Depending on how you count them, there are between 800 and 1000 commands in the New Testament. For the sake of space, I won’t list them all. :-)
I know no one who tries to keep them all. That statement, in and of itself, is enough to doom the use of CENI (commands, examples, necessary inferences) as a hermeneutic. No one tries to keep them all, not even the staunchest advocate of the CENI hermeneutic.
Take this command for example: “When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.” (2 Timothy 4:13) or this one: “Go south to the road — the desert road — that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” (Acts 8:26) These are commands, but we can clearly see they aren’t for us.
Many leave out all commands found in the gospels. Why would we expect Christians to follow the teachings of Christ? No, those teachings were obviously meant for the months leading up to his death. They were recorded by Christians for Christians to read them and know what sort of things they aren’t expected to do. (I’m sorry… is my sarcasm showing?)
Other commands are trickier. In the United States, we’ve deemed the “holy kiss” as something that was for then and not now. (That command is given five times in the New Testament!) Paul’s instructions about widows in 1 Timothy 5 are generally disregarded. Lifting holy hands in prayer? Optional. Praying in Jesus’ name? Obligatory (even if that command is from the gospels!)
I think you get the point. It’s not enough to say, “Here we have a direct command.” Even when we find that command, we have to analyze it in light of who said it, to whom, under what circumstances, etc. To say, “We just do what the Bible says to do” isn’t very helpful.
In a couple of missions classes, we were given a list of commands from the Bible and asked to tell which we felt to be “eternal” commands and which were “temporal” commands (only applicable at that time). After doing that, we were asked to write a short explanation as to the basis on which we make our decisions. It’s an interesting exercise.
Anyway, in looking at the idea of “direct commands, approved examples, and necessary inferences” being a sufficient hermeneutic, my opinion is the concept falls flat right out of the gate. What do you think?
Tim,
i was thinking about that and feeling bad for contributing to the tangent. Anyway, i do have a question. In this discussion, precisely what is meant be the “CENI hermeneutic”? i’m concerned it’s meaning has been amorphous through this discussion.
–guy
Guy,
I want to say that there is no such thing as a CENI hermeneutic, however some claim to use exactly that. To my thinking, it’s the idea that all we have to do is find direct commands from the Lord, approved (apostolic) examples, and make necessary inferences to determine what is the Lord’s will for His people today.
Somebody else may be able to offer a better definition.
Tim
Nick,
I’ll try my best. [Warning: Most of this is probably not politically correct.] First, I don’t see overwhelming evidence of an egalitarian first-century church. We have hints of women here and there stepping beyond “traditional” roles, but not much more than that. If I’m not mistaken, early Christian writings tend to confirm what we see in the New Testament; if not 100%, then 99% of public teaching and elder/pastor roles were filled by men. Was that a culture-imposed norm that the church was meant to grow out of? Possibly. The subject of slavery is often brought in as an example of that. Others see military service the same way. (Let’s combine our open cans of worms!)
Secondly, I see real differences between men and women. Current culture wants to deny those differences, and I personally feel that’s done great damage to the home, the family and society in general. I’m not a “barefoot and pregnant” guy. My wife always put being at home with the kids ahead of being in the workplace; if anything, I pushed her to work outside the home more than she would have chosen. (Is that because she grew up in Argentina and not the U.S.? Maybe) But I see women gifted in tremendous ways regarding sensitivity and awareness of others. I think that nurturing comes more naturally to them. As those roles become undervalued, women are pressured to become more like men. To be blunt, women are typically better at performing “men jobs” than men are at performing “women jobs.” So society suffers when women are pushed away from things they are better equipped for.
Now as far as men being able to choose to do anything, that may be true, but I think the church suffers when that happens. I don’t want to leave my child in a nursery staffed by men. I want the majority of my kids Bible class teachers to be women. The majority of men will not do those things as well. It’s not politically correct to tell men to let the women handle those delicate tasks, so we don’t do it. But I wish we would. [And when you consider that most of our views on morality are shaped by the time we finish elementary school, you’ll see why I consider those tasks of supreme importance in the church] There are myriad other tasks in the church that are better performed by women.
But what about spiritual giftedness? Let’s remember that the apostle that wrote the most on that subject also dared to write Ephesians 5. He dared to write 1 Corinthians 11. (And the passages we’ve discussed about women and “silence.”) He seemed to give his agreement and blessing to the system of male elders that the Jews already had in place. And for centuries after that, the church was able to reconcile itself to these “inconsistencies.”
