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

[Newsy]

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.

AHH! But this is strictly a protestant qualification. The Catholic Church does not assert this idea.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Fair enoughl

I don’t think you can define what is essential and non-essential by the silence of Scripture alone.

Nor by its text either. Scripture mentions nothing about essential vs non-essential doctrines.

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.

I understand this argument. Scripture doesn’t say, so then we shouldn’t permit it.

But you must then see where my question arises, ltwin: why is this paradigm not applied universally to all practices in Protestant churches?

Scripture is silent about having crosses on steeples. So that is permitted. (But, the papacy is not because Scripture is silent on this.)

Scripture is silent about artificial birth control. So that is permitted. (But the assumption is not because Scripture is silent on this.)

Scripture is silent about organs in churches. So that is permitted. (But the Immaculate Conception is not because Scripture is silent on this.)

See? Why the double standard?

And who gets to decide when something is permissible because Scripture is silent vs it’s prohibited because Scripture is silent?

 

[PRmerger]

Because after you’ve made the determination regarding whether something is prohibited or permitted

Let me stop you right here–

“After you’ve made the determination whether something is prohibited or permitted” based on *what? *(We’re going with the understanding that the Scripture is silent on this “something”, right?)

 

[PRmerger]

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

And this is a very curious paradigm.

For it seems that there is at least 2 huge “obligations” that are mandated by Protestants that do not exist in the Bible.

One is mentioned by ltwin:

If you believe that the Bible contains everything we need to know that is important about Christ and salvation

That paradigm is not found in a single page of Scripture.

(NB: 1 Tim 3:16 does not say, not even if we squint our eyes and look cross-eyed, that “the Bible contains everything we need to know that is important about Christ and salvation.” What it says is that if it’s Scripture, ie. in the Bible, then it’s from God.)

The other “obligation” is to believe that Hebrews is* theopneustos *but that the Didache is not. That the Gospel of Mark is inspired, but that the Gospel of Thomas is not.

That understanding is also not found in a single page of Scripture.

 

[ltwin]

ltwin;8701527:

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.

I understand this argument. Scripture doesn’t say, so then we shouldn’t permit it.

But you must then see where my question arises, ltwin: why is this paradigm not applied universally to all practices in Protestant churches?

Scripture is silent about having crosses on steeples. So that is permitted. (But, the papacy is not because Scripture is silent on this.)

Scripture is silent about artificial birth control. So that is permitted. (But the assumption is not because Scripture is silent on this.)

Scripture is silent about organs in churches. So that is permitted. (But the Immaculate Conception is not because Scripture is silent on this.)

See? Why the double standard?

And who gets to decide when something is permissible because Scripture is silent vs it’s prohibited because Scripture is silent?

I think there needs to be clarification here. I’m not sure where this phrase/concept originated (perhaps Church of Christ as someone said earlier?). You could look at this in two ways from my point of view.

The First View: Anything that Scripture is silent on is FORBIDDEN, such as instruments in church (even though instruments are used in the OT, they are not mentioned in the NT).

The Second View: Anything that Scripture is silent on can be permitted if it is beneficial, but it cannot be made necessary for salvation.

If I believed this was a viable method, I would favor the second, more permissible view. This view would recognize that the Pope is the the Bishop of Rome and head of the Roman Catholic Church and can thus exercise lawful authority over that church.

 

[PRmerger]

I think there needs to be clarification here. I’m not sure where this phrase/concept originated (perhaps Church of Christ as someone said earlier?). You could look at this in two ways from my point of view.

The First View: Anything that Scripture is silent on is FORBIDDEN, such as instruments in church (even though instruments are used in the OT, they are not mentioned in the NT).

The Second View: Anything that Scripture is silent on can be permitted if it is beneficial, but it cannot be made necessary for salvation.

Ok. And is it permissible, in your opinion, for a church to hold both views, and apply it at different occasions, based on the pastor’s discernment?

 

[ltwin]

Ok. And is it permissible, in your opinion, for a church to hold both views, and apply it at different occasions, based on the pastor’s discernment?

I think its too simplistic. Religious beliefs evolve over time. It’s natural. Practices are not stagnant. My tradition (Pentecostalism) sees itself as recapturing the power and dynamism of early Christianity. However, we haven’t just eliminated all of church history. We have built on a tradition, and we have innovated in amazing ways. My church uses electric guitars, shofar horns, Jewish prayer shawls, “praise banners”, and multicolored stage lights. The shofar horn and Jewish prayer shawls are in the Bible, but Pentecostals don’t use them like Jews did in the Old or New Testaments.

