God's Law Of Exclusion
Chapter VI.
God's law of exclusion requires that the silence of the scriptures be respected. Every man who speaks must speak as the oracles of God (I Pet. 4:11).
The missionary society, the benevolent society, the sponsoring church types of co-operation, and instrumental music in worship, are unscriptural innovations which have been introduced into the work, worship and service of 'God in violation of this law.
Statement Of This Law.
When the Lord uses a generic term in telling man what to do, then names a specific of that generic term, and does not express his approval of any other specific of that generic, man is forbidden by God's law of exclusion to employ specific other than the one named.
When the Lord uses a generic term, but does not name any specific of that generic or if he expresses his approval of the employment of other specifics of that generic term, then man is at liberty to employ any or all the specifics of that generic that may be expedient.
When Restricted To Only One Specific?
a. Noah was told to make the ark of wood. Wood is a generic term; oak, pine, cedar, gopher and others are specifics of the generic "wood". God named one of these specifics to be used; He specified gopher. Nowhere did he express his approval of any other kind of wood in the ark. Therefore, God's law of exclusion forbade Noah's use of any other kind of wood with the same degree of finality as if God had said, "Thou shalt not use other kinds of wood". There was no "principle", either "eternal" or temporary, to justify the use of pine in making the ark.
b. Christians are told to make "melody" in church worship: "Speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord" (Eph. 5:19).
"Melody" is a generic term with many specifics: that is, there are many kinds of "melody" or music; such as singing, playing on mechanical instruments, yodeling, humming and whistling. The Lord has legislated as to the kind of "melody" or music to employ in worship. He specified speaking words that may be understood in spiritual song (Col. 3:16; I Cor. 14:13-19), thereby forbidding all other kinds of music by His law of exclusion.
The advocates of instrumental music in worship ignore God's law of exclusion, and they contend that the same "principle" involved in singing is involved also in instrumental music; therefore they erroneously conclude that instrumental music is permissible, not by command or example or necessary inference, but by "principle eternal". By that kind of logic, Noah could have justified the use of oak in building the ark.
One must distinguish between the things that are specifics of a generic term and the things that are not specifics of that generic in order to apply properly God's law of exclusion. A failure to make this distinction may cause one to think that instrumental music or whistling in worship is parallel to the use of song books or the tuning fork. But the tuning fork and song books are not kinds of music; they are not specifics of the generic music. If they were kinds of music they would be specifics of the generic melody, and they would be forbidden by the specific "sing", as other kinds of music are excluded by it. In order to justify another kind of music, one must present the passage of scripture in which God has expressed his approval of another kind in worship.
c. Naaman was told to dip seven times in the "Jordan" and be healed of leprosy. (2 Kings 5.) When Elisha named the "Jordan" and did not in any way express his approval of any other river, he thereby excluded all other rivers and Naaman knew it. Therefore, he asked: "Are not Abanah and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? May I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage", because he knew that Elisha's naming the "Jordan" forbade his using any other river.
d. In Chapter IV of this study, several passages of scripture were presented, which show beyond reasonable doubt that God specified and described the work and the conditions for which and under which one church may send a contribution to another church. He specified and described a work of charity in a church that is too poor to provide for its own indigent. Nowhere in all the New Testament has the Lord expressed his approval of a church's sending a contribution to any other kind of church for any other kind of work.
In the Lufkin debate Brother E. R. Harper admitted that the scriptures contain no command or example or necessary inference of a church's sending a contribution to a church that is not an object of charity and for a work of evangelization. He argued that the same "principle" involved in the Judean charity work is involved also in the Herald Of Truth evangelistic work. Therefore, he concluded that the practice of sponsoring churches in begging and accepting donations from churches all over the world for evangelization is permissible, not because of any divine command or example or necessary inference, but because of "principle eternal".
Of course, Naaman could have adopted Brother Harper's philosophy, and he could have reasoned that the Jordan, the Abanah and the Pharpar are all rivers; that the same "principle" involved in dipping in the Jordan is involved in dipping in the rivers of Damascus. Then he could have concluded that dipping in the Pharpar is permissible, not because of any command or example or necessary, inference, but because of "principle eternal"? Why didn't Naaman reason like Brother Harper and the instrumental music promoters? Because he was not that illogical and reckless in his thinking.
If Naaman's dipping for the cure of leprosy was not restricted to the river Jordan by God's law of exclusion, then any river in the world would have been permissible, for Elisha did not say, "Thou shalt not dip in other rivers".
God's law of exclusion is the only thing in all the Bible that forbids counting beads, instrumental music, meat in the Lord's supper and burning incense in worship. If this law does not exclude innovations in worship, then every innovation known to man can be justified by Brother E. R. Harper's "principle eternal".
