Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 9
September 12, 1957
NUMBER 19, PAGE 2-3b

When Do Examples "Bind"?

Bob Crawley, Birmingham, Alabama

Some men are laboring hard to destroy our respect for Scriptural authority expressed in Apostolic examples and by necessary inference. The latest effort in that campaign to come to our attention is an article by J. Luther Dabney in the Gospel Advocate of July 11, 1957, "What Constitutes Bible Proof ?" In the article it appears that the author is talking about "authority" and not about "proof" for he speaks of it as what "may be made binding."

The article contains a few harmless platitudes, some shallow and confused views of Bible teaching, and some grossly false and diabolical conclusions. It is these last which merit our attention.

The thesis of the article is set out in paragraph four, where it is asserted, "No example is binding unless it is backed up by a commandment." What Dabney means by such statement is made clear in paragraph six, "There must be a commandment behind the example, specifying what is to be done." His point is, then, that an Apostolic example proves nothing, the proof coming only when the example is accompanied by a Scriptural commandment "specifying what is to be done." He says further, " ... that an example, unless backed up by a commandment that applies to you, has no authority. To observe it carries with it no promise, and refusal no damnation."

Let us notice Dabney's illustration of his precept. "To illustrate, when the Lord's supper was instituted, it was in an upper room. When it was observed at Troas, it was in an upper room When Brother McGarvey visited Palestine many years ago, some there would observe it in no other place. Do the examples sighted (sic) require us to observe it in an upper room? If not, why not? The reason is obvious. An example of itself is not binding." So that is Dabney's way of proving that an example is not binding! The fact is, we are not required to eat the Lord's supper in an upper room, not because we have no command to do so, but because we do not have even an approved example for so doing. In neither of the cases cited is the place in any way mentioned as related to the eating of the Lord's supper.

Having learned that Bro. Dabney does not eat the Lord's supper in an upper room only because there is no command to do so, we are left wondering on which day of the week he eats it. Having taken his position with reference to examples, he admits that the question of the Lord's supper is to him a most difficult one. Notice how he labors, floundering neck-deep in these waters he has muddied. He states, in paragraph nine, "One of the most difficult cases we might test is the weekly observance of the Lord's supper. Acts 20:7 declares that Paul observed it on the first day of the week. Are we following a mere example when we do so? Does it stand on an example alone? If it does, we may be more cocksure than sure. When the supper was instituted, Christ commanded it to be observed "often." Once each week is often; once each year is not often."

Bro. Dabney eats the Lord's supper once each week only because he thinks Christ commanded to eat it 'often' (The Scripture records no such command. Christ taught that "as often" as the supper is eaten it is to be in remembrance of him and proclaiming his death) that does not teach the frequency of any of them; but we still do not know on which day of the week he eats it. He also failed to explain why he does not eat it daily, which would he even more often than once a year or once a week. Doing it every Wednesday would be "as often" as doing it every first day of the week. How many of our brethren have fallen to such a position?

Bro. Dabney further illustrates his point by reference to baptism. He is correct in saying that baptism is a commandment. We would now like him to tell us in what element we are to baptize a person in fulfillment of this command. Does it make any difference? Perhaps this is one of the "methods" or "means" with which only a hobby-rider would be concerned.

In paragraph seven, Bro. Dabney shows his confusion on the subject by falsely asserting with regard to baptism, " . . . but in water as we are commanded in the New Testament." Where, in the New Testament, is that "command?" He has learned that it must be done in water, but he learned it from examples (as in Acts 8: 38, 39) and from necessary inference (as in Acts 10: 47, 48), and not from a command. Or, does Bro. Dabney believe it simply because it is accepted by the brotherhood generally?

Bro. Dabney seeks to illustrate his point further by the case of Naaman. He realizes that we could not be cured of leprosy by following Naaman's example. Yet he also realizes that we could not be cured of leprosy by obeying the command given Naaman, either. The lack of authority in this case, then, is not that it is a mere example, but because the whole case, both example and commandment, was of special, and not general, application.

In paragraph eight, he seeks to explain away the significance of a necessary inference. In his confusion he does the opposite. He cites the case of Philip's preaching to the eunuch and seeks to prove that we cannot know that baptism was required of the eunuch except by virtue of its having been commanded by Jesus. He argues, "It is not so stated, but is a requirement in the commandment. (Mark 16: 15, 16; Matt. 28: 19; Acts 2: 38.) Without these commandments there could be no necessary inference. It must follow then, that except where a commandment is known to exist, the inference is unnecessary, rather than necessary." So that is Dabney's concept of what is meant by a "necessary inference.' "In the first part of his paragraph, however, Dabney gives the case away by saying, "It is said that Philip preached unto the eunuch, Jesus. But the eunuch requested baptism. It is necessarily inferred from this (italics mine, B. C.) that in preaching Jesus, baptism was commanded." In this part of his reasoning he is correct, but it refutes the very point he seeks to make with it.

According to the position Advocated by Bro. Dabney with regard to approved examples and necessary inferences, we are completely without authority in restricting the eating of the Lord's supper to the first day of the week, or in restricting baptism to its being done in water. Are the Advocate-followers ready to accept the practice of baptizing in sand or sawdust? Is this, with them, merely a matter of expedience, subject to the acceptance of the brotherhood? Will they now endorse the eating of the Lord's supper on just any day of the week? or on every day ? Have they gone that far already in their digression? If not, how will they tell those who follow them not to go that far?

When an article appears in the Gospel Advocate, you may be sure that it agrees with the editor's position, for Bro. Goodpasture has made it quite clear that he does not intend to publish one on any other basis. It appears, then, that the current editorial purpose of the Advocate is to destroy our respect for all authority of Apostolic examples. Is this their means of dealing with those "mere examples" which relate to the "present cooperation issue," and which are so repugnant to them?

If the promoters of the New Digression must be shown a "commandment" carrying with it a "promise" and specifying what is to be done" before they will accept the authority of any New Testament teaching, then let them read, study, and learn this commandment: "The things which ye both learned and received and heard and saw in me, these things do: and the God of peace shall be with you." (Philippians 4:9)