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

[Genovefa]

I have some experience with the Church of Christ. They are not a good example of a Prostestant church and have more in common with a cult than a bonafide Christian denomination. Although they differ between congregations (another problem) the most strict ones deny the trinity (since it is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, however it actually is pretty clear).

Also, they don’t celebrate Easter or Christmas in the church although most do in their homes as secular holidays. I would argue, and have, that the Bible makes clear when Easter is, even if it does not for Christmas.

They don’t allow instruments because they are not described as part of worship in the NT. They ignore the OT on many things–saying that it is no longer applicable.

They will vote to “disfellowship” members who do not comply with obligations like attending church on Sunday. My BIL was “disfellowshiped” and my FIL was chastized for speaking to him. A member of the church is to cut all ties with disfellowshiped members (even ones own son) unless it is to talk about coming back to the church. When FIL told me this I was horrified and point-blank told him that was what cults do.

They think all other Christians are going to hell. They do believe in Sunday school since the Bible doesn’t mandate it. They think Catholics deny the Sabbath by going to church Saturday evening so they can sleep in on Sunday. (I’ve explained this one to them).

Anyway…don’t get me started.

*Protestants usually say *that the although the Bible doesn’t address all possible issues and circumstances, it gives enough guidance that we can discern God’s will in those areas.

 

[PRmerger]

Christians have been told on this forum that they all decide for themselves (that everyone is their own Pope etc) and that has been criticized.
Christians are also criticized for voting now.

Well, I’m not actually criticizing voting to discern doctrine.

It simply is the only recourse, I suppose, for churches that have divorced themselves from the faith of the Apostles. :sad_yes:

So is there anyway that you would not criticize decision making in other Christian churches outside of actually being a part of your church?
So isnt it true that you just do not agree with how anyone does things that is not part of your church? That is the central issue.

No, I wouldn’t say that. I don’t disagree, say, with your pastor giving a 2 hour sermon. Catholic priests don’t normally do that, but if that’s what happens in your church, I say, “Go for it!”

I wouldn’t disagree with your choir singing Christmas carols before Christmas. Catholics don’t do that as it’s Advent, but if that’s what your church does, .

I wouldn’t disagree with people having conversations in the church after the service. Catholics don’t do that as the space in the church is considered SACRED. HE is present there at the tabernacle and we reserve this sacred space for prayer and worship. Conversations and socializing, while wonderful, are for the vestibule or parking lot. But if you guys want to socialize in the pews, knock yourselves out!

 

[PRmerger]

I didn’t read the entire thread but wanted to reply:

Protestants usually say that the although the Bible doesn’t address all possible issues and circumstances, it gives enough guidance that we can discern God’s will in those areas.

So how would you reconcile the fact that sometimes these churches will say that something is permitted because it’s not mentioned in Scripture, yet also say something is is prohibited since it’s not mentioned in Scripture?

 

[Newsy]

Christians have been told on this forum that they all decide for themselves (that everyone is their own Pope etc) and that has been criticized.

It is less criticized, more pointed out the error that stems from that system. If someone takes that as criticism, so be it.

Christians are also criticized for voting now.

Please show an example of this. I have never seen anyone criticized for voting on this forum.

So is there anyway that you would not criticize decision making in other Christian churches outside of actually being a part of your church?
So isnt it true that you just do not agree with how anyone does things that is not part of your church? That is the central issue.

The central issue is, it does not matter what an individual in cyberspace says. What matters is what God says. What is being pointed out is the faults in those systems. If we decide truth by a popular vote, then it isn’t really truth, it is popular opinion. Catholics believe we have a system guarded from error, by the Holy Spirit. This can be backed up by history and scripture. If you feel that these ideas are offensive to your church’s style of government, then your impression becomes your reality. I would venture to say that most individuals are really trying to prove their point, not attack your church.

 

[Genovefa]

So how would you reconcile the fact that sometimes these churches will say that something is permitted because it’s not mentioned in Scripture, yet also say something is is prohibited since it’s not mentioned in Scripture?

I was editing my post while you replied. I thought it might be unclear.