The Bible teaches by divine example, as shown in previous chapters of this study that churches did send donations for relief of the saints in another church that was unable to provide for its own poor. The Lord's failure to express his approval of a church's sending a donation to a church that is not an object of charity was due to one of two reasons: (1) it was an oversight; or (2) He purposely left it out. It was not an oversight; therefore, this practice of churches' sending contributions to a church must stop right where the receiving church ceases to be an object of charity; otherwise, God's law of exclusion is violated, both the receiving and contributing churches go beyond what is written, and they show a lack of respect for the authority of God's word.
If this is not the stopping place, the Bible contains nothing to prevent the centralization of all church resources under one eldership. The sponsoring church devotees say that this is not the stopping place, yet some of them contend that placing all church resources under one eldership is unscriptural. But not one of them has been persuaded to state plainly where the stopping place is. They are obligated to present a passage of scripture to show where the stopping place is, or renounce their Romish doctrine of centralization.
When Not Restricted To One Specific?
a. Christians are commanded to "go" and preach the gospel. Walking, running, riding, sailing and many other methods of travel are specifics of the generic "go". By divine example the Lord has expressed his approval of more than one method of going. Therefore, preachers are not limited to one method of travel; they are at liberty to use any method that may be expedient.
b. Christians are told to "teach." Writing, speaking, object lessons, visual aids and many other methods of teaching are specifics of the generic "teach". The Lord has not named any method to the exclusion of other methods. Therefore, teachers of the Bible may use any or all methods.
Advocates of the missionary society have tried to justify church contributions to the society by the claim that the society is only a method of "teaching," or a method of "going". Neither the church nor a missionary society is a specific of either the generic "go" or the generic "teach". Both the church and the human society are institutions that employ methods of going and of teaching. The churches should be more able in selecting and employing methods of "teaching" and of "going" than any human missionary organization.
c. Christians are told to "visit" the fatherless and widows. The word "visit" as used by James (1:27) is a generic term. To supply food, or clothing, or shelter, or medical care, or other necessities is to "visit" those in need. These are specifics of the generic "visit"; they are methods of "visiting". God did not specify one of these specifics to the exclusion of other methods of visiting; therefore, all these necessities may be provided.
Advocates of the human benevolent societies have tried to justify church contributions to their human benevolent organizations in exactly the same way that the advocates of the human evangelistic societies have tried to justify church contributions to their organizations. They claim that their organizations are only methods of "visiting", and that a church is not restricted in methods of visiting; therefore, they conclude that the churches may turn their charity money to the benevolent society, if they wish to do so.
Their error is due to their ignorance of the fact that neither a church nor a human benevolent society is a "method" of visiting. After a church sends its money to a child caring institution or an old folks home, the institution still must select and employ some method of "visiting" the needy that have been committed to its care. The churches should be more able in selecting and employing methods of "visiting" than any human benevolent organization.
In the Woods-Porter debate in Indianapolis, Brother Woods never did seem to be able to understand the difference between a child caring institution and the house that shelters the children. He argued that the care of orphan children necessitates a place or a house where they could be sheltered, and then erroneously concluded that a child caring organization is a place or a house where children are sheltered. He failed to understand four important facts: (I) that neither a church nor a child caring institution is a place or a house in which children are sheltered; (2) that both the church and the human benevolent organization are institutions that provide places or houses in which to shelter children; (3) that churches can and must provide houses and places in which to shelter their indigent, and not surrender the oversight of their work to a human benevolent society; (4) that the churches have no more right to surrender the oversight of their benevolent work to a human benevolent society than they have to surrender the oversight of their evangelistic work to a human evangelistic society.
When Is An Example Binding?
Students frequently express difficulty in determining when an example is binding. A clear understanding and a correct application of God's law of exclusion will remove that difficulty.
According to Acts 20:7-9, the disciples met upon the first day of the week, in an upper room, to worship God in observing the Lord's supper.
a. The place was a third story room. Is the place element of this meeting binding? If not, why not? The place element is not binding, because the Lord in another passage of scripture (John 4:20-23) expressed his approval of spiritual worship in all places. If God had not expressed his approval of any other place, then his law of exclusion would bind Christians to an upper room as often as the Lord's supper is observed.
b. The time element in this example is "the first day of the week". Is the time element binding? If so, why? The time element is binding because the Lord nowhere in all the Bible expresses his approval of a church's observing the Lord's supper on any other day of the week. Therefore, according to the statement of God's law of exclusion in the first topic of this chapter, to eat the Lord's supper on any other day of the week is to go beyond what is written, and to violate God's will.
In order to determine whether a specific of a given element in an example is binding the student must know the answer to this question: Has the Lord in any other passage expressed his approval of any other specific of that given element? If he has not expressed his approval of the use of some other specific of that element, then the specific under consideration is binding.