Is Principle Another Means
of Establishing Authority?

By Jerry Merten (deceased) 

When discussing the use of commands, statements, examples and inferences to determine what is authorized by God, sometimes one is accused of failing to recognize that there is another means of determining right and wrong, namely the use of principle.  The idea is that behind every command, statement, example or inference is a principle, and that principle can and ought to be used to determine right and wrong in God’s sight.  It is said that we use principle in our argumentation, even though we do not admit it, for it is claimed when we fail to find specific instruction authorizing a practice that we use a principle behind some command, statement, example or inference as a basis for our argument. 

What this reasoning fails to recognize is that principle is not really another way (the how) of determining Bible authority; it is the what that is being determined.  While it is true that behind every command, statement, example and inference lies a principle, it is those commands, statements, examples and inferences that reveal to us what those principles are.  A principle is not another way of revealing truth; it is the truth that has been revealed. 

For example, 1 Cor. 4:6 reads in part “...that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written...”.  This statement reveals to us the principle that God’s word is to guide us and to be followed without deviation.  The statement of 1 Cor. 4:6 is the tool that was used to learn that principle.  The principle needs to be properly applied, but the principle is still the basic truth or law that has been learned and not the tool that was used to learn that truth. 

Part of the reason some have advocated that principle is another means of establishing Bible authority is their failure to recognize that truth is taught in both specific and generic terms.  Such people often become confused when a thing is advocated as being scriptural when they find no specific instruction for it.  They think it is inconsistent to demand authority for one practice (such as the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship), and then not be able to produce specific authority for another (such as a local church owning a building in which to meet).  However, they fail to realize that what makes a particular practice unauthorized is when it is neither specifically mentioned, nor included in generic instruction. 

We are authorized to sing in worship because it is specifically mentioned (Eph. 5:19).  Yet, on the other hand, when Jesus sent the disciples out to preach the gospel He merely told them to “Go...” (Matt. 28:19).  He did not specify a particular type of travel.  Walking, riding and sailing are not mentioned in a specific way, but they are included in the generic category of “going” and thus are authorized by Jesus’ generic command. 

Likewise, Heb. 10:25 authorizes assembling, but does not specify how to do it.  It is generic instruction that can be fulfilled in various ways, one of which is by owning a church building.  The point is that though a thing may not be authorized by being mentioned in some specific way, it may be authorized in a generic way by being included in some generic command.  The thing that makes a practice wrong as an addition to God’s will is when there is neither specific nor generic instruction that authorizes it. 

It is important to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15).  That is why a study of the matters discussed in this article is important.  Please consider those matters seriously, for we must be careful not to twist the scriptures to our own destruction (2 Peter 3:16-17).

Taken From It Is Written
Vol. 2, May/June 1991, # 6
 


Home | Search This Site


Last Updated:  Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:41 PM

www.mentaldivorce.com