When an employer or instructor gives specific details to be followed by command or presentation, their ideals and the specifics thereof are expected to be kept with no additions or subtractions. One may show them a better way, but with God this is not the case. This principle is held to by many Christians concerning God’s written instructions and the examples that He gives in keeping these instructions. This principle is some times called the “Law of Silence”, the “Law of Exclusion”, or “Specifics Exclude” being that the specific commands of God exclude alternatives and additions. This principle is used by some to exclude certain religious practices that Scriptures are silent about while also being specific in instruction. Let’s refer to this as the principle of exclusion. Many Christians being Biblically illiterate would be surprised to know what the Bible is silent about and even more important that the Bible is not silent about, but very specific. See, this principle of exclusion is the idea that though the Bible does not explicitly say that some things are wrong, these things are still wrong being excluded by what is specifically written. It is the object of this article to put to test this “law of exclusion” that forbids many man-made religious practices.
Where did they get this idea from? Did Jesus, the Apostles, and prophets use this principle? Is this principle a Scriptural one? Do the specifics of the Scriptures exclude and condemn certain religious practices? Let’s progress in testing this “Law of Exclusion” by addressing some specific religious practices that have been excluded.
Let’s first consider the practice of polygamy. Polygamy is condemned by most believers, but the Scriptures do not explicitly condemn polygamy (a man having more than one wife), such a practice is greatly condemned by most Christians. Why? Let’s examine the practice of polygamy and see why it is condemned. Should polygamy be condemned as a sin? In doing this, the questions asked above will be answered on the subject of the principle of exclusion.
Polygamy existed without condemnation in the Old Testament Scriptures though opposed by the specifics of God’s instruction from Genesis. Lamech is the first in Scripture to have taken more than one wife (Gen. 4:19). Abram’s wife Sarai gave Hagar to Abram as a wife (Gen. 16:1-3), and it is by Abraham, a polygamist, that all the nations are blessed by faith in Christ. Jacob was blessed for taking two wives and two concubines. Then from Jacob to Gideon to David, these men had two or more wives, and they were righteous in the eyes of God. What is wrong with a Christian man having more than one wife? The New Testament Scriptures do not forbid it and Christians are the offspring of Abraham. Why do most believers in Christ believe that it is a sin for a Christian man to have more than one wife? Christians read God’s ideal for marriage from Christ and they read of God’s ideal for marriage in the Old Testament and the New Testament, and conclude that polygamy would alter that ideal. Are they right to think that polygamy is wrong for altering God’s ideal for marriage?
It is true that polygamy does go against God’s ideal for marriage since the very beginning. Even though God did allow polygamy in the Patriarchal and Mosaical ages, God’s ideal for marriage is that,
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Gen. 2:24, Matt. 19:5, Eph. 5:31).
In Matthew 19, Jesus used Genesis 2:24 to teach not to go beyond what is written concerning marriage. He used what is written to exclude divorce for any reason other than fornication. Jesus clarified that Moses for the hardness of heart of the Israelites suffered them to put away their wives, “but from the beginning it has not been so” (Matt. 19:8). Jesus affirmed His and God’s ideal for marriage is one man and one woman for life by quoting Genesis 2:24, and therefore Jesus showed that God’s written ideal excludes divorce in saying “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:6). In fact, Jesus taught that those who divorce for any other reason than sexual immorality were committing adultery in marrying another (19:9). By God’s ideal for marriage, the practice of polygamy is also excluded being that marriage is for a man and a woman. Polygamy is thus condemned along with other alterations to God’s ideal for marriage.
This principle of excluding practices contrary to the specifics of God’s ideals is a Scriptural principle. Evidently, Jesus showed that there is a principle of exclusion in using Scripture. If you exclude the existence of a principle for excluding practices contrary to the specifics of God’s ideal, because you believe it is not in the Scriptures, then you exclude the prciniple of exclusion by the principle of exclusion. A truly contradictory stance. By denying God’s written ideals excluding alterations, then you must accept polygamy, divorce for any reason, homosexual marriage, all alterations to marriage, and therefore deny the words of Christ and the Holy Spirit throughout the Scriptures.
