Generic And Specific Authority

by Micky Galloway

Most students of the Bible know that there are two kinds of divine authority – general and specific. Yet, a failure to distinguish between the two and to understand clearly the NATURE of each accounts for much controversy. Therefore, it will make for simplicity if we take the time to learn how to distinguish between the two and learn clearly the nature of each.

The word “general” is defined by Webster: “Pertaining to, affecting, or applicable to, each and all of a class, kind, or order; as, a general law.” Negatively, “Not limited to a precise import or application; not specific.” The word “specific” is defined by Webster: “Precisely formulated or restricted; specifying; explicit; as, a specific statement.”

From these definitions it is obvious that the differences between the general and the specific is simply this: The general INCLUDES each and all of the class, kind, or order under consideration, THOUGH NOT PRECISELY STATED NOR REVEALED. Therefore generic authority INCLUDES authority for choices or AIDS (expediencies) which are for the sole purpose of executing the command. NOTE: These must fall within the class, kind, or order of the precept, example, or necessary inference of the command itself. On the other hand the specific EXCLUDES everything save that which is precisely stated or revealed. Therefore specific authority EXCLUDES human choice because any method or means of carrying out the command, other than what is specified, becomes an addition.

A failure to recognize the INCLUSIVE nature of the general has led some to affirm that we do many things with God's approval for which we have no expressed statement, necessary inference, nor approved example. I deny it! Question: Can expressed statements, necessary inferences, and approved examples be generic? If so, then they INCLUDE “each and all of the class, kind, or order under consideration, though not precisely stated nor revealed.” In the realm of the general it suffices only to authorize the class. All that is within the class or kind, though not precisely stated nor revealed is INCLUDED! Let me illustrate: Upon this basis we claim divine authority for our meeting houses, pews, light fixtures, and other facilities that expedite our assembling together for worship. Because of this inclusive nature of general authority I contend that expressed statements, necessary inferences, and approved examples, either general or specific, will make the man of God “COMPLETE, furnished completely unto EVERY good work” (II Timothy 3:16-17). To contend otherwise is to open wide the flood gate of digression. The pattern will no longer be determined by divine authority, but by human judgment. This would make unity impossible. Surely, we are not prepared for such a conclusion or its consequences.

Furthermore, a failure to recognize the INCLUSIVE nature of GENERAL authority creates “hobbyists.” These argue, “we cannot do that because it isn’t ‘specifically authorized’.” These try to make the general exclusive when in reality it is inclusive. This is the mistake of those who oppose Bible classes. They try to make the general command “teach” exclude the class system. Why? They say it is because it is not “specifically authorized.” They overlook the INCLUSIVE nature of general authority. Recognition of this on their part would solve this problem.

On the other hand a, failure to recognize the EXCLUSIVE nature of SPECIFIC authority, results in digression. The idea of exclusion is inherent in the very meaning of the word “specific.” Yet, our digressive brethren try to make the specific inclusive when in reality it is exclusive. They would make the specific “sing” include instrumental music. They overlook the EXCLUSIVE nature of specific authority.

The Lord specified “singing” in his command to praise God with music (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). Books, lights, song leaders, etc., are aids to help us sing, but none of these are a different type or kind of music. Instrumental music, however, is an addition to singing, for it makes another kind of music.

Christ commanded observance of a memorial supper, I Corinthians 11:23-27. “The first day of the week” is specified thus excluding every other day. However, the specific hour is not stated, thus any hour within the first day is permissible. “Unleavened bread” and “the fruit of the vine” were the elements used thus excluding all other elements. However, the number of containers is not specified, only that they “drink the cup” (contents) (verse 26). Individual communion cups are an aid within the general command to “drink the cup.”

A building is authorized as an aid to obey the command to “assemble” for worship (Hebrews 10:25) and to “break bread” (Acts 20:7). It serves as an aid for a local church to teach the gospel and edify its members (I Timothy 3:15). However, since the church is not responsible for recreation and social pleasures, the church has no authority to build recreational facilities and kitchens. These change the class or kind of work for which the church is designed (I Peter 2:5), and therefore become additions rather than aids because they obligate the church in activities that are the responsibility of the home (I Corinthians 11:22, 34). Recognition of these principles would solve a lot of problems.

Brethren, here is the truth between the two extremes of digression and hobbyism! We MUST understand the difference between AIDS and ADDITIONS. AIDS do not alter or change God's command because they fall within the same class or kind of the things commanded. ADDITIONS make a change in that which is commanded, for they fall within a different class or kind of that which is commanded. These are wrong even though they may not be specifically condemned (II John 9).