Pentecostals are different from fundamentalists (and evangelicals for that matter) in that we have a different way of looking at the world. Pentecostalism at its heart is experiential. We’ve learned, however, that structure is needed. We learned this in the early 1900s with the “New Issue” which gave rise to Oneness Pentecostalism. It almost took over the Assemblies of God, but that denomination was saved when a very wise man looked back through church history and learned that, despite what was believed at the time, Oneness or Jesus Name was not a “new revelation” but a very old heresy that was settled a long time ago by a church council (I don’t remember which council it was). As a result of this looking back to church history, the majority of Pentecostals determined rightly that Oneness Pentecostalism was a heresy.

So, Pentecostals try to rely on a fresh, living experience with the Word of God and with the Spirit as well as trying to be faithful to the Gospel as we have received it. It’s not so simple as saying: “The Bible is silent on this issue; but it speaks plainly on this issue.”

I think, however, that when a church or denomination says,

We don’t have all the answers and we aren’t infallible. This issue needs to be worked out by the believer in prayer and seeking after God’s will.

is an honest statement and humble statement. We make many things an either or thing, and we fight over them when they really aren’t worth fighting over. Many times it results in only division.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

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?

Had you read my post you would have your answer. NECESSARY INFERENCE.

If it makes sense then yes, if it doesn’t, then no. In Protestantism there are so many Popes you’ll that are qualified only to divide Church.

 

[PRmerger]

I think its too simplistic. Religious beliefs evolve over time. It’s natural. Practices are not stagnant. My tradition (Pentecostalism) sees itself as recapturing the power and dynamism of early Christianity. However, we haven’t just eliminated all of church history. We have built on a tradition, and we have innovated in amazing ways. My church uses electric guitars, shofar horns, Jewish prayer shawls, “praise banners”, and multicolored stage lights. The shofar horn and Jewish prayer shawls are in the Bible, but Pentecostals don’t use them like Jews did in the Old or New Testaments.

Sounds beautiful.

But not sure how that answers my question as to whether something is permitted or prohibited if Scripture is silent on something.

Pentecostals are different from fundamentalists (and evangelicals for that matter) in that we have a different way of looking at the world. Pentecostalism at its heart is experiential. We’ve learned, however, that structure is needed. We learned this in the early 1900s with the “New Issue” which gave rise to Oneness Pentecostalism. It almost took over the Assemblies of God, but that denomination was saved when a very wise man looked back through church history and learned that, despite what was believed at the time, Oneness or Jesus Name was not a “new revelation” but a very old heresy that was settled a long time ago by a church council (I don’t remember which council it was). As a result of this looking back to church history, the majority of Pentecostals determined rightly that Oneness Pentecostalism was a heresy.

Interesting. I hope that it wasn’t because a vote decided this, because, of course, truth cannot be discerned via majority, right?

I think, however, that when a church or denomination says,

We don’t have all the answers and we aren’t infallible. This issue needs to be worked out by the believer in prayer and seeking after God’s will.

is an honest statement and humble statement. We make many things an either or thing, and we fight over them when they really aren’t worth fighting over. Many times it results in only division.

This would be a perfectly reasonable paradigm if one believed that it was all man’s effort and the Holy Spirit was not involved at all in guiding the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Had you read my post you would have your answer. NECESSARY INFERENCE.

If it makes sense then yes, if it doesn’t, then no. In Protestantism there are so many Popes you’ll that are qualified only to divide Church.

Sorry, Jack, but I have no idea what “necessary inference” means.

 

[amontoya]

Sorry, Jack, but I have no idea what “necessary inference” means.

The concept of “necessary inference” stems from the first part of the phrase that is the topic of conversation. In the Cambellite Churches of Christ, the entire phrase is, “we speak where the Bible speaks, and we are silent where the Bible is silent.” Necessary inference happens when one looks at what Scripture does say about a specific topic and uses this information to decide an issue that Scripture is silent about.

For instance, since the Bible does not say specifically to baptize infants, one can look at what the Bible does say about baptism in general to decide the issue. The Churches of Christ look at Mark 16:16 and say that since belief is a requirement for baptism, and infants can’t believe, then it necessarily follows that infants can’t be baptized.

 

[PRmerger]

The concept of “necessary inference” stems from the first part of the phrase that is the topic of conversation. In the Cambellite Churches of Christ, the entire phrase is, “we speak where the Bible speaks, and we are silent where the Bible is silent.” Necessary inference happens when one looks at what Scripture does say about a specific topic and uses this information to decide an issue that Scripture is silent about.