Many are confused because of the inconsistency and because of the misrepresentations of the principle of exclusion. It is by the usual reference to the principle as “silence forbids” that the principle is discarded, but it is even tragic when this phrase “silence forbids” is built upon and maintained by good brethren. Now, does silence exclude? Is there a law of silence that excludes?
Some would say that the silence concerning God’s ideal for marriage in Genesis 2:24 does exclude. At the same time, the Scriptures are silent about couples praying together. Silence if it does exclude does not exclude here. In actuality, there is a principle of exclusion, but silence does not in itself exclude. There are numerous practices that the Scriptures are silent about, but Jesus showed that it is what is specifically written that excludes when He made the case of God’s ideal for marriage excluding alterations. Here is the principle of exclusion simply stated: written specifics of God’s ideals exclude. The written specifics of God’s ideals in Scripture exclude all alterations. In other words, a positive statement declaring God’s Will excludes all changes to it. Let’s see from the Scriptures how this law of exclusion is proven further.
It is by this principle that when God’s ideals are written, then all adding and taking away from such is a sin and receives cursing. This principle of not going beyond what is written is found throughout the Scriptures in such passages like Galatians 1:6-12, 3:15, Proverb 30:5-6, Revelation 22:18-19, and 2 John 9. Second John 9 states,
“Whosoever goes onward and abides not in the teaching of Christ, has not God: he that abides in the teaching, the same has both the Father and the Son.”
Why is this wrong? Because this is the adding to God’s ideals for His people. Even if these Scriptures did not exist, all alterations made to God’s ideals are wrong. With the reliance on the Scriptures alone for one to be complete and equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17), it makes sense that the Spirit’s revelation in Scripture presents God’s ideals for any and all matters of beliefs and practices, so that all additions and subtractions are wrong and such would be quenching the Spirit (1 Thes. 5:19).
The principle of exclusion is an old principle that has been misunderstood as “silence excludes” being the “law of silence”. This erring title “silence forbids” is often propted up as a strawman by critics. Those who teach that silence exclude usually if not every time explain that silence excludes when God has specified.
Let’s go to this principle the way that the Scripture presents it. We must “learn not to go beyond the things which are written” as is stated in 1 Corinthians 4:6. This passage does not say “learn not to go beyond the things which are not written (silence)”. It is “the things which are written (specifics)” that exclude. The Scriptures are silent and do not authorize cars, computers, and projectors; but these things are not excluded. Why? There are no specifics in God’s word excluding them. One might add that silence only excludes regarding specifics, and authorization is needed within given specific instructions. This is correct and fair, but a slightly over complication of the simple truth that what is specifically written excludes. Why not just say, “The specifics of God’s ideals exclude”, or say concisely, “specifics exclude”? Then even better just say, we are “not to go beyond the things which are written” (1 Cor. 4:6).
It takes a very arrogant or ignorant person to add or subtract from God’s ideals presented in Scripture.
The Breath of God 
And when I say all the churches, I don’t mean the churches with a sign church of Christ.
Randy said: I do, however, think the church of Christ are following it closer than anyone else.
Reply: Have you been to all the churches, have you been to every single one of them. That is an unrealistic statement.
“Sadly, churches of Christ copy the pattern of sins too. We are not perfect”
*Thanks for your honestly. You have made even more clear, there is no real set detailed pattern, that every church of Christ follows – this was my point. I do, however, think the church of Christ are following it closer than anyone else. But, as you stated, ” We are not perfect.”
ttyl
Randy,
“Is it sin to take an action in the worship assembly that’s not authorized by a command, inference, or example?”
*There are many things that I can point out about this question, but the simple answer is no. CENI is not the standard it is just what the standard comes from. Let CENI advocates defend it. I agree with it, but I think its simpler. The Assembly is defined in faith by the Scriptures. Just as God has an ideal for marriage, so He does for His Assembly, Christ’s Assembly.
“Examples are not commands. In fact, if we try to make examples into commands (”binding examples”) we are left with the very subjective task of discerning which examples bind us. Must we have all things in common? Must our women cover their heads in church? Etc. No one has yet articulated a concise rule for making such distinctions.”
