Non-Catholics: Does your pastor preach this: Where the Scriptures are Silent, We Should Be Silent"?

[Publisher]

As I stated in an earlier post, this is based on the rejection of Oral Tradition. We see in scripture, that Oral Teaching was common. Oral teaching was the most common way of passing on the teachings of the Church until the invention of the printing press. To reject Oral Tradition is to only look at half of the Church teaching. It seems like that would limit the knowledge we have on matters of faith, so why must we be silent if we have Oral Tradition?

I don’t believe the “phrase” is ruling out the use and belief in oral traditions…just that they cannot be made to be a condition of salvation when scripture is silent on such matters.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t believe the “phrase” is ruling out the use and belief in oral traditions…just that they cannot be made to be a condition of salvation when scripture is silent on such matters.

Yet Scripture is also silent on what is considered to be “essential” vs “non-essential” doctrines, no?

 

[PRmerger]

In order for this to work you would also have to first assert along with the ‘where Scripture is silent’ principle that everything not prohbited is allowed.

This seems reasonable.

Yet it often is the same proponents of this paradigm who object to the Catholic teaching on the papacy. There is NOTHING in Scripture which prohibits apostolic succession and a singular, visible leader of the Church, yet it is often pointed out that “Scripture is silent” on the papacy and is therefore FORBIDDEN.

 

[ltwin]

Interesting. So 2 different points of view–quite contrary even–that use Scripture to back them up?

This is entirely the point of my question!

How does a church decide whether: if it’s not in Scripture, we’re free to do it!

vs

If it’s not in Scripture we’re prohibited from doing it!

Who decides which paradigm the church follows?

And, I’m guessing here, do most churches follow the regulative principle on some practices and the normative principle on others?

If you read the articles, they state which traditions tend to follow which.

 

[ltwin]

Then what do they do with this scripture in the bible? Ignore it?? What does you Church teach about Geneiss 38:10?

Onan was wrong for not fulfilling his obligation to his brother. He was killed by God because he by his actions he was cutting of the lineage of his brother and denying Tamar the economic support in her old age. If what Onan did was sin, then well I guess every man on earth is guilty of murder.

Thank you, I wondered when it would come up!

So, really it isn’t silent, just overlooked?

No, it isn’t overlooked. It’s just not relevant to a theological consideration of contraception.

 

[ltwin]

Soooo…. Since the Bible was not around for the first 300 to 400 years how in the world did Christianity ever survive? The church still had the New Testament, even though it wasn’t in its current form. Certainly the Church was not “Silent” on matters of faith and morals, so how did they guide the Church in those early days? Oh I forgot it was guided by the Holy Spirit, still is! Yes, the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Jesus says so in the Bible.

So if you believe that the Bible is Clearly Gods words, then you have to take notice that in the Bible it says in 1Tim 3:15 that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Yes. I’m not quite sure, but I have the feeling that you and me have totally different ideas about what that means And in Jn 16:13 that the Spirit of truth will guide you to all truth Yes indeed. If you look at my profile, you will see that I’m Pentecostal., where is the “Silence” here? I don’t understand what you are trying to prove with these scriptures. That the Bible actually says these things? We agree. They are in the book. There is no silence concerning these things.

To me, to ascribe to the “Where the Scriptures are Silent, We Should Be Silent" theology is to reject the Holy Spirit, the Bible, and the Church Christ instituted here on earth

How is it rejecting the Holy Spirit? Actually, it frees the individual to yield himself to the Spirit’s will and “work out his own salvation with fear and trembling” unfettered by the yokes and prohibitions placed on him by some ecclesiastical hierarchy.

How is a method of determining what are essentials and nonessentials which uses the Bible as its measuring stick antibiblical?

How is placing the authority of the Church in its proper place and context rejecting that said Church?

 

[ltwin]

What I understand the phrase to mean…if the Bible is silent on doctrines of faith matters…such as the immaculate conception and the assumption…they should not be made a “necessity” of salvation. I do not believe it was meant to be taken to the extreme…“Since the Bible is silent on airplanes…we should be silent concerning them too.”

A wonderful definition.

 

[ltwin]

This seems reasonable.

Yet it often is the same proponents of this paradigm who object to the Catholic teaching on the papacy. There is NOTHING in Scripture which prohibits apostolic succession and a singular, visible leader of the Church, yet it is often pointed out that “Scripture is silent” on the papacy and is therefore FORBIDDEN.

The Bible is silent on apostolic succession. Therefore, whether you can trace your clerical lineage all the way back to Peter doesn’t make you better than someone who can trace his clerical lineage to his granddad. However, Catholics don’t just see Apostolic Succession as an “add-on” do they. They don’t see it as just a beneficial practice do they? They see it as something necessary, and the lack of which makes other Christian communities deficient.

The Pope is the head of the institution known as the Catholic Church. No problem. Churches have leaders. But, the Pope does not claim to be the leader of a religious institution. He claims to be the head on earth of the universal church. The Bible is “silent” on that claim. If you want to believe that, that is up to you and God. Just don’t say that I have to in order to be in the Church that Christ established.

That is the position of “Where the Bible is silent; we should be silent.”

 

[Jack_Bauer]

This term is commonly used within Church of Christ circles. However, there is another term that is used to explain why they believe certain things. It is called “necessary inference.” The Church of Christ, a biblical term and argued as such, are members of the Lord’s Church. The rest of us are considered lost.

 

[exnihilo]

Yet it often is the same proponents of this paradigm who object to the Catholic teaching on the papacy. There is NOTHING in Scripture which prohibits apostolic succession and a singular, visible leader of the Church, yet it is often pointed out that “Scripture is silent” on the papacy and is therefore FORBIDDEN.

I would think that proponents of this standard would say that because the Bible is silent on the papacy then it cant be a requirement. They would have no grounds for objecting to the Catholic Church and its members having the hierarchy with the pope as head. But they could under this principle say that the papacy is not a requirement so in as much as the Catholic Church claims this is a requirement they would be forced to declare the Catholic Church to be in error and really grave error due to the importance of the papacy. That is why the principle is not helpful at all. On the one hand it should allow the papacy and yet even though allowed many then condemn it.

This principle is derived from Sola Scriptura in as much as that means that the Bible contains all necessary information in order to make determinations about Christian faith and the church. If the Bible really did contain all necessary information for the Church then no church would have any documents or rules other than the Bible. Any church with any rules and regulations document is disproving this idea.

 

[PRmerger]

I would think that proponents of this standard would say that because the Bible is silent on the papacy then it cant be a requirement.

What do you mean by “requirement”?

Requirement for what? Salvation?

 

[exnihilo]

What do you mean by “requirement”?

Requirement for what? Salvation?

A requirement of the faith which could of course impact salvation. Assuming the Bible is silent is a valid principle, which I personally reject, then if the Bible does not mention the papacy and a church were to add that as a matter of faith then that church would be committing a grave error.

 

[PRmerger]

A requirement of the faith which could of course impact salvation. Assuming the Bible is silent is a valid principle, which I personally reject, then if the Bible does not mention the papacy and a church were to add that as a matter of faith then that church would be committing a grave error.

Firstly, Catholics believe it’s ALL a matter that could “impact salvation”. Everything that God has revealed is a “requirement”.

So how is it that in this case what the Bible is silent on is prohibited? But in another case what the Bible is silent on is permitted?

 

[Newsy]

Onan was wrong for not fulfilling his obligation to his brother. He was killed by God because he by his actions he was cutting of the lineage of his brother and denying Tamar the economic support in her old age. If what Onan did was sin, then well I guess every man on earth is guilty of murder.

No, it isn’t overlooked. It’s just not relevant to a theological consideration of contraception.

We should start another thread, so as not to derail this one. I would love to continue this discussion. But, no I have to disagree with you, Gen 38:10 is very much about contraception not economic support.

 

[exnihilo]

Firstly, Catholics believe it’s ALL a matter that could “impact salvation”. Everything that God has revealed is a “requirement”.

I think everyone would agree that every obligation that is revealed is a requirement. The issues are what is required. There are disagreements there. And I’m not saying any specific disagreement is well founded.

So how is it that in this case what the Bible is silent on is prohibited? But in another case what the Bible is silent on is permitted?

Because after you’ve made the determination regarding whether something is prohibited or permitted for the permitted things you would consider whether it is optional or mandated. If something is only optional but someone declared it mandated they would be wrong and leading people wrongly.

Let’s consider some other issue. Let’s say a church declared you must be buried in a oak casket to be saved. The Bible would seem to not prohibit being buried in an oak casket. Therefore, under this principle of silence, being buried in an oak casket is permitted. But it is not mandated. If a church were to declare you must be buried in an oak casket to be saved they would be teaching in error.

The issue, for those that hold this principle, arises when something becomes an obligation that does not exist in the Bible.

 

[Newsy]

I think everyone would agree that every obligation that is revealed is a requirement. The issues are what is required. There are disagreements there. And I’m not saying any specific disagreement is well founded.

Because after you’ve made the determination regarding whether something is prohibited or permitted for the permitted things you would consider whether it is optional or mandated. If something is only optional but someone declared it mandated they would be wrong and leading people wrongly.

The issue, for those that hold this principle, arises when something becomes an obligation that does not exist in the Bible.

Who decides what is an obligation? It looks like we have disagreement on the meaning of several verses, whose understanding is correct? Take Gen 38:10, Itwin says it is a mandate for financial support, I say it is referencing “spilled seed”, so which is an obligation? Or, do we ignore it b/c it was part of the old covenant? Makes it a little more difficult than the oak casket thing, huh? Do you believe that we understand more about our faith now than we did in the first century? Have we come to a deeper understanding of the scriptures?

I would submit the Doctrine of the Trinity as an example to refute you theory. It didn’t become a doctrine until the 4th Century, the word is never used in the Bible, it is inferred but not explicit in the text. So, by your definition, is the doctrine of the Trinity necessary?

 

[exnihilo]

Who decides what is an obligation?

Most people, including most Protestants, would say the church. Of course there is always a matter of whether we personally agree with the decision. If we dont many people leave their current church and form or join one that agrees with them.

I would submit the Doctrine of the Trinity as an example to refute you theory. It didn’t become a doctrine until the 4th Century, the word is never used in the Bible, it is inferred but not explicit in the text. So, by your definition, is the doctrine of the Trinity necessary?

Please understand it is not my definition in so far as I agree with this. I’m just presenting what I think is the argument for this idea.

Regarding the Trinity I agree it is not explicit in the text. Adherents to the principle of ‘Where the Scriptures are silent…’ would say the doctrine obviously follows from the Scripture. The Scripture is certainly not explicit here. So this principle must admit inference (which is why it is a useless doctrine). In Christian history there were heretics who said otherwise which necessitated the formalization of the doctrine. I believe that if one can legitimately find the Trinity in Scripture then one could find the priesthood as understood by Catholic and Orthodox Christians. In other words I agree with your point that if you can accept the Trinity as an obligation of faith then you should be able to accept the priesthood.

 

[wmscott]

ltwin:
Hi Itwin, before we get started here I just want to let you I am answering your comments the best I can and because this is like emails and we can’t determine the emotions going into them, I just want to say I am posting this back to you without any “attitude”, so please don’t take it that way.

You wrote “The church still had the New Testament, even though it wasn’t in its current form”.

I say - The first NT books were not written for almost 50 years after Christ established His Church and as late as 100 years for the last one. it was another two hundred years before any official canon was in place. From Catholic 101 “for almost 400 years there was no written New Testament to fall back on. All of the apostles and disciples taught orally for the first 400 years. Yes, you might say, but didn’t Paul, Peter, John, Luke, etc., write everything down in their epistles and gospels? Yes, they did, but none of it was widely available to geographically separated disciples and it wasn’t part of “The Bible” until the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage put the 27 books of the New Testament together in 382 AD, 393 AD, and 397 AD”.

You wrote “Yes, the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Jesus says so in the Bible”.

I say - Good at least we agree on this, so tell me what Church did Christ institute here on earth, hint… it is a Christian religion that begins with a capital “C”. Its ok you can say it Catholic.

You wrote “Yes. I’m not quite sure, but I have the feeling that you and me have totally different ideas about what that means”.

I say - This is true, my meaning is what the Churches meaning is and official interpretation as taught by the Magisterium. Again this goes back to what Church Christ instituted here on earth, what Church did God leave the Deposit of Faith to, what Church did God say that the “gates of hell will not prevail against”, and what Church has Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium as its foundation. All of which leads into John 16:13

You wrote “I don’t understand what you are trying to prove with these scriptures. That the Bible actually says these things? We agree. They are in the book. There is no silence concerning these things”.

I say - First, since most Protestants are really big on Sacred Scripture, I wanted to provide the references to what I was saying. What I am trying to say is… since the dawn of Christianity there have been things that have come into being, lately human cloning & embryotic stem cell research. These two are not in the Bible, so the Magisterium of the Catholic Church had to “Not be Silent” on these issues. Yes there are some denominations that agree that it is wrong, but there are many more that could care less. What about the Trinity, it is not in the Bible; yes I know that you or I could read Scripture and discern that Scripture is telling us about the existence of the Trinity. But this is “Personal Interpretation”. What about the denominations who reject the Trinity and claim that “They” are guided by the HS. Who is right? Back to what Church di Christ institute here on earth, what Church did God leave the Deposit of Faith to, what Church did God say that the “gates of hell will not prevail against”, and what Church has Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium as its foundation. There is only one truth and again here is where the Church has to be “Not Silent”.

You wrote “How is it rejecting the Holy Spirit? Actually, it frees the individual to yield himself to the Spirit’s will and “work out his own salvation with fear and trembling” unfettered by the yokes and prohibitions placed on him by some ecclesiastical hierarchy”.

I say - Where in Sacred Scripture does it say that we are to “work out his own salvation with fear and trembling” unfettered by the yokes and prohibitions placed on him by some ecclesiastical hierarchy? Just the opposite. Christ gave his Church the power to forgive sins, to offer sacrifice (Eucharist), to speak with His voice, to discipline, and to legislate. Jn 20:23, 1Cor 11:23-24, Lk 10:16, Mt 18:17, & Mt 18:18

You wrote “How is a method of determining what are essentials and nonessentials which uses the Bible as its measuring stick antibiblical”?

I say - Because a lot of Protestant, (depending on the denomination), beliefs are based on several factors. One being what feels good at the time; it works for me so it must be OK. Another being fallible personal interpretations of Sacred Scripture, and so on. Look at some Protestant denominations, who are all claiming guidance by the Holy Spirit, who openly embrace same sex marriages, homosexuality as a lifestyle, ordaining openly gay bishops, see no real issue with abortion, human cloning, embryotic stem cell research, euthanasia, & birth control. Some Protestant denominations deny most of the Sacraments e.g. infant Baptism, Confirmation, Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, and let’s not forget the Real Presence of the Most Holy Eucharist. So yes the Church cannot afford to ascribe to the “Where the Scriptures are Silent, We Should Be Silent" flawed brand of theology

You wrote “How is placing the authority of the Church in its proper place and context rejecting that said Church”?

I say - The Church in “its proper place and context” is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic… it is Authoritative, Infallible, and Perpetual.

Catholic 101 catholicbible101.com/sacredtradition.htm

 

[wmscott]

The Bible is silent on apostolic succession. Therefore, whether you can trace your clerical lineage all the way back to Peter doesn’t make you better than someone who can trace his clerical lineage to his granddad. However, Catholics don’t just see Apostolic Succession as an “add-on” do they. They don’t see it as just a beneficial practice do they? They see it as something necessary, and the lack of which makes other Christian communities deficient.

The Pope is the head of the institution known as the Catholic Church. No problem. Churches have leaders. But, the Pope does not claim to be the leader of a religious institution. He claims to be the head on earth of the universal church. The Bible is “silent” on that claim. If you want to believe that, that is up to you and God. Just don’t say that I have to in order to be in the Church that Christ established.

That is the position of “Where the Bible is silent; we should be silent.”

You Say - “The Bible is silent on apostolic succession” then how do you reconcile the following:

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

2 Chr 19:11 - high priest is over you in everything of Lord’s.
Mal 2:7 - seek instruction from priest, he is God’s messenger.
Eph 2:20 - Church built upon foundation of apostles & prophets.
Eph 4:11 - God gave some as apostles, others as prophets.
1 Cor 12:28-29 - God designated in church: apostles.
Acts 1:20 - let another take his office.
Acts 1:25-26 - Matthias takes Judas’ apostolic ministry.
1 Tim 3:1, 8; 5:17 - qualifications for: bishops, priests, & deacons.
1Tim 4:14 - gift conferred with the laying on of hands
1Tim 5:22 - do not lay hands too readily on anyone.
Acts 14:23 - they appointed presbyters in each church
2Tim 2:2 - what you heard from me entrust to faithful teachers.
Titus 1:5 - appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed

You Say - “He claims to be the head on earth of the universal church. The Bible is “silent” on that claim”.

PAPACY & APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
PRIMACY OF PETER

Mt 16:18 - upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church.
Mt 16;19 - give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind & loose.
Lk 22:32 - Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren.
Jn 21:17 - given Christ’s flock as chief shepherd.
Mk 16:7 - angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter.
Lk 24:34 - risen Jesus first appeared to Peter .
Acts 1:13-26 - headed meeting which elected Matthias.
Acts 2:14 - led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost.
Acts 2:41 - received first converts.
Acts 3:6-7 - performed first miracle after Pentecost.
Acts 5:1-11 - inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira.
Acts 8:21 - excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus.
Acts 10:44-46 - received revelation to admit Gentiles into Church
Acts 15:7 - led first council in Jerusalem.
Acts 15:19 - pronounces first dogmatic decision
Gal 1:18 - after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle

Just some good reading for you to catch up on.

 

[ltwin]

You Say - “The Bible is silent on apostolic succession” then how do you reconcile the following:

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

2 Chr 19:11 - high priest is over you in everything of Lord’s.
Mal 2:7 - seek instruction from priest, he is God’s messenger.
Eph 2:20 - Church built upon foundation of apostles & prophets.
Eph 4:11 - God gave some as apostles, others as prophets.
1 Cor 12:28-29 - God designated in church: apostles.
Acts 1:20 - let another take his office.
Acts 1:25-26 - Matthias takes Judas’ apostolic ministry.
1 Tim 3:1, 8; 5:17 - qualifications for: bishops, priests, & deacons.
1Tim 4:14 - gift conferred with the laying on of hands
1Tim 5:22 - do not lay hands too readily on anyone.
Acts 14:23 - they appointed presbyters in each church
2Tim 2:2 - what you heard from me entrust to faithful teachers.
Titus 1:5 - appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed

You Say - “He claims to be the head on earth of the universal church. The Bible is “silent” on that claim”.

PAPACY & APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
PRIMACY OF PETER

Mt 16:18 - upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church.
Mt 16;19 - give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind & loose.
Lk 22:32 - Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren.
Jn 21:17 - given Christ’s flock as chief shepherd.
Mk 16:7 - angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter.
Lk 24:34 - risen Jesus first appeared to Peter .
Acts 1:13-26 - headed meeting which elected Matthias.
Acts 2:14 - led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost.
Acts 2:41 - received first converts.
Acts 3:6-7 - performed first miracle after Pentecost.
Acts 5:1-11 - inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira.
Acts 8:21 - excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus.
Acts 10:44-46 - received revelation to admit Gentiles into Church
Acts 15:7 - led first council in Jerusalem.
Acts 15:19 - pronounces first dogmatic decision
Gal 1:18 - after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle

Just some good reading for you to catch up on.

We could debate the many interpretations one can have of all those verses all day, but that would be taking this thread off topic.

I don’t wont to be mistaken. I don’t wont to be seen like I’m fanatically defending this view. I’m not. As I said, I’ve never heard this phrase preached from the pulpit. I don’t think you can define what is essential and non-essential by the silence of Scripture alone.

But I understand the viewpoint. It’s quite simple really: Where in the Bible does it say that Peter is Christ’s Vicar and that all other Bishops of Rome after him will be Christ’s Vicars and have universal jurisdiction over the Church? Where does it say that to be in full fellowship with Christ’s Church (as opposed to being a member of an “ecclesial community” that one must be in communion with the Bishop of Rome? Where does it say that Peter or any of his successors are infallible under certain conditions? It doesn’t say that anywhere.

If you believe that the Bible contains everything we need to know that is important about Christ and salvation, then the absence of any mention of this stuff settles the matter: The Pope is not infallible and your relationship to the RCC has nothing to do with your position in Christ’s one Church.