: There are many men within fundamentalism that strongly prefer the King James Version, but they don’t make that the test case. The way they would put it is that they’re not King James Only but they use only the King James. That’s not a position that I’m particularly comfortable with, because I think it basically supports the wrong side on that issue. Um, but there are some in fundamentalism that the King James Version is the test case for that.

In many ways, the evangelical and fundamentalist explanation of King James Only is just a straw man or red herring. It focuses on the translation itself and the extremes in practice but ignores the Scriptural and historic doctrine of preservation. Minnick referenced only KJO as an example of a “schismatic” or “sect” of fundamentalism that “divided the body of Christ.” Earlier Minnick himself said that separation was actually initiated by those who departed from Scriptural doctrine and practice, that separation was simply a reaction to what those men have done. If men say there are errors in Scripture, that is a departure from Scriptural and historic doctrine. Who is initiating that separation?

What Minnick said is tell-tale about the KJO issue, which is the only issue that Minnick mentioned that is a “schismatic” kind of separation. That backs up my contention that KJO is the third rail of fundamentalist politics. It is mainly political. He says that KJO is “the wrong side on that issue.” Is something “schismatic” because it violates Scripture or is it because it is on “the wrong side of the issue”? Separating over “errors in Scripture” seems to be biblical separation, initiated by those who endorse and teach that the Bible has errors against the Scriptural and historic position.

One elephant in the room of Bob Jones separation is music. Is that a schismatic issue? I know it does divide “the body of Christ.” KJO came up because that is an issue that Dever and Minnick could agree on. Minnick could keep getting “attaboys” by mentioning KJO. They could both hold hands against guys on “the wrong side” (theologically incorrect side) of the version issue. At that point, they were T4VI, Together for the Version Issue. Historically, Bob Jones has separated on music. I believe that worship is worth separating over, but that didn’t come up, because then we might have to talk about CJ Mahaney and another Mark, Mark Driscoll, who Mark Dever just preached for. Or perhaps music and worship are becoming a non-separating issue for the Bob Jones guys now.

Truth, Essentials, and Ambiguity

Dever mentioned his close friendship and fellowship with J. Ligon Duncan, a presbyterian pastor, who practices infant sprinkling and believes that this sprinkling places the infant into the church. Dever said that he believes Duncan disobeys Scripture on baptism. Minnick agreed that this was not a separating issue. Jesus commanded John to baptize Him to “fulfill all righteousness.” I would conclude from that exchange that Minnick also believes that separation over the doctrine of baptism is schismatic. That would be a logical conclusion. I don’t think; however, that Minnick would call that schismatic. Why? Politics again. The “essentials” and “truth” are determined by some sort of popular, fundamentalistic fiat. KJO fits its mandate, but baptism does not. The Bible loses its place as final authority, replaced by this sort of sacral society.

I would think that intelligent men would see that a doctrine and practice of separation that is so inconsistent could not be what God has taught in His Word. In the midst of the interview, Minnick seemed to concede that his view and practice of separation was superior to Dever’s because he was at least trying to practice some kind of separation compared to evangelicals not even talking about it. This was perhaps to persuade Dever that he should come over to Minnick’s inconsistent side. Is that the best we can do in explaining separation? Can’t we show that it is an oft-repeated Biblical doctrine that someone is sinning when he doesn’t practice it? It sounds as though separation is very unclear and difficult, but you should think about it and then at least talk about and then to try to practice some form of it, and if you do, well, you’re a separatist. I wouldn’t tend toward caring about separation if that’s what I heard and that is what I heard from Minnick in this interview.

This is a book I finished in 2000 that explores what Scripture says about worship and music. Let’s be true worshipers of God.

A few years after our church got started, we had a man who would attend our church a couple of times a month. He never joined and I visited him on several occasions. He told me why he came to our church, despite his unfaithfulness and disobedience, and it was something like this: “I know that you preach it exactly like it says in Scripture, so I figure if I come here and keep even 50% of what you’re preaching, I’ll be better than somewhere else where it isn’t being preached like this.” I’ve had different names for that kind of thinking through the years—home-spun or seat-of-your-pants theology. It isn’t a biblical approach to Christian living. In one sense; however, I was glad to hear that someone believed, and fairly objectively, that he noticed that we were serious about everything that God said.

Wholeheartedness is what anyone should expect of Christianity if he were to read the life of Christ in the gospels. Jesus called for complete obedience to everything that He said. So why is it that we don’t see this occurring today in churches? I’m not talking about sinless perfection but a striving to sort out all of Scripture and live every detail by faith. A first way that even professing believers shirk this responsibility is by saying that “Many Things in God’s Word Are Doubtful.” Anything else?

“We Must Stay Together for the Gospel”

As good as this sounds to some, there is something about it that is slightly off. It isn’t exactly taught anywhere in Scripture. It has some truth in it and could be completely true if interpreted a certain way. But what is wrong with this? Mainly, Scripture doesn’t say it.

The closest thing to this, I believe, is in Philippians 1:27, and I think we can be sure that Philippians 1:27 is where the seed for the idea comes.

And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

Not long ago I saw Billy Graham join Shecky Greene, Red Buttons, Dion Warwick, Milton Beryl and other theologians in a tribute to George Burns [a blasphemer of God] who was celebrating himself for surviving 80 years in show business. The Reverend Graham exchanged one liners with Burns about making preparations for eternity. Although the Bible makes no mention of it, the Reverend Graham amused the audience and assured them that God loves those who make people laugh. It was an honest mistake. He merely mistook NBC for God.

Bartley’s quotations say that “the devil is in the details” is actually a modification of the original quote, “God is in the details.” Does it surprise anyone that the quote has been altered? After all, God is in the details. We see that nowhere better than Matthew 5:18, 19, where Jesus says,

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Over and over again today I hear Mark 7:7 from evangelicals and fundamentalists.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

I love Mark 7:7. It’s in the Bible. It’s Jesus speaking. I agree that this verse is violated. Personally, I think that it is far less violated than these evangelicals and fundamentalists claim, and especially as it is related to their favorite targets. It applies nicely to Roman Catholics; you know, to penance and confessing sins to a priest, things like that. However, they like to apply it to any standard that the Bible doesn’t mention explicitly.

If someone says anything is wrong with rap music, out comes Mark 7:7. Dancing. Mark 7:7. Movie theater. Mark 7:7. Crack pipe. “Well, that’s wrong, so no Mark 7:7 on that.” Why? “It just is. You’ve got to be kidding them if you say it isn’t.” So Mark 7:7 seems like a verse convenient to use to protect the activities of one’s own desires.

For a moment, let’s leave Mark 7:7 in play for removing the standards often a part of the requirements of personal separation. The Lord Jesus didn’t stop at Mark 7:7 in His instruction. A little further in the chapter and you get to verse 13:

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

You can’t say that I’m wrong. You can say only that we’ve got two different positions.

You shouldn’t say I’m disobedient. You should say that I’ve sincerely searched this out just like you, but have honestly come to a different viewpoint as you.

You shouldn’t be so dogmatic about teachings that have more than one position.

When there are so many interpretations to a passage, we can’t really be certain enough about its meaning to say that someone is wrong.

Do you understand how that this loophole is “Corban” reincarnated, and that it really is a man-made creation “making the word of God of none effect”? And I see these Corbanites all over among evangelicals and fundamentalists. So I say to them……Mark 7:13.

The Lord Jesus Christ had just devastated the attack of the Pharisees and Herodians in Mark 12:12-17. Then came along the Sadducees and Jesus ended His session with them in 12:18-27 by saying this in vv. 26, 27:

And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

Our Lord quoted a text from the Old Testament (Exodus 3:6) and then taught from it. I want to examine what He did with this text and show what kind of example His dealing leaves us.

The Background

The Sadducees were the elite, essentially secular Jews. They did not believe in the resurrection, angels, or spirits (Acts 23:8), the anti-supernaturalists, i.e., the liberals. They had a low view of inspiration, even as they respected only the Torah as a basis of authority, so studying the Bible took a low priority for them. They came to Jesus with a question about the resurrection, using a ridiculous hypothetical situation. They had probably used it successfully before against the Pharisees. You could call their hypothetical, ‘the seven brothers for the one bride’ (not to be confused with seven brides for seven brothers).

Their trick question begins by establishing the Mosaic levirate laws from Deuteronomy 25 (12:19). Each of seven brothers dies and the next in line marries the widow, every marriage childless, until the last of the seven passes away, and then she dies in the end. The question: In the resurrection, which of the seven sons will be married to the woman? This question was intended to embarrass the recipient who believed in the resurrection.

