Strained Arguments
W. Carl Ketcherside
[Page 140] |
It is in no fit of pique or sense of uncharitableness, that I have frequently suggested that some of our brethren seem to devise their "laws" first and then search the scriptures for quotations with which to validate and force them upon others. And some of the strained and strange arguments which they make demonstrate both the fallacy of their laws and the folly of human legislation in the area of the spiritual.
A good example, I think, is found in a leaflet which I received sometime ago and which purported to be mailed by a Church of Christ in Texas. The first page article is an attempt to combat instrumental music and other things as rendering our religion impure. In the interest of absolute fairness I reproduce the article in full.
The above is merely the title to this article; it is not a biblical expression. However, we feel that it helps to illustrate a biblical principle: i.e., that when God specifies a certain thing, that specification excludes all other things of that class. Let us illustrate. In Psalms 2:7 God says of Christ, "Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee." Also, in the New Testament we read this question, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, 'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?'" (Heb. 1:5). Now, the Hebrew writer is here making an argument based on the law of exclusion. He is saying in effect that God specified that Christ was His son, and that that specification excluded all other things, e.g., angels. Could an angel make a valid argument that he was the Son of God saying, "God didn't say I wasn't"? No, because in saying who was His Son He also said who wasn't His Son. To specify Jesus as His only unique Son is to exclude all else as His only unique Son.
Now all of this is to point out that in considering the worship, organization, and work of the Lord's church we are confined to God's specification. Whether instrumental music, counting of beads, or holy water, let us purify our religion of all that is presumptuous.
I am just not too certain that God ordained a "law of exclusion" which is as specific as our good brother indicates. If it is that specific it would appear that all of the brethren who respect the Lordship of Jesus could interpret it alike and exclude the same things. As it is, it appears to be too flexible to be much of a law, because the brethren can bend and stretch it to include what they want and to exclude what they don't want, until "the law of exclusion" has not "purified our religion" but fragmented our brethren into about two dozen "exclusivistic parties." Perhaps we should call it the "law of exclusivism" as that seems to be the "ism" on which a lot of saints are high!
The "law of exclusion" is employed by some as an excuse to exclude instrumental music, and by others equally concerned with purity, to exclude support of Herald of Truth, certain kinds of orphan homes, colleges, individual cups, Sunday Schools, and a hundred other things too numerous to mention. This would not bother me too much, except for the fact that a lot of "lawyers" insist on excluding brethren who disagree with them on the motley horde of issues which have been made to appear of more worth and value than the glorious relationship
[Page 141] |
I suspect that some of us estimate the spiritual validity of a thing on the basis of the scriptures used to justify it. If the citations have to be wrested and perverted from their proper context and purpose, we must assume that the case for the law is about as weak as the reasoning employed. Upon that basis our brother has jerked the rug out from under "the law of exclusion." He went way out to find something to make his case but it would have been better if he had stayed closer to home plate and not tried chasing "fungoes".
The Hebrew writer was not "making an argument based on the law of exclusion" at all. He may not have known there was such a law, since it is not a Biblical expression. It was not his purpose to prove that angels could not claim to be sons of God because the designation of the Logos as His Son was exclusive. A careful study of the Hebrew letter will show that it was addressed to Palestinian Jews who had accepted Jesus as the Messiah and were in grave danger of defecting to Judaism. To offset this, it was pointed out that what we have in Christ is eminently superior to what was provided by Moses. The word "better" occurs thirteen times in the thirteen chapters as men have divided the letter.
The Jews believed that their law had been given by the disposition of angels (Acts 7:53) and had been ordained by angels in the hands of a mediator (Galatians 3:19). As a prelude to proving that we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, as contrasted with the words delivered by angels (Hebrews 2:1, 2), the writer affirms that the Son of God is superior to angels because a superior designation was bestowed upon him.
"Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, 'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,' and again 'I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Son?'"
By inheritance Jesus was entitled to the name "Son" as a patrimony, and this proved his superiority to angels. Our brother is in error when, in his eagerness to prove a case against the use of instrumental music in conjunction with praise to God, he asserts that the Hebrew writer was "here making an argument based on the law of exclusion." I am glad that the argument made by the Hebrew writer was not as forced as the one our contemporary brother has made, else the Jewish believer's might all have returned to the ritual and pageantry of the temple.
Reading back into the word of God the arguments and terms we have devised in debate is not a very good way to "purify our religion" and will probably seem a little bit presumptuous to those who love God's revelation more than they do their own opinions and interpretations. As William Ellery Channing has pointed up a danger, "False and absurd doctrines, when exposed, have a natural tendency to beget skepticism in those who received them without reflection. None are so likely to believe too little as those who have begun by believing too much."