*I think we do have a rule. You and I know that not all examples are binding. Thomas Warren and the brother who wrote “We Be Brethren” wrote books concerning an example is binding where it is argued that an example is binding when it illustrates a command. I prefer to say when a command is defined.
“1 Timothy 5 describes an “order of widows” that lasted at least into the Second Century. Why don’t we do this?”
*Like elders not everyone can do this. The last 2 churches and the current one now that I worked with did do this. I think it should be stressed more. The widows always know who is in need.
“Jude describes a periodic “love feast” that continued into at least the Third Century. Why don’t we do this?”
*We do have “love feasts” no matter what we call fellowship meals or whatever else they may have become. We don’t really have anymore instruction on this.
A literal translation of Jude 12 that love does not include feasts though “feast” also appear in next part of the verse, and this word is doubted to mean “feast” too. It is by inference that the translators believe this entertaining together is a feast since they were “feeding” as word for the action of a flock. I don’t understand translating by jumping to conclusions about the context. The word feast is not there in Greek and the passage has been translated as loved ones. A literal transliteration is “There are spots among your loved ones”. This is a very vague passage that no wants to stand with a literal translation since someone may blacklist their translation. This would be like translating baptism “immersion”. Some people would not buy that translation. Check me on all this. It is not hard. I was surprised by it myself.
“The early deacons were charged with doing benevolence themselves. Why do we make them department heads?”
*Not all churches have deacons over specific things. The “deacons” of benevolence in acts are not really called deacons [diakonia], but they do “the ministry of the word”. Deacons are not given any specific ministries in the Scriptures, but we do have them and they serve the Church. Most men become deacons in their areas of interest. I prefer that they have freedom, but that’s just my opinion.
“The early church met in homes, with elders being over several house churches, often every house church in the community. We don’t do this.”
*The Church also met in their own synagogues (James 2:2). Upper rooms were not really houses or part of the home. These were often rented out as halls (Let me know if want a source for this). They also used Solomon’s portico. It does matter where we worship (John 4:20-24).
“The Jerusalem church met daily. The author of Hebrews told his readers to encourage one another ‘daily.'”
*Yes they did. We should strive for this. Troas apparently only met all together on the 1st day since they waited 6 days (Acts 20:6).
“There is no Biblical support for Wednesday services or for offering communion twice on Sundays.”
*You just made the case for meeting daily or any time. Wednesday’s are the choice of elders and congregations. The Communion is for the Assembly when are all gathered together. We strive for this. I can’t refuse the Lord’s Supper to those who were bedridden. That is their judgment.
“We offer the “invitation” every service. This practice was invented as a part of 19th Century Frontier Revivalism–by the Methodists”
*You’re right we don’t have to do it every Assembly. Jesus invited and the Apostles invited. Only the traditionalist would get upset about this.
“We ignore some very explicit examples–even commands–and invent others. And then we claim to have replicated the First Century pattern. We haven’t. It’s just not true.”
*You have to speak for yourself. I don’t see this. I do see manmade “packaging” of teaching that makes some too lazy to read the Scriptures for themselves. I’ll make generalizations for most, but I can’t do that for all or the whole Church or any denomination. You say “we”, “you guys” and whatever else. If we have erred like the 1st century churches did, then we should repent. Sadly, churches of Christ copy the pattern of sins too. We are not perfect.
“You are helping me help people see this, thanks.”
*You’re welcome.
One could also point to the presence of harps in the book of Revelation as a symbol of joyous praise unto God. Would the Lord God, it is argued, employ such a symbol in His teaching to those under the New Covenant if the reality of that symbol had now become an abomination to Him? Would one be cast into Hell for using on earth what is depicted symbolically as being acceptably used in Heaven?
When God says sing …. WE SING. Replacing it, deleting it, negating it, invalidating it are forbidden. Specificity excludes our substituting something else in the place of that which our God specified. Thus, it is not silence about dancing that excludes dancing in this case, rather it is specificity about singing.