The Lord starts by rebuking the Sadducees for their lack of knowledge of Scripture (12:24). Jesus then relied on His own Divine authority by declaring some brand new information on the status of marriage in heaven (v. 25). All of this together provides the context for His exegesis in Mark 12:26, 27. The Sadducees didn’t understand the very Torah they said that they relied upon as a guide. Jesus, however, did know the Scriptures.

Jesus’ Teaching

1. The Lord Jesus Christ exegeted teaching from a text that was not about what He was teaching.

Read Mark 12:26. Read Exodus 3. See any teaching on resurrection in those verses? No, you don’t. Resurrection was a distant secondary doctrine in Exodus 3. Jesus brought it front and center. Jesus authorizes this type of usage of a text. God not only permits, but obviously wants us to take teaching from texts that are not about that particular teaching. Everything God says is right and true, so the secondary truths or applications are just as authoritative as the primary ones.

2. The Lord Jesus Christ got teaching from a logical deduction from the text.

The Sadducees were proud of their logic. Their whole levirate marriage question was one of human reasoning that was then shattered by the Lord. Indicating how illogical they actually were, Jesus shows the Sadducees a logical deduction that they had missed. He trades one very fallacious deduction for a valid conclusion from the text. They couldn’t deduce a thing about marriage in heaven from laws of levirate marriage. They could, however, conclude something logically about resurrection from a popular passage in the Pentateuch.

3. The Lord Jesus Christ culled His teaching from the mere tense of a verb.

We don’t believe in thought or conceptual inspiration, but verbal plenary inspiration. Where would Jesus stand in His teaching from Exodus 3 without the present tense of the verb? When God spoke to Moses from the burning bush, He said literally, “I myself God of your father, God of Abraham,….” Jesus translated that, “I am the God of Abraham.” Of course, Abraham had died, so how was God presently the God of Abraham? He was presently the God of Abraham because Abraham was presently alive. Why? He had resurrected.

If God had said, “I was the God of Abraham,” the teaching about resurrection wouldn’t have been in Exodus 3. God expects us not only to get teaching from individual words and even letters (cf. Galatians 3:16), but He expects us to take doctrine from the tense of verbs. We would assume then that we would still have all the exact tenses of the verbs preserved for us, wouldn’t we? Or are we to assume anything from things that God teaches?

Since God takes teaching from the mere tense of verbs, then I would assume that we would also look at the mood of the verbs as well. For instance, Romans 5:1 reads:

Therefore being justified by faith, we have (exomen, present-indicative verb) peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

If you look at a Westcott and Hort New Testament, which I have on my Bible Works program, it reads differently:

Therefore being justified by faith, we may have (exwmen, present-subjuntive verb) peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

See the difference that one letter can make—an omega instead of an omicron and we go from assurance of peace to doubt about peace. Some say one small aspect about a verb doesn’t matter, but Jesus says that it does.

4. The Lord Jesus Christ inferred major teaching from a text, one not explicitly taught.

The listener infers; the speaker implies. Jesus inferred from Exodus 3:6 the doctrine of resurrection. Do we see resurrection in that text? No. So then, how can we take a teaching, and a major one, from a text that says nothing about it? We can and Jesus illustrates that we can. In doing so, He leaves us an example to follow His steps. He places a logical inference on the same authoritative level as a direct statement of Scripture.

Compromising Christians and new-evangelicals busy themselves developing taxonomies that rank the authority of Christian doctrine by whether the teaching comes from direct statement or logical inference. They say that inferences from Scripture do not have the same authority as Scripture itself. Jesus says they do; they say they don’t. New-evangelical Millard Erickson ranks logical inferences below direct statements of Scripture. In his Christian Theology (pp. 83-84), he writes:

Direct implications of Scripture must also be given high priority. They are to be regarded as slightly less authoritative than direct statements.

Even professing “fundamentalists” say that inferences from the Bible do not carry the same weight as the Bible. One writes:

But even very clear inferences are less authoritative than the sacred text. Otherwise, why not add them to Scripture? Shouldn’t there be an eleventh commandment, “Thou shalt not abort unborn babies”? We all believe this is a sound inference, but it does not have the same authority as Scripture because God did not inspire it, and the fact that He did not inspire it means, at best, it has an authority nearly equal to that of Scripture. We may proclaim it as the teaching of Scripture, but we are not free to claim it is equal to Scripture. We may not put it in the mouth of God by claiming “Thus saith the Lord.”

A major step in the development of liberal theology was the rejection of the inferences of Scripture. In “The Growth of Liberal Theology” in The Cambridge History of English and American Literature we read:

We must note, however, as still characteristic even of liberal divines at this time that, while Hampden will rigorously criticise any inferences from Scripture, he asserts without qualification that “whatever is recorded in those books is indisputably true.”

Hampden was a pioneer in the Oxford movement (1833-1845) in England, which down-turned Oxford toward liberalism. A primary means was his attack on inferences from Scripture. R. W. Church writes in The Oxford Movement:

Dr. Hampden was in fact unexceptionably, even rigidly orthodox in his acceptance of Church doctrine and Church creeds. He had published a volume of sermons containing, among other things, an able statement of the Scriptural argument for the doctrine of the Trinity, and an equally able defence of the Athanasian Creed. But he felt that there are formularies which may be only the interpretations of doctrine and inferences from Scripture of a particular time or set of men; and he was desirous of putting into their proper place the authority of such formularies. His object was to put an interval between them and the Scriptures from which they professed to be derived, and to prevent them from claiming the command over faith and conscience which was due only to the authentic evidences of God’s revelation.

If words mean anything, he had said that neither Unitarians nor any one else could get behind the bare letter, and what he called “facts,” of Scripture, which all equally accepted in good faith; and that therefore there was no reason for excluding Unitarians as long as they accepted the “facts.” But when it was pointed out that this reasoning reduced all belief in the realities behind the bare letter to the level of personal and private opinion, he answered by saying that he valued supremely the Creeds and Articles, and by giving a statement of the great Christian doctrines which he held, and which the Church taught. But he never explained what their authority could be with any one but himself. There might be interpretations and inferences from Scripture, by the hundred or the thousand, but no one certain and authoritative one; none that warranted an organised Church, much more a Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded on the assumption of this interpretation being the one true faith, the one truth of the Bible.

Ranking inferred teaching below direct statements has been and is a step toward liberalism.

New-evangelicals defy necessary inferences by saying that silence about a particular subject means liberty. If no text explicitly teaches against an activity, then they have license to practice that activity. Where did this rule come from? It originated with them and many of them repeat it regularly. Here is an example of this that is common all over the country and everywhere on the internet and in new-evangelical books:

If you think dancing is wrong, bu (sic) all means, do not dance, but since the bible says nothing about dancing being wrong, do not apply that as sin to someone else. especially if you, for some reason, think that your rules make you “Godlier” than everyone else. For you have crossed the line into being a Pharisee at that point.

Nick Costello writes:

The variety of styles has birthed much controversy and even division among Christians. The issue should never be over a particular ‘style’, for the Bible doesn’t tell us what style God prefers. What if we get to heaven and find out God likes punk or rap worship? His Spirit cannot be placed in a box. We cannot tell others what music will or won’t minister to their individual heart. Just like people have varying tastes in food, so do we in music too! (emphasis mine)

Now people think that silence-is-permission stands as the definitive approach to Scripture. Jesus debunks this whole hermeneutic here. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself authorizes doctrine by inference.

I recognize that now antagonists of this thought on inferences will think that “this is an inference made by Jesus, which makes it authoritative, but does not assume that our inferences are authoritative.” We can and are to follow the example of Jesus (1 John 2:6). He will enable us by His Spirit to do “greater works” (John 14:12). We are to imitate what Jesus did (1 Corinthians 11:1).

I love this material from John Dick in Lectures in Theology (1850) about drawing inferences from Scripture:

It has been a subject of controversy, whether it is lawful to draw inferences from Scripture, and what authority should be assigned to them. It is not easy at first sight to conceive, why there should have been a diversity of sentiment upon a point which seems to admit of no dispute; for nothing is more plain than that, when a proposition is laid down from which certain inferences naturally arise, it is the office of the understanding to draw the conclusions, and to rest in them with equal confidence as in the premises from which they are deduced. . . . Had every thing, which it is necessary for us to know, been delivered in express terms in the Scriptures, the Bible would have been too voluminous for general use; and besides, such minuteness was not necessary. God does not speak in it to children, but to men, who are capable of reasoning on the common affairs of life, and can use this power in matters of religion.

You’ve heard of the third rail of politics. Social Security. Anyone who deals with the Social Security issue touches the third rail and dies. The third rail, in transportation terminology, is the one that carries the deadly electricity. All around the third rail are warnings not to touch. People don’t touch if they know what’s good for them. Now and then you read about the guy who touches the third rail and dies, and you just wag your head. If you want to dig your own political grave, touch the third rail, Social Security, and they’ll be writing your epitaph.