My response to your question is that churches that say that are not following any sort of logic to begin with. Ultimately it doesn’t make sense because they are wrong.

They usually only applies these rules to worship. If it is not mentioned it is not allowed in worship (instruments).

 

[exnihilo]

My question is this: if Scripture is silent on , is the default position that is permitted or it is prohibited?

It appears that the answer is, sometimes it’s prohibited (say, with papacy. Church Z says that since there’s no mention of the papacy in Scripture we shouldn’t have one.)

And sometimes it’s permissible (say, with artificial birth control. Church Z now says that since there’s no mention of ABC in Scripture it’s not forbidden).

Does this not seem problematic to you as a Protestant to be able to hold both positions?
If it’s a both/and thing–I’m ok with that. can be prohibited if it’s not mentioned and can be permitted if it’s not mentioned. But who determines this? And based on what?

I do not advocate the position nor am I an expert in it. I think the prohibition of things not mentioned in the Bible is in prohibiting making that which is not mentioned a requirement of Christian faith or life.

As to who determines this that would be the church to which the adherent of this principle belongs.

A

Exactly. So how do you reconcile the above statements (I label as statements A for ease of reference) with your statement here (I label B for ease in reference):

B

What I find disparate in your 2 comments above is: first you say that only things that are in the Bible must be obligatory.

Then you posted that it’s not a Biblical teaching.

And you make it obligatory for Christians to accept that, say, Hebrews is inspired, when you also affirm that the Bible doesn’t say that Hebrews is inspired. AND, as per your statement B, one ought not be obligated to believe that Hebrews is inspired.

Quite a paradox, eh?

Well as I’ve said this is not a good principle and the proof of that is the inability of this principle to stop further dissent and division in the church.

Because we believe that the Holy Spirit assists and directs our Magisterium into coming to the fullness of truth through the charism of infallibility.

I am quite certain that the AoG do not claim to have this charism of infallibility, thus, voting as a means of discerning truth seems to be an inutile form of doctrine development.

The Holy Spirit might well be leading the Catholic Church infallibly. But the fact remains that voting is used in the Catholic Church to determine some very important matters. I readily agree that truth is not determined by a vote. But we cant really chide non-Catholics for voting for truth when they also believe the Holy Spirit leads them. Now the non-Catholics might well be wrong about their being guided. But we aren’t going to get anywhere condemning voting since even the Catholic Church votes for some things. Some Protestants took to the lot to fully embrace the idea of being led by the Holy Spirit and not the votes of men.

 

[PRmerger]

The Holy Spirit might well be leading the Catholic Church infallibly. But the fact remains that voting is used in the Catholic Church to determine some very important matters. I readily agree that truth is not determined by a vote. But we cant really chide non-Catholics for voting for truth when they also believe the Holy Spirit leads them. Now the non-Catholics might well be wrong about their being guided. But we aren’t going to get anywhere condemning voting since even the Catholic Church votes for some things. Some Protestants took to the lot to fully embrace the idea of being led by the Holy Spirit and not the votes of men.

Ah, yes. I see your point.

However, as I said, I’m not really criticizing anyone for voting for a particular doctrine. Especially since you are correct in saying that Catholic bishops have voted on “some very important matters” (one that comes to mind is the dogma of the Trinity).

The difference between the AoG voting, however, and the Catholic bishops voting is that our Church does claim to do this with the charism of infallibility. The AoG do not.

And why would someone follow a church that claims to be fallible? By definition, then, they’re going to be wrong. That’s simply what fallible means.

 

[Red_in_205]

The difference between the AoG voting, however, and the Catholic bishops voting is that our Church does claim to do this with the charism of infallibility. The AoG do not.

Would it really make any difference to you or any other non-AoG member if they did claim infallibility? Any group’s claims of infallibility generally aren’t that impressive to outsiders.

And why would someone follow a church that claims to be fallible? By definition, then, they’re going to be wrong. That’s simply what fallible means.

I have to respectfully disagree. “Fallible” does not mean “wrong.” Fallible means “capable of being wrong.” In the Protestant view of things, it’s impossible for any person or group of people, no matter how educated, well-meaning, or respected, to do any better than “fallible.” AoG members don’t mind being part of a church with fallible leaders because they don’t consider anyone’s claims to infallibility as legitimate.

 

[PRmerger]

Would it really make any difference to you or any other non-AoG member if they did claim infallibility? Any group’s claims of infallibility generally aren’t that impressive to outsiders.

Probably not. You’re right about this.

I have to respectfully disagree. “Fallible” does not mean “wrong.”

Again, you are right.

But I didn’t say that “fallible” means “wrong”.

Fallible means “capable of being wrong.”

Exactly. And, statistically, any fallible entity is going to be wrong at some point. Going. to. be. wrong.

In the Protestant view of things, it’s impossible for any person or group of people, no matter how educated, well-meaning, or respected, to do any better than “fallible.” AoG members don’t mind being part of a church with fallible leaders because they don’t consider anyone’s claims to infallibility as legitimate.

This is curious–are you saying that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc etc made some sort of error when they wrote their inspired texts?

I’m pretty sure that you don’t believe they did. Thus, you believe that they were infallible, yes?

Or are you really going to argue that they wrote some sort of erroneous theological dissertation and the Gospels are not theopneustos?

 

[Red_in_205]

But I didn’t say that “fallible” means “wrong”.

I took your statement of “By definition, then, they’re going to be wrong. That’s simply what fallible means” to mean that you were defining fallible rather than pointing out that a fallible body will be wrong at some point. My bad!

This is curious–are you saying that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc etc made some sort of error when they wrote their inspired texts?

I’m pretty sure that you don’t believe they did. Thus, you believe that they were infallible, yes?

Or are you really going to argue that they wrote some sort of erroneous theological dissertation and the Gospels are not theopneustos?

I don’t want to derail the thread by starting a contentious discussion about the inspiration of scripture. I certainly do believe that the Bible is a source of divine truth.

Instead, I’ll say that to me it’s one thing to say that the Apostle John’s gospel is infallible, or to say that Paul’s visions of the resurrection were infallible, but it’s quite another to say that a collection of men in 2011 is infallible. Or for that matter, to argue that certain cardinals and popes of the past, quite a few of whom either led scandalous personal lives, or were appointed by the whim of an emperor for political reasons, or clearly got their offices through simony, could reach infallible conclusions.

I don’t say any of this out of a sense of disrespect toward the RCC, and I hope it’s not taken that way. I’m just trying to explain a Protestant point of view.

 

[PRmerger]

Instead, I’ll say that to me it’s one thing to say that the Apostle John’s gospel is infallible, or to say that Paul’s visions of the resurrection were infallible, but it’s quite another to say that a collection of men in 2011 is infallible.

Would it be more acceptable to you if we said that Pope JPII’s* teaching* is infallible, rather than saying that Pope JPII is infallible?

If not, how would that be any different that saying that the Apostle John’s gospel (i.e. teachings) are infallible, but the man, John, is not?

Or for that matter, to argue that certain cardinals and popes of the past, quite a few of whom either led scandalous personal lives, or were appointed by the whim of an emperor for political reasons, or clearly got their offices through simony, could reach infallible conclusions.

Perhaps you are confusing “impeccability” with “infallibility”, Red? No pope has ever been impeccable (i.e. without sin) but they have certainly been able to make some infallible teachings.

I don’t say any of this out of a sense of disrespect toward the RCC, and I hope it’s not taken that way. I’m just trying to explain a Protestant point of view.

None taken. This is a discussion I have often with non-Catholics here and one I never tire of.

I simply don’t understand how a Christian can say that men can’t be infallible, yet also believe that, well, the men who wrote the NT wrote infallibly.

 

[fbl9]

Instead, I’ll say that to me it’s one thing to say that the Apostle John’s gospel is infallible, or to say that Paul’s visions of the resurrection were infallible, but it’s quite another to say that a collection of men in 2011 is infallible. Or for that matter, to argue that certain cardinals and popes of the past, quite a few of whom either led scandalous personal lives, or were appointed by the whim of an emperor for political reasons, or clearly got their offices through simony, could reach infallible conclusions.

I don’t say any of this out of a sense of disrespect toward the RCC, and I hope it’s not taken that way. I’m just trying to explain a Protestant point of view.

