Where the Bible is silent....

[PRmerger]

The first 3 examples you have given include praying to/through those who are not God, accepting a belief in purgatory

So here it seems that your paradigm is: where the Bible is silent this practice is forbidden?

and attributing God-like qualities to man.

This puts you in a difficult position as a Christian, susan.

Either you think the inspired writers erred, because they were fallible…and that means we cannot know what God has revealed because what St. Peter wrote in his first 2 encyclicals contained error…

OR…

you are giving the inspired writers “God-like qualities”, as what they wrote was inerrant, and therefore they were infallible.

Either way you must choose one answer, and either answer puts you in a pickle.

 

[susanlo]

So still not sure what your pastor’s (or your) view where the Bible is silent–is something permitted or forbidden?

For, of course, you cannot say, “Well, it’s permitted for our practices but forbidden for yours” because that would be…a double standard, no?

If the Bible is silent on an issue, it would be allowable.
The examples you gave originally are disagreed on by protestants because they feel that Scripture teaches against these things.
Some things are explicit and agreed on by most all Christians. (murder and adultery are sins).
Some things are implicit and Christians of varying beliefs can create arguments for why one view is acceptable or not with Scripture. (purgatory, OSAS)
Some things aren’t addressed at all and Christians are free to choose what to do. (church architecture and Bible study schedules).

 

[PRmerger]

This has been a significant point of dispute within Protestantism from the very start. Generally speaking, the Calvinist/Reformed traditions say that “if the Bible doesn’t command it, don’t do it,”

But, curiously, you will also hear them say, “The Bible doesn’t forbid it, so it’s permitted”.

For example: with church steeples.

http://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/17...EhVhh0y5IpKjjs4NYv3wncEEXwmGz9PXZvKYNgzevcM60

You can see that there is a double standard: “We are permitted to do something because there is no prohibition against it in Scripture”.

But there will also be the objection: “Catholics are not permitted to do [A, B, and C] because the Bible doesn’t state that this is permissible”.

 

[PRmerger]

The Roman Catholic Church around the corner from me is made of stone, has a steeple and has Bible study on Thursday. I have never heard anyone criticize it for any of these things.

When folks use the Bible Alone to distill their doctrines (something, curiously, that’s a man-made tradition), they can come up with some really bizarre objections:

biblicaltruth.net/forbidden-things/obelisks-or-church-steeples/

So, yes, there are some folks who criticize us for having church steeples.

“Because it’s not in the Bible”.
(Therefore it’s forbidden).

Although, again, their mantra for other things is “If it’s not in the Bible, it’s permitted”.

#doublestandard

 

[PRmerger]

I think different understandings of Bible teachings are the root of the disagreement.

There is no greater apologia for the Magisterium, which can speak authoritatively when there are “different understandings of Bible teachings”, than the above.

 

[PRmerger]

Sola Scriptura does not mean “me and a Bible under a tree”, but does take into account history, councils, etc. Where any of those contradict scripture then scripture wins. That is Sola Scriptura.

That is not what some folks define SS to be.

That’s the problem, isn’t it?

The Bible, curiously, doesn’t define Sola Scriptura.

And since the Sola Scriptura advocates eschew any authority other than the Bible, there is no Authority to tell us Catholics exactly what SS means.

Some do indeed define it as “me, the Bible and nothing else”.
Some say it’s “believe what you want as long as it doesn’t contradict the Bible”.
Some say it’s “the Bible Alone is our source of doctrines”
Some say it’s “the Bible Alone, plus councils, as long as they don’t contradict the Bible”.

There is no one to speak authoritatively about what SS means.

And the Bible certainly doesn’t define it…so…

it’s a conundrum, to be sure.

 

[PRmerger]

If the Bible is silent on an issue, it would be allowable.

Where does the Bible state this?

 

[PRmerger]

If the Bible is silent on an issue, it would be allowable.

The Bible is silent on considering the Epistles of Clement to be the Word of God.

So it is allowable to profess that his epistles are theopneustos?

 

[PRmerger]

If the Bible is silent on an issue, it would be allowable.

The Bible is silent on whether Jesus had a wife.

It is permissible to preach that Jesus was married?

 

[mattp0625]

So when in discussions with Protestants, we are often called to provide apologia for our Catholic practices/beliefs, such as praying the rosary, praying for the dead, papal infallibility, etc etc etc.

The discussion always turns to: the Bible doesn’t say that [insert Catholic belief A, B and C here] so you shouldn’t do it.

So that should be the Protestant mantra, right? “Where the Bible is silent on a practice, it’s forbidden.”

However, when I ask Protestants to provide Scriptural apologia for their beliefs/practices, such as bowing one’s head when praying, Tuesday evening Bible studies, church steeples, their response is: the Bible doesn’t forbid it, so it’s fine.

Does anyone else see the double standard here?

Shouldn’t it be the same paradigm for both Protestants and Catholics?

Either: where the Bible is silent, it’s permitted

Or: where the Bible is silent, it’s forbidden.

