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

[PRmerger]

What part of the word “Silent” do you not understand? You are right that the Bible says nothing about artificial birth control. Therefore, because the Bible expresses no clear position on the matter (it is “silent”) the church can express no clear authoritative opinion on the matter (it is “silent”). It is a matter of conscience for the Christian to decide “in the light of God’s Word.”

Excellent.

So the argument that the “Scriptures are silent on the papacy” could not be used to refute the Catholic understanding of the papacy? We are free as a Church to “decide ‘in the light of God’s Word’?”

 

[PRmerger]

So, we should only have authoritive beliefs on things that are clearly referred to in the Bible?

Great.

Now if you can just tell me where I can find that teaching in the Bible please…

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for the link. Based on the following quote, it seems that the pill would be considered immoral for those who stick by the AG position:

“Any birth control method that functions to destroy a fertilized egg, rather than actually preventing conception, is considered unacceptable. Every couple should take this into account when selecting methods of birth control.”

Sorry to the OP for momentarily sidetracking conversation. If anyone wants to look at this question any more fully we should probably start another thread

Oh, I am a big proponent of being off-topic! I rather like it when discussions veer off onto tangents. It mimics real life conversations–we should be picturing ourselves sitting on someone’s beautiful back patio, sipping wine and eating something deliciously unhealthy, discussing religion. In this scenario discussions never stay on topic but end up in some great discussions!

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, I am a big proponent of being off-topic! I rather like it when discussions veer off onto tangents. It mimics real life conversations–we should be picturing ourselves sitting on someone’s beautiful back patio, sipping wine and eating something deliciously unhealthy, discussing religion. In this scenario discussions never stay on topic but end up in some great discussions!

But back to your topic, yes, it’s interesting that the AofG do not prohibit the use of the Pill, which is clearly an abortifacient. Especially in current times when the dose of synthetic hormones is extremely low due to side effects from higher dosing. But it is the higher dosing that prevents ovulation. And the lower dosing which prevents implanatation.

So, at the lower dosing of these synthetic hormones a tiny human being *is *created, and then not allowed to nestle into her home made just for her in mama’s womb.

 

[PRmerger]

The phrase “Where the Scriptures are silent, we should be silent” is sort of related to the debate over the regulative principle and the normative principle of worship.

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?

 

[fbl9]

I doubt that any fellowhip outside of the CC actually follows this even if they do preach it.
Like some other pet doctrines they find a wordy way around it which essentially renders the belief sensless.

 

[rinnie]

I have no idea. The statement doesn’t go into that much detail. They certainly are strongly against abortion.

Speaking on Pentecostals in general: Birth control is accepted since it is understand as not killing existing life.

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

 

[Newsy]

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

Thank you, I wondered when it would come up!

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

 

[Newsy]

I doubt that any fellowhip outside of the CC actually follows this even if they do preach it.
Like some other pet doctrines they find a wordy way around it which essentially renders the belief sensless.

So, what’s the point of the church? To preach the truth and then ignore the teachings that are unpopular?

Here in lies the problem, there are some who call evil “good” and call good “evil”. It was accepted that contraception was wrong, by all Christian denominations, until 1930. Now we are left to figure it out as we see fit, despite the teachings of the Bible?

To address the OP, this is another rejection of Tradition. This pre-supposes that the Bible is the only source of Christ’s teaching. Oral Tradition was handed down to us from the Apostles, to reject it, is to reject Christ’s teaching to them. I would like to see support for this “silence” idea from scripture or oral tradition.

 

[rinnie]

So, what’s the point of the church? To preach the truth and then ignore the teachings that are unpopular?

Here in lies the problem, there are some who call evil “good” and call good “evil”. It was accepted that contraception was wrong, by all Christian denominations, until 1930. Now we are left to figure it out as we see fit, despite the teachings of the Bible?

To address the OP, this is another rejection of Tradition. This pre-supposes that the Bible is the only source of Christ’s teaching. Oral Tradition was handed down to us from the Apostles, to reject it, is to reject Christ’s teaching to them. I would like to see support for this “silence” idea from scripture or oral tradition.

Here is another thing, lets say someone uses contraception, Okay now here is the problem. You are putting yourself in the place of God. Simply because you are not relying on his Grace to carry you through. Who knows whats best for us, Us or God???

But in the defense of Contracepton I do not think anyone realizes how wrong it is. Even as Catholic’s we need to hear more about how wrong it is. Many people who took it did not honestly realize how wrong it really was. And I believe God undertands that.

But the point is now we are well aware of it being wrong and should trust God completely.

 

[BrianH]

Here is another thing, lets say someone uses contraception, Okay now here is the problem. You are putting yourself in the place of God. Simply because you are not relying on his Grace to carry you through. Who knows whats best for us, Us or God???

But in the defense of Contracepton I do not think anyone realizes how wrong it is. Even as Catholic’s we need to hear more about how wrong it is. Many people who took it did not honestly realize how wrong it really was. And I believe God undertands that.

But the point is now we are well aware of it being wrong and should trust God completely.

Why does that argument as stated not apply to doctors?

 

[rinnie]

Why does that argument as stated not apply to doctors?

When did Jesus say his word does not apply to Doctors??

 

[wmscott]

What part of the word “Silent” do you not understand? You are right that the Bible says nothing about artificial birth control. Therefore, because the Bible expresses no clear position on the matter (it is “silent”) the church can express no clear authoritative opinion on the matter (it is “silent”). It is a matter of conscience for the Christian to decide “in the light of God’s Word.”

God’s word clearly condemns murder. It is not a matter for the Christian to work out for himself. Therefore, the church is not “silent” on abortion. It must clearly condemn it.

Soooo…. Since the Bible was not around for the first 300 to 400 years how in the world did Christianity ever survive? 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!

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. And in Jn 16:13 that the Spirit of truth will guide you to all truth, where is the “Silence” here?

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.

 

[BrianH]

When did Jesus say his word does not apply to Doctors??

Trusting in God completely to heal. I also wonder about NFP, that does not seem like it is relying on God completely either. Maybe this is not what you believe but I am curious about the trusting in God completely argument. I have heard it but do not know anyone and so this is my first chance to ask someone who believes it.

 

[rinnie]

Trusting in God completely to heal. I also wonder about NFP, that does not seem like it is relying on God completely either. Maybe this is not what you believe but I am curious about the trusting in God completely argument. I have heard it but do not know anyone and so this is my first chance to ask someone who believes it.

Well lets put it this way my Mom did it natural, and still had 5 kids. It is relying on God because you have 2 things going for you. You go to God to help you give up your desire at the moment, and when you give in to it you rely on his Grace to do his will not yours.

If you trust God completely you know that he will never give you more then you can handle.

But the reason NFP works is because you still have God in the picture. He is always the source of your help.

But NATURAL family planning is not the same as ARITIFICAL family planning. Do you see what I am saying?

 

[BrianH]

Well lets put it this way my Mom did it natural, and still had 5 kids. It is relying on God because you have 2 things going for you. You go to God to help you give up your desire at the moment, and when you give in to it you rely on his Grace to do his will not yours.

If you trust God completely you know that he will never give you more then you can handle.

But the reason NFP works is because you still have God in the picture. He is always the source of your help.

But NATURAL family planning is not the same as ARITIFICAL family planning. Do you see what I am saying?

Ok. I do not see that as trusting God completely but I was just mainly curious to hear from someone if they believed that. No problem.

 

[fbl9]

non-catholics does your pastor teach that where the bible is silent ,we should be silent.?

I doubt that any fellowhip outside of the CC actually follows this even if they do preach it.
Like some other pet doctrines they find a wordy way around it which essentially renders the belief sensless.

So, what’s the point of the church? To preach the truth and then ignore the teachings that are unpopular?

Here in lies the problem, there are some who call evil “good” and call good “evil”. It was accepted that contraception was wrong, by all Christian denominations, until 1930. Now we are left to figure it out as we see fit, despite the teachings of the Bible?

To address the OP, this is another rejection of Tradition. This pre-supposes that the Bible is the only source of Christ’s teaching. Oral Tradition was handed down to us from the Apostles, to reject it, is to reject Christ’s teaching to them. I would like to see support for this “silence” idea from scripture or oral tradition.

There Newsy does make more sense to you. in no way was i stating that the Catholic Church’s followers are allowed to pick an choose.

scripture is truly silent on the age of baptism yet that does not stop any fellowship from making adult only baptism.
scripture is silent on the age of consent yet many feel they can set an age.

 

[Publisher]

In another thread a Protestant sister in Christ proferred:

“Where the Scriptures are Silent, We Should Be Silent”

This is an interesting paradigm in light of most Protestant church’s view on artificial birth control.

Scripture is silent on this issue.
Yet the Protestant churches allow this. (Some are coming around, though.)

Nowhere does Scripture ever mention that it’s permissible to use contraception. The Bible is “silent” on this.

How, then, does your pastor conclude that it’s okay to use artificial contraceptives?

Is this an exception to the paradigm: Where the Scriptures are Silent, We Should Be Silent?

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.”

 

[exnihilo]

I have certainly heard this principle put forth. It is offered as a way of avoiding division. Obviously it has not solved that problem at all. The problem as I see it is we all like certainty. We want to have answers we are really sure of. What makes most people sure is other people agreeing with them. Therefore people want their institution to agree with them formally. Any issue that is contentious must always eventually be formally decided.

This is an interesting paradigm in light of most Protestant church’s view on artificial birth control.

Scripture is silent on this issue.
Yet the Protestant churches allow this. (Some are coming around, though.)

Nowhere does Scripture ever mention that it’s permissible to use contraception. The Bible is “silent” on this.

How, then, does your pastor conclude that it’s okay to use artificial contraceptives?

Is this an exception to the paradigm: Where the Scriptures are Silent, We Should Be Silent?

First let me say that I believe and accept the Catholic position on contraception.

Regarding this issue I assume the allowance of artificial contraception is based on the lack of explicit prohibition. 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 second principle is not very helpful. The moral law is not necessarily hard to understand but quite frankly most people are not capable in their current condition of applying good reasoning in many of the more difficult moral situations and are inclined to Pharisaical arguments whereby they find excuses to justify their behavior.

I would say ‘where Scripture is silent’ is a mostly useless principle because people will find scripture that makes their point and ignore that which counters it in order to justify their position. A case in point is that the deranged proponents of gay ‘marriage’ and elimination of homosexuality as a sin have gone so far as to declare that the prohibitions of homosexual acts in the Bible are referring to a different type of homosexuality than exists today (in fairness I’ve heard people also do the same thing regarding slavery and the lack of prohibition of it). Where the Bible is quite clear and loud some people will just say the words do not mean what they do.

 

[Newsy]

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.”

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?