The fact remains none of the bad popes put forth anything as infallible decsions. Really bad popes are a moot point.

 

[Red_in_205]

Would it be more acceptable to you if we said that Pope JPII’s* teaching* is infallible, rather than saying that Pope JPII is infallible?

If not, how would that be any different that saying that the Apostle John’s gospel (i.e. teachings) are infallible, but the man, John, is not?

One reason it would be different is because John was specifically told that he would be “guided unto all truth” by the Holy Spirit, and given the context of John 16, it seems fairly clear to me that Jesus was describing events and changes that would happen specifically to the audience that he was addressing at the time (hence “they will put you out of the synagogues” and “I did not say these things to you at the beginning, because I was with you”).

Also, since no one would argue that cardinals are capable of infallible teaching, then I’d be interested in an explanation of why “Joseph Ratzinger” is incapable of an infallible ex cathedra teaching, but “Benedict XVI” is capable of such a teaching, given that they are the same person.

Perhaps you are confusing “impeccability” with “infallibility”, Red? No pope has ever been impeccable (i.e. without sin) but they have certainly been able to make some infallible teachings.

I understand the difference, but I hope you can see why many people find the idea that Christians could have been forever bound to accept an ex cathedra teaching of someone such as Alexander VI difficult to swallow.

I’m glad my questions are coming across in the right way. I’m in a process of learning more about my own faith, and it’s very edifying to learn about different points of view. (I obviously have certain reasons that have pushed me to investigate the RCC, or else I wouldn’t be here.)

 

[Red_in_205]

The fact remains none of the bad popes put forth anything as infallible decsions. Really bad popes are a moot point.

Only if you think it’s impossible that a similar person could ever come to power again in the future.

 

[exnihilo]

And why would someone follow a church that claims to be fallible? By definition, then, they’re going to be wrong. That’s simply what fallible means.

I’m being picky but being capable of being wrong does not necessarily mean that you will be wrong. As to a fallible church some people do seem to not care about this. Moral relativism is popular with many people. Flowing from this idea is the notion that people can be and are wrong about moral judgements. One could imagine such people not minding belong to a fallible church. Of course as it turns out they aren’t usually so liberal. They still believe that certain beliefs they hold to are beyond question.

I think many people accept fallibility simply because of human nature. Institutions are comprised of fallible humans. It is hard to imagine an infallible body of humans. Of course with God anything is possible.

I would think many non-Catholics would and do (maybe unknowingly) accept the possibility that God could intervene so as to make an institution infallible. As you point out the institution of the Church had to be infallible in compiling the Bible and the authors had to be infallible for the the principle of ‘Where the Scripture is silent…’ principle to be valid. So anyone who holds this principle must accept that infallibility in humans can and has occurred.

I can see some appeal to belonging to a church that does not claim to be fallible because that is consistent with human nature. It can also seem humble. But it does leave the possibility of teaching error. I would think the ideal would be to be a member of a church that is in fact infallible. But the problem is we humans like to ourselves determine what is infallible based on our judgement. But what else do we have to go by? If I became a member of the Catholic Church would it not be because I determined, by my own judgment, that it was the true, infallible church?

 

[wmscott]

My pastors in a Fundamentalist church often made comments to the effect that we believed only what was in the Bible. That was our defense against so many things, but it was not true. We didn’t believe some things in the Bible and we projected things that weren’t there.

We sometimes believed, depending on the pastor at the time, that it was wrong to go to movies, any movies. The thought was that being seen going into a theater could hurt our witness. I couldn’t tell you why. If questioned more, it was explained that a person seeing us would not know whether we were going to see a G movie or something vile. I suppose they never thought about the marquee. OK, find that in the Bible.

Drinking any alcohol was wrong. You’ll have a hard time squaring that with any number of Bible stories, but we explained. It was grape juice at Cana and at the Last Supper. No, the context does not even come close on that, but we worked around it.

Dancing was wrong. Never mind the examples in the Bible.

The bottom line for me is that a teaching that everything must be found in the Bible leads to cherry-picking verses. An old and now deceased friend once said many people bend the Bible to fit personal convictions.

Hi Georgia, I am originally from Warner Robins. How are you doing? When you stated “We sometimes believed, depending on the pastor at the time, that it was wrong to go to movies, any movies. The thought was that being seen going into a theater could hurt our witness. I couldn’t tell you why. If questioned more, it was explained that a person seeing us would not know whether we were going to see a G movie or something vile”.

I have heard this before but maybe a variation, I can’t go to the American Legion because they serve alcohol there and someone from my church might see me, I can’t go to that dance because someone from my church might see me, or pick any scenario that being at a certain place would be frowned upon by their particular church. I was always amused because if someone from their church saw them there, wasn’t that person who saw them there doing the same thing???

 

[wmscott]

One reason it would be different is because John was specifically told that he would be “guided unto all truth” by the Holy Spirit, and given the context of John 16, it seems fairly clear to me that Jesus was describing events and changes that would happen specifically to the audience that he was addressing at the time (hence “they will put you out of the synagogues” and “I did not say these things to you at the beginning, because I was with you”).

Also, since no one would argue that cardinals are capable of infallible teaching, then I’d be interested in an explanation of why “Joseph Ratzinger” is incapable of an infallible ex cathedra teaching, but “Benedict XVI” is capable of such a teaching, given that they are the same person.

I understand the difference, but I hope you can see why many people find the idea that Christians could have been forever bound to accept an ex cathedra teaching of someone such as Alexander VI difficult to swallow.

I’m glad my questions are coming across in the right way. I’m in a process of learning more about my own faith, and it’s very edifying to learn about different points of view. (I obviously have certain reasons that have pushed me to investigate the RCC, or else I wouldn’t be here.)

I think you need to really understand what infallibility is. You really do not understand it and need to learn about it before making any more uneducated claims as to what it is. Here is an brief explanation.

Vatican II’s Explanation

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

For the full article go here catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

I hope this helps in understanding it a little better.

 

[PRmerger]

One reason it would be different is because John was specifically told that he would be “guided unto all truth” by the Holy Spirit, and given the context of John 16,

Simply because a text says that it’s going to be “guided unto all truth” does not make it true though, right?

Doesn’t the Koran make a similar proclamation about its inspiration?

At any rate, our Church also claims to be “guided unto all truth” so why do you believe John but not the Church?

And that still leaves Matthew, Mark and Luke–you want to say that their writings were infallible, but not the men. Okay. So why can’t we apply it to the writings of JPII. Why can’t his writings be infallible, like M, M and L, but he as a man not?

Would that be an acceptable way for you to affirm the Church being infallible (that is, in what she writes, but not the men who wrote them–just like what you claim about the Scriptures?)

Also, since no one would argue that cardinals are capable of infallible teaching,

Yes, Red. Cardinals are part of the Magisterium.

But to answer your question here:

then I’d be interested in an explanation of why “Joseph Ratzinger” is incapable of an infallible ex cathedra teaching, but “Benedict XVI” is capable of such a teaching, given that they are the same person.

Because it is the OFFICE that is given the charism of infallibility, not the man.

If you understand it this way, does “the Catholic Church is infallible” seem more palatable to you?

I understand the difference, but I hope you can see why many people find the idea that Christians could have been forever bound to accept an ex cathedra teaching of someone such as Alexander VI difficult to swallow.

Could you give an example of one of his ex cathedra teachings that you might find difficult to swallow?

I’m glad my questions are coming across in the right way. I’m in a process of learning more about my own faith, and it’s very edifying to learn about different points of view. (I obviously have certain reasons that have pushed me to investigate the RCC, or else I wouldn’t be here.)

You’re welcome to stay as along as you like! :flowers:

 

[Candlepower]

QUOTE=PRmerger;8695461]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?

Where the Scriptures are not clear, we shouldn’t try to be clearer. -Archbishop Thomas Cranmer-

 

[Candlepower]

The fact remains none of the bad popes put forth anything as infallible decsions. Really bad popes are a moot point.

Pardon me for interjecting here, but the unspeakable popes of the middle ages are anything but a moot point for the Roman Catholic church.