For instance, since the Bible does not say specifically to baptize infants, one can look at what the Bible does say about baptism in general to decide the issue. The Churches of Christ look at Mark 16:16 and say that since belief is a requirement for baptism, and infants can’t believe, then it necessarily follows that infants can’t be baptized.

Ah, I see. So it’s similar to what the Catholic Church did in discerning, say, the Immaculate Conception. While there is nothing specifically about the IC in Scripture, one can look at what the Bible says about Mary and Jesus in general to decide the issue.

 

[ltwin]

Sounds beautiful.

But not sure how that answers my question as to whether something is permitted or prohibited if Scripture is silent on something.

It doesn’t answer the question. I don’t know the answer . Just stating that “silence” doesn’t solve anything.

Interesting. I hope that it wasn’t because a vote decided this, because, of course, truth cannot be discerned via majority, right?

In the Assemblies of God, it was decided by a General Council which approved a “Statement of Fundamental Truths” which was Trinitarian. Not sure what you mean by a vote. Obviously, the majority thought that the Trinity was orthodox doctrine and that “Oneness” was a heresy. I won’t derail the thread anymore. If you want to know more, you can send me a private message or we could start a new thread on ecclesiastical voting.

This would be a perfectly reasonable paradigm if one believed that it was all man’s effort and the Holy Spirit was not involved at all in guiding the Church.

The Holy Spirit definitely still guides the church into all truth. But that does not necessarily mean that Christians are going to agree on all matters. That is why we must pray for unity and allow for differences as far as possible. That’s easier said than done.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

The concept of “necessary inference” stems from the first part of the phrase that is the topic of conversation. In the Cambellite Churches of Christ, the entire phrase is, “we speak where the Bible speaks, and we are silent where the Bible is silent.” Necessary inference happens when one looks at what Scripture does say about a specific topic and uses this information to decide an issue that Scripture is silent about.

For instance, since the Bible does not say specifically to baptize infants, one can look at what the Bible does say about baptism in general to decide the issue. The Churches of Christ look at Mark 16:16 and say that since belief is a requirement for baptism, and infants can’t believe, then it necessarily follows that infants can’t be baptized.

Very well put. Exactly. For many years I practiced as a Christian only. The interesting part about it is that my faith was based on bible only Christianity even though I was or became ore began practicing Catholicism, which to be clear is Christianity at its fullest. The truth is I feel like a Shaolin monk now because we never achieve perfection in the fullness of Christ’s faith until we pass on and God, through no achievement of our own, are made perfect.

If you were to remove Catholic teaching and truly use the bible as your only authority, you would see the Campbellite church restoration movement. I often catch myself still thinking along those lines, which gets me into hot water on this forum from time to time. Cradle Catholics don’t know how good they have it. I’m only a cradle catholic in name only.

 

[PRmerger]

The Holy Spirit definitely still guides the church into all truth. But that does not necessarily mean that Christians are going to agree on all matters. That is why we must pray for unity and allow for differences as far as possible. That’s easier said than done.

Firstly, ltwin, could you please not nest your quotes? It makes it difficult to respond to your specific points. Click here to learn how to quote in the correct fashion. Thanks.

Secondly, of course if the Holy Spirit is guiding the church into all truth it means that Christians are going to agree on all matters! They will agree if they are guided by the HS.

The Holy Spirit does not lead Christians into contrary doctrines, ltwin. He cannot tell one church that Saturday is the Lord’s day and then tell another church that Sunday is. He cannot tell one church that music is allowed in the worship services and then tell another one it’s an unbiblical.

 

[exnihilo]

Let me stop you right here–

“After you’ve made the determination whether something is prohibited or permitted” based on *what? *(We’re going with the understanding that the Scripture is silent on this “something”, right?)

I’m a bit confused by your question. Regarding the silence principle it seems that one reads the Bible. If they find an issue not mentioned in it then the determination is made that Scripture is silent concerning the matter. I think that has been well covered by me and that @Itwin did a nice job of summarizing the concept.

And this is a very curious paradigm.

For it seems that there is at least 2 huge “obligations” that are mandated by Protestants that do not exist in the Bible.

I agree that the Bible does not itself declare what books should be in it. I also agree that the Bible does not proclaim that all Christian knowledge is contained within it. In fact Apostolic letters make clear we should hold to the traditions that were taught. This tradition could be in interpretation, doctrine, and practice. I think no one truly acts as if the Bible is the only source of information for how to live the Christian life. Even those who reject the practice and theology of the ancient churches will appeal to information about the practice of the early church as contained in extra-biblical writings. At a bare minimum in interpretation they rely on other ancient writings to justify the translation of the original language. Early on I said this principle is not helpful and has not prevented division.

Interesting. I hope that it wasn’t because a vote decided this, because, of course, truth cannot be discerned via majority, right?

I agree that a vote does not determine truth. But things aren’t so cut and dry. Why have ecumenical councils if votes do not determine truth? Why is the pope elected by the cardinals? Do Catholics believe that the wrong person could be elected pope?

 

[BrianH]

Firstly, ltwin, could you please not nest your quotes? It makes it difficult to respond to your specific points. Click here to learn how to quote in the correct fashion. Thanks.

Secondly, of course if the Holy Spirit is guiding the church into all truth it means that Christians are going to agree on all matters! They will agree if they are guided by the HS.

The Holy Spirit does not lead Christians into contrary doctrines, ltwin. He cannot tell one church that Saturday is the Lord’s day and then tell another church that Sunday is. He cannot tell one church that music is allowed in the worship services and then tell another one it’s an unbiblical.

So since Christians do not agree on all matters, what do you believe that means?

 

[Newsy]

So since Christians do not agree on all matters, what do you believe that means?

The Holy Spirit leads some people, others use it as an excuse to push their personal choices. For instance, I believe that the Holy Spirit is not leading the PCUSA and the United Methodists to support abortion. I believe they may be led by the Holy Spirit in other matters, but not on abortion. Why? Because it contradicts scripture and Tradition. Can somebody grow closer to God in one of those denominations? Sure, it happened to me, but to let an entire denomination fall into error is not an action of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

The** Holy Spirit leads some people, others use it as an excuse to push their personal choices. **For instance, I believe that the Holy Spirit is not leading the PCUSA and the United Methodists to support abortion. I believe they may be led by the Holy Spirit in other matters, but not on abortion. Why? Because it contradicts scripture and Tradition. Can somebody grow closer to God in one of those denominations? Sure, it happened to me, but to let an entire denomination fall into error is not an action of the Holy Spirit.

And the truth about this is alarming when we see so many people, including ourselves at times, diverging from the truth. Sometimes we justify our position on things that later on in life we come to realize are really wrong. That’s why we all must be careful not to rebel or especially isolate ourselves from the group, the body of Christ, where we are rightly placed in our position based on our faculties, not just knowledge based. There is an element of the Holy Spirit guiding us, but it must be within the correct context while in submission to the truth, and like it or not, subjects of the hierarchy that Christ established from the get go.

 

[Red_in_205]

I think there needs to be clarification here. I’m not sure where this phrase/concept originated (perhaps Church of Christ as someone said earlier?)

I can confirm that this is a commonly used phrase among members of the Church of Christ and other churches that came out of the Stone-Campbell “Restoration” movement in the 2nd American Great Awakening. I went to a K-12 school run by the Churches of Christ. I have a good understanding of their beliefs, but I am not a member, so keep in mind that I’m speaking for other people when I talk about their perspective.

Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell’s goal was to return to “1st Century Christianity” by rejecting all man made creeds, “calling Bible things by Bible names” and labeling themselves as “Christians only” as opposed to Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, etc. They consider the Bible, which is inerrant and meant to be taken literally, to be the only rule of faith. Their other most important beliefs are that salvation only comes through believer’s baptism, that immersion is the only acceptable form of baptism, and that a person must continue to live a holy life after baptism to be saved.

A member of the CoC would challenge Catholic arguments about Church tradition by arguing that unwritten tradition is inherently less reliable than the written word, especially in places where it seems to contradict or supplant anything in the Bible. They would challenge anyone bringing an argument from the apostolic tradition to prove that an apostle actually taught that practice or belief, and they would reject any evidence you might give if it didn’t come directly from the Bible. They would be completely unimpressed with any argument that comes from church practice after about A.D. 100, because they think that the church was already deeply in error by the time of the ecumenical councils. In other words, they couldn’t care less what Irenaeus, Ignatius, or Polycarp have to say about anything.

On the plus side, their members tend to be very serious students of the Bible and able to cite several scripture references to back up their beliefs. On the negative side, they’re pretty clearly wrong about one of their most fundamental beliefs, which is that the Bible is easy for average people to read and fully understand. They also tend to be very… let’s say “self-assured” of the absolute correctness of all their doctrines. To them, anyone who disagrees with a CoC doctrine is simply refusing to acknowledge the obvious truth for selfish reasons. (It goes without saying that they are the only Christian group in all of recorded history to have such a totally unprecedented attitude. )