OK, I’ll let the thread run it’s course. Maybe we can spend some time on this subject in the main posts in the future.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim, I’m sorry I hijacked your blog. I feel like the church “handled those ‘inconsistencies'” towards women by choosing not to fulfill the positive command towards women in 1 Tim 2 – to encourage them to learn in quietness. Instead, while the men received theological training, the women were left to care for their babies. At least, that’s how the ECF read for me – I could be missing something.
But enough of that – I still don’t know how to convince my friend that it is okay to read spiritual material authored by a woman – he doesn’t see an assembly limitation in 1Tim either – but like you’ve pointed out… Maybe I’m wrong :)
Wouldn’t be the first time! Lets get back to regularly-scheduled programming.
Naw, don’t think of it as a hijack. Several of us were involved in an interesting discussion.
One last hijack.. Ben Witherington is worth watching on the role of women http://seedbed.com/feed/seven-minute-seminary-launches-today-
and http://seedbed.com/feed/women-ministry-and-scripture-part-2-
Tim, I’ll try to address your definition of CENI. I’ve been part of a congregation that, no kidding, preached on this at least once a month or more, so I’ve heard literally hundreds of lessons on this. Maybe some of it stuck! Anyway, the discussion of CENI is actually not the starting point for the issue. The issue is of authority in all we say, do, teach, etc. CENI is the method for determining what is authorized or not. The backbone of this I think can be summed in four passages. Probably not anything you haven’t heard before.
(Matthew 28:18-20 ESV) And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
(1 Corinthians 2:11-13 ESV) For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
(John 14:26 ESV) But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
(2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV) All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
SUMMARY: Jesus has all authority. We have no authority to teach anyone anything other than what Christ has authorized. No man can understand the mind of God. That means we cannot say things like “I THINK Jesus would say….” or “I don’t THINK this is something Jesus meant when He said…” We don’t think like God (another support passage: Isaiah 55:8-9). So, we can only speak by the authority of Jesus, but we are unable to know the mind of God except where He has revealed Himself. So how do we know? By the Scriptures that are God-breathed, and which have the power to make us complete/perfect/whole.
This is where CENI comes in. We know we can trust commands, because they are given by Christ Himself or through the Apostles, as directed by the Holy Spirit (and yes, context and audience are taught as a way to discern which commands apply and which were specific to a specific situation). We can trust the examples of the New Testament church, either listed in Acts or referenced in the Epistles, since those were under the direction of the Apostles, who had the help of the Helper (Holy Spirit) to direct them in all truths.
Finally, CENI, at its core, trusts that 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is true, that EVERYTHING we need is revealed. There isn’t anything that we need to be concerned with that isn’t included in the Scriptures. Nothing doctrinally, nothing methodically, etc. Everything in our individual life and our corporate worship is covered within the specific or generic authority found within commands, examples or items that must be inferred from the text.
So when issues or questions arise, the answer is NOT CENI, it is “can we find authority for this doctrine, action, belief, etc.,” because, again, Christ has ALL authority, and what I think or want doesn’t really matter. CENI is the method of establishing that authority.
That being said, and since most on here do not appear to believe in strict adherence to CENI, what other ways are there to establish authority, if we are NOT going to limit ourselves to commands, examples, and items that must be necessarily inferred? (my assumption is that everyone on here does believe that Christ has ALL authority, so that’s not a challenge, just a question on determining what He has authorized.)
So the real questions, then, are…
“In what way has Christ delegated his authority through Scripture?” (since Scripture is not Christ, and since Christ has all authority, any authority Scripture has must be delegated)
and the biggie for the church – the question which CENI assumes that it is the answer to… “How does Christ authorize?”
Does it trouble any CENI adherents that, unless Paul lived a lot longer than we think, several very important pieces of Scripture hadn’t been penned yet when he wrote 2 Tim 3?
CENIS is a very hopeful, common-sense method of *application* of Scripture (not of interpretation – thus, not a hermeneutic at all, if we’re accurate with our terms). What
What I mean by hopeful is threefold:
1) it assumes that the reader can be truly objective (which is why serious CENIS defenders – not users or students or anything, but your passionate defenders – are terrified of postmodern thinking, because if there’s anything valuable that PM brought back to the surface, it is that human beings cannot be objective. We live in these particular bodies, looking out of these particular eyes, interpreting with minds shaped by these particular experiences and educations. We cannot – and I can’t find anywhere in Scripture that suggests that God wants us to try to – escape from ourselves);
2) it assumes that complete understanding of a subject can be attained (thus, in other very modern fields of endeavor like the hard sciences, you find researchers and philosophers still striving to find a Grand Unified Theory that, once understood, will be able to explain each and every phenomenon in the cosmos)
3) it assumes (this goes into common-sense as well) that all honest seekers of truth, presented with the same dataset, will come to (are intended to, as well) the same conclusions.
As a replacement application process, for years I’ve been advocating a different set of ideas: Humility, Integrity, and Community. But neither CENI nor my own conglomeration of ideas will work without a healthy hermeneutical foundation.
Nick/Travis,
This is good. i kinda wish both of your comments had come up sooner. i just want to attempt to summarize for clarity’s sake.
So Travis says (correct me if i’m wrong) that the important commitments which really underlies or are distinctive of the traditional CENI hermeneutic is the regulative principle and the sufficiency of the Canon.
Nick says (correct me if i’m wrong) that an important distinctive underlying the tradition CENI hermeneutic is the view that the NT is or can be rightfully conceptualized/treated under the genre of manual.
Jerry says (correct me if i’m wrong) that distinctive of the CENI hermeneutic is the goal of merely knowing facts about Scripture rather than a goal of knowledge of a person–Christ.
Does that sound right? Anyone wanna say all those are true?
i wanna throw something out that i think i might have said before but can’t remember. If the CENI-hermeneutic is committed to the view that authorization for faith and practice must be derived from the (sufficient) NT, then isn’t the use of the CENI-hermeneutic itself something that requires such authorization? If so, does the NT authorize the use of that hermeneutic–meaning, is there a command, example, or necessary inference for the use of that hermeneutic?
–guy
Yes, that’s what I think, in the robust sense of manual that the Regulative Principle requires (ie, If it says do this, then you must do this and only this, and if it doesn’t say to do X, then X must not be done.)
Here’s the best sample (that I could find with a quick Google search) of an argument that the NT authorizes CENI:
http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume34/GOT034254.html
But again, no one denies the existence of commands and examples, or the necessity of using inductive reasoning to understand the Scriptures – rather, what is being wrestled with is whether the systematization and elevation of such thinking is the way God intends for us to apply His word to our lives.
Nick,
What’s really amazing is that the Scripture Paul refers to in 1 Timothy 3 is something Timothy knew from his youth, i.e., the Old Testament.
Many people who feel that we are a New Testament church (to the exclusion of the Old Testament) ignore the fact that Paul said the Old Testament would make us wise unto salvation and prepare us for every good work!
Grace and peace,
Tim
Here’s a splendid article that also addresses what we’re trying to talk about here:
http://californialetter.wordpress.com/2010/05/30/16-is-the-ceni-hermeneutic-the-only-scriptural-based-method-of-bible-interpretation-and-is-it-completely-sound/
My favorite passage:
Guy, first off, it’s Friday and this thread had really got my brain hurting. I’ll do my best to go into this a little deeper. This will also answer some of Nick’s questions.
Other underlying principles: We must all speak the same thing (1 Cor. 1:10). We should walk by the same rules (Phil. 3:16). Teaching man’s laws as doctrines is lawlessness and will be condemned (Matt. 7:21-23). We should reject all those who brnig a doctrine that is not Christ’s (2 John 9-11). You get the drift.
Matt. 7:21-23 also illustrates that there are only two sources of authority: man and God. God’s is revealed in the Bible. When we teach, it needs to be as the oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11).
The Apostles were under the same constraints (Matt. 16:19; Matt. 18:18; John 16:13).
So through this, we see that there is no distinction between the life and actions of Christ on this earth and the doctrines and practices of the Apostles after Pentecost. Scripture is not Christ, but Scripture is FROM Christ (or God, or the Holy Spirit, whatever your pleasure).
As for the timing of 2 Tim. 3, there are other passages that make the same claim, that is, that God’s complete Word has been revealed (whether in word or, later, in writing) – 1 Peter 1:3; Jude 3-5. The Word had been revealed and was complete prior to any epistles being written (divine knowledge which was a gift passed on via the laying on of the apostles hands). Later, as that first generation started dying out, that word was recorded via written Scriptures.
Since Nick asked a few other questions, I”ll try to answer them from a CENI standpoint.
1 – It does not suppose anyone can be objective. It expects us to be faithful, even when reason dictates otherwise (see Abraham sacrificing Isaac, Joshua and the walls of Jericho, etc. Again, God’s ways aren’t our ways).
2 – It says nothing about complete understanding of any topic. We are given what we need to be pleasing to God and achieve salvation. That’s all.
3 – BINGO!
Let me first try to work through what I think is a very common and unhealthy misunderstanding –
I don’t think that either of those passages says what CENIS advocates assert.
2 Pet 1:3 (correct me if I’m mistaken, but this is the verse I *think* you meant)
“His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence.”
That only means “God’s complete word [of Scripture] has been revealed” if we assume that the phrase “knowledge of him” is intended to refer to Scripture alone – and, further, that the word “knowledge” in that passage refers to knowing facts rather than a more comprehensive knowledge of him that we gain by faith. God’s divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, which we receive by developing a deeper and deeper knowing of the one who called us to his own glory and excellence. Knowing is a vibrant Scriptural metaphor that includes, but goes far beyond, words on a page. I don’t believe Paul was talking about the Bible here, but about a far deeper and more exhaustive knowing.
Jude 3-5
“Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.”
Once again, this helps the CENIS case if and only if “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” is a concept synonymous with “The New Testament.” I’m glad that you included v5 in the quote, because it draws out precisely the point that I think CENIS advocates miss – that what Jude is talking about is salvation through faith in Jesus, not an anthology of documents containing a constitution of doctrinal statements. Who, in v5, does Jude say that Jesus destroyed? Those who did not believe (same word as in v3, just conjugated as a verb rather than noun). Who was destroyed after the Exodus? Those who did not trust God enough to invade Canaan, (Let me preempt a trip to Lev 10 here by pointing out that there are 4 brothers in that chapter, all of whom violate the ceremonial law. Two are destroyed, two are forgiven – bad writing if what we’re intended to take away from the passage is that all doctrinal error damns) not those who failed to behold the pattern. Faith, in Jude, is not a synonym for a pattern of doctrine buried in the Scripture, nor is it synonymous with Scripture itself. No, faith in Jude is what Jude’s brother taught him that faith was – the kind of obedient trusting in Jesus that leads to eternal life.
Now, on to your responses:
1) One cannot certainly and accurately discern the difference between an approved example and an incidental one without objectivity. Otherwise, how do we establish the difference between an example God approves and one that I approve?
2) “It says nothing about complete understanding of any topic. We are given what we need to be pleasing to God and achieve salvation.” It presumes that what we need to be pleasing to God and achieve salvation is, first and foremost, right knowledge. Is this not precisely why CENI advocates re-immerse those who were not baptized “for the right reasons?” Because if you don’t know everything God (or, in practice, his self-appointed interpreter) says need to know about salvation beforehand, you can’t really be saved?
3) “Bingo!” I’m not sure where you were going here :) Were you agreeing with me that this is a statement that CENIS requires to be true but which is, in actuality, false?
Finally, the same Spirit cannot inspire both 1 Cor 1:10 and Romans 14 (MUCH LESS 1 Cor 8, where the disagreement-not-worth-dividing-over is about MONOTHEISM itself) IF 1 Cor 1:10 means that there’s no room for differences of belief within the body of Christ. If complete agreement on every jot and tittle of Scripture is essential unto salvation – which is what the terrible overliteralization “I plead… that you all speak the same thing” is taken out-of-context and forced to mean by CENI advocates – we’re all doomed. The ESV handles this passage very well.
I, Paul, plead with you that for Christ’s sake you all agree! Agree on what, Paul? What Chloe’s people are telling me that you are disagreeing about! The centrality and unity of Christ to every aspect of your identity!
Nick – you remember I left there, right? All your points are part of the reason. I could write a book on misapplications of CENI. As for #3 – BINGO is agreement with your statement that, given the same dataset, we will all come to the identical conclusion. Truth is singular. There’s only one right answer to any question. If you don’t get it right, they will be sure to let you know. If you don’t submit to their interpretation, you will be marked.
Nick,
Thanks for finding that article–i’ll have to read it later (a version of the self-referential problem i introduced is one of the main reasons i’ve decided to let go of Sola Scriptura; so that article will certainly be relevant).
Travis,
i see how those other principles underlie the CENI view, but i don’t see why a person couldn’t hold those principles and still deny the CENI view. i thought your mention of the principle of authority and the completeness and sufficiency of scripture seemed more telling.
But i want to ask a clarificatory question–you wrote:
“The Word had been revealed and was complete prior to any epistles being written (divine knowledge which was a gift passed on via the laying on of the apostles hands). Later, as that first generation started dying out, that word was recorded via written Scriptures.”
Tell me if i understand your position correctly. Are you claiming that while the early church may have had differing sources of revelation (miraculous gifts or the oral teachings of the apostles), whatever revelation they possessed–all of it is contained in the 27 books of the NT, and no piece of revelation from God’s “complete word” was left out of any of the 27 books of the NT? Is that what you’re claiming?
–guy
Guy – I don’t think that’s Travis’ position, so much as his OLD position – whereas he’s in a studious flux at the moment and in the same awkward position I used to find myself in on Jay Guin’s blog – defending a position I’m not bound to anymore simply because I feel like it needs a fairer representation than it is getting. I bet we’ve all been there about some issues!
Guy – Nick sums up my current state pretty well. I don’t believe every single nuance of revelation was recorded. I do believe that what was recorded and passed down to us is there for a reason. As we go through this process, the authority question is still paramount on my mind. Christ prayed “not My will, but Thine, be done…” and we also have Heb. 5:8-9, where Christ humbled Himself to God’s will. There is a hierarchy (God, then Christ, then us). Christ is the king, he has all authority. So where does that leave us? And even as I see the various theories and arguments tossed around about what we can or can’t do, should or shouldn’t do, authorized or not authorized to do, I still see a reliance on CENI, to one degree or another. Even Nick’s “pattern of Christ” theory that he discussed is really a call to follow His examples (correct me if I’m wrong, Nick. I don’t want to oversimplify.) When we want to *prove* something, it nearly always falls back on a Scripture or two. And that leads us back to the completeness of Scripture. I do believe we have everything we need revealed within Scripture. It just may not be limited to a specific command, example, or necessary inference.
I wouldn’t say you are wrong… from a certain point of view, that’s what improvisation is – imitating someone’s example, but reshaped to fit in a whole new setting.
Oh there’s so much to wrestle with right there. I think that the “desire to prove something” – otherwise known as self-justification – is at the root of a lot of our problems. My worst showings of meanness and arrogance have always come in service to my desire to prove something. Proof – convicting – isn’t my business. Jesus said that it was the Spirit’s business to convict, and my business to announce – and to be ready to give a reason for why I value what I’m announcing. But it seems to be the leap from announcing to proving that always invites me to misuse both Scripture and people.
I’d agree with this, as long as we slip “to know” between need and revealed. Holy Scripture is a means of grace, but not the sole conduit for all we need. I tend to stand on Richard Foster’s statement that “Scripture serves as the most reliable guide to Christian spiritual formation.” Let me add that that doesn’t mean that Scripture was ever intended to answer all our questions – that’s another dangerous idea that elevating CENIS too high promotes. Part of growing in our relationship with God via chewing on His word is realizing that, unlike our silly saying, to Him there are a TON of stupid questions that He doesn’t waste His Spirit’s time addressing… realizing that His word not only answers questions, but more importantly, teaches us the right questions to ask.
“Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as in heaven.”
How?? How can I get in on that?? That’s the foundational question that has changed my Christian life over the past 5 or so years.
Nick,
I notice that you refer to “CENIS” where most others refer to “CENI”. Is there significance in this? Or is it a personal quirk? I’m not complaining. Just curious – especially if it gives a better handle on what you’re saying….
Jerry, I am actually just trying to be sort of democratic about it. I actually had never heard it called CENIS before about a year or so ago. There’s another version of it that I think starts with an E? But I can’t remember right now. But no, there’s no particular significance to it – although I do like how it keeps Silence front-and-center.
Nick,
So i read the pro-CENI article you posted, and it dawns on me that “CENI” talk is probably allowing us to dodge the issues–namely, the more critical assumptions underlying “CENI” (as we’ve said several times in this discussion). Jameson’s article writes against those who would criticize the use of commands, examples, and necessary inferences from Scripture as a means of learning what we need to be doing now. But as we’ve said, that’s just not really the issue. What is really needed is evidence that the assumptions about the kind of document the NT is and the way it authorizes is itself evinced by the NT in a self-coherent way. And that’s where i still have very strong doubts.
Further, i find it interesting that Jameson mentions the Jerusalem Council. i have a hunch the Council itself should be particularly problematic for traditional CoC positions on the way authority/scripture operates, but i don’t have an argument developed yet.
Anyway, now i need to look at the other article you post–thanks for posting these.
–guy