However, musical accompaniment is not a replacement of singing. Jesus pointed out the distinction quite clearly in Matthew 15:4-6. God commanded that one’s parents be shown certain considerations by the children. Some religionists were seeking to avoid their responsibility here by replacing the command with one of their traditions. Jesus condemned them, saying, “And thus you INVALIDATED the Word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Matthew 15:4-6). Was there anything wrong or sinful about their tradition? Of course not. In fact, had these religionists done both (God’s command and their tradition) they would have been commended. It was that they sought to REPLACE the former with the latter that constituted the sin and drew the rebuke. Their tradition did not accompany God’s command, it invalidated it. That was the problem.
Those who sing a cappella … SING. Those who sing with instrumental accompaniment … SING. Both Sing! The command is obeyed.
Yes, when God prescribes singing, then we should sing. AND WE DO. Singing has NOT been replaced, removed, invalidated, or negated. The use of instruments are NOT a substitution, they are merely an aid or an accompaniment, neither of which God has ever condemned in Scripture. NOT ONCE has God ever even hinted at disapproval of such. Indeed, in the past God even commanded instrumental accompaniment to singing (2 Chron. 29:25). Has God changed His mind on this matter? If He has, He has nowhere declared it. Thus, by what authority do MEN declare His disapproval? God has neither condemned nor condoned the use of instruments in worship in the New Testament writings.
Is it sin to take an action in the worship assembly that’s not authorized by a command, inference, or example?
Examples are not commands. In fact, if we try to make examples into commands (”binding examples”) we are left with the very subjective task of discerning which examples bind us. Must we have all things in common? Must our women cover their heads in church? Etc. No one has yet articulated a concise rule for making such distinctions.
1 Timothy 5 describes an “order of widows” that lasted at least into the Second Century. Why don’t we do this?
Jude describes a periodic “love feast” that continued into at least the Third Century. Why don’t we do this?
The early deacons were charged with doing benevolence themselves. Why do we make them department heads?
The early church met in homes, with elders being over several house churches, often every house church in the community. We don’t do this.
The Jerusalem church met daily. The author of Hebrews told his readers to encourage one another “daily.”
There is no Biblical support for Wednesday services or for offering communion twice on Sundays.
We offer the “invitation” every service. This practice was invented as a part of 19th Century Frontier Revivalism–by the Methodists
We ignore some very explicit examples–even commands–and invent others. And then we claim to have replicated the First Century pattern. We haven’t. It’s just not true.
You are helping me help people see this, thanks.
You missed my point, but then made it for me. I agree. God didn’t not give us a list of “ye shall nots” neither did he give you or me the right to add rules that result in dis-fellowship when not obeyed. Either you really do not know how split up you guys are over many issues, or you wish to hide the facts. Some even dis-fellowship over hand clapping. Some call some things doctrines while others call them expedients. Sorry, if I lost you…I was on the subject, you just refuse to see both sides of the subject, for some reason.
Before you tell everyone else how they are liberals headed to hell or condemn others who hasn’t developed your level of understanding, maybe you should really look at all of the problems within your own sect and work on them – its no fun eating from a dirty bowl.
Please provide a COMPLETE detailed pattern of the “ye shalls” that will result in dis-fellowship, if not obeyed. Please send to my email and once I receive this, I will compare your list to others and guess what??? Your list will not match the pattern list of others. This is already been proven by comparing Wayne Jackson and others. Nobody has the same pattern, far as the rules go to dis-fellowship one from the assembly. This is pure legalism at its best! There are even issues over marriage within the conservative side. Scott, I don’t mean to be arrogant, but you surely know these things.
The subject is what is excluded not what is not. God did guide His Word for a long a list “You shall not”. Please, stay on subject.
you might want to take advantage of this moment of clarity and
step away from this group.
im just saying…………..
The question should be “can we take opinions and personal inferences and bind them as law on others, where God has not specified?”
Can women be song leaders?
Where in the bible are men song leaders?
Can women serve the Lords Table?
Can we clap during the invitation song?
Where is the invitation song in the bible?
There are many, many, things done in the name of expedients-matters of judgments-non-essentials, and the list changes from church to church. The way to wiggle around the issues, is to call them expedients. We agree to disagree on small matter and avoid calling them “doctrine”