---

Incidentally, this prompts the question: where does the Bible tell us which of the 2 paradigms to follow when the Bible is silent on an issue?

Here are my observations from various conversations:

Many non-C’s are told their views on scripture are directly from the Holy Spirit.

As such, there is often no distinction between scripture itself versus an interpretation of scripture. It’s just the bible as directed by the Holy Spirit.

Fundamentalists, as you noted, pretend that all matters of faith in morals are in the bible. So, when it comes to details like liturgy, procedures for baptism or marraige, etc., folks attempt to take something away from the bible that is not there in order to keep the concept alive. This quickly becomes a tangled web.

Most independent Protestant and nondenominational congregations do not accept that much of what they believe came from or evolved from Luther or Calvin or even what they heard from their pastor. It’s still 100% the Holy Spirit and the bible.

It’s a very flawed way to brand a belief system.

Many attempt to add credibility by saying they have scholars who can read scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew.

The problem is that folks like Saint Jerome, or bishops in the Synods of Carthage and Hippo, actually lived in Jerusalem and Antioch (or in the region) around 400 AD, much closer to the time, language, and culture of the scripture writers. Either way, it’s another flawed manner of justifying doctrines.

 

[JonNC]

This is a very good post and illustrative of the problem with lumping every non-Catholic Christian under the label of Protestant.

I run into it here in the South. Evangelical non-denominational Christianity is almost as divorced from mainline Protestant theology as it is from Catholicism. My Evangelical friends will balk at being called a Protestant.

-Tim-

And confessional Lutherans are probably closer to Catholicism than Calvinism

Jon

 

[TimothyH]

Not really the point.

Fill in the blank with whatever Catholic practice or belief some Protestant has challenged you with that’s not found explicitly in the Bible.

The question remains: is the paradigm–“The Bible doesn’t mention this, so you’re certainly free to do it!” or “The Bible doesn’t mention this, so it’s forbidden for you to do this!”.

They need to pick one and apply it consistently–to their own practices/beliefs as well as Catholic practices/beliefs.

It really doesn’t matter if something which isn’t in the Bible is permitted or forbidden.

They can say that this or that isn’t in the Bible or that such-and-such isn’t in the Bible and I can point right to it.

Either way, forbidden or permitted, it doesn’t matter because its in the Bible. It’s all there.

-Tim-

 

[PRmerger]

It really doesn’t matter if something which isn’t in the Bible is permitted or forbidden.

They can say that this or that isn’t in the Bible or that such-and-such isn’t in the Bible and I can point right to it.

Either way, forbidden or permitted, it doesn’t matter because its in the Bible. It’s all there.

-Tim-

Really?

Where is making the sign of the cross before you pray?

 

[Novocastrian]

So when in discussions with Protestants, we are often called to provide apologia for our Catholic practices/beliefs, such as praying the rosary, praying for the dead, papal infallibility, etc etc etc.

The discussion always turns to: the Bible doesn’t say that [insert Catholic belief A, B and C here] so you shouldn’t do it.

So that should be the Protestant mantra, right? “Where the Bible is silent on a practice, it’s forbidden.”

However, when I ask Protestants to provide Scriptural apologia for their beliefs/practices, such as bowing one’s head when praying, Tuesday evening Bible studies, church steeples, their response is: the Bible doesn’t forbid it, so it’s fine.

Does anyone else see the double standard here?

Shouldn’t it be the same paradigm for both Protestants and Catholics?

Either: where the Bible is silent, it’s permitted

Or: where the Bible is silent, it’s forbidden.

---

Incidentally, this prompts the question: where does the Bible tell us which of the 2 paradigms to follow when the Bible is silent on an issue?

I suspect that you’re dealing with (a) a particular kind of American evangelicalism, and (b) lay persons of relatively little theological education.

Properly understood, as others will no doubt point out, sola scriptura as a theological principle is to do with a hierarchy of authorities in the Church. It is not in itself a denial of the positive value of tradition or the doctrinal or canonical authority of the Church; it simply regulates the relationship between these authorities.

Where RC teaching or practices are criticized, it should be where they openly contradict the rule of faith which may be read in Holy Scripture, or where they depart from the tradition of the Church, or where they are logically inconsistent. And the same standard should apply to other Christian bodies.

 

[PRmerger]

I suspect that you’re dealing with (a) a particular kind of American evangelicalism, and (b) lay persons of relatively little theological education.

Properly understood, as others will no doubt point out, sola scriptura as a theological principle is to do with a hierarchy of authorities in the Church.

Where do you get this definition?

And why should I believe your definition over other Sola Scriptura advocates?

Perhaps if you could point out the authority on this issue (the Bible?) and where this authority defines it, perhaps then I could submit to that authoritative definition.

Where RC teaching or practices are criticized, it should be where they openly contradict the rule of faith which may be read in Holy Scripture, or where they depart from the tradition of the Church, or where they are logically inconsistent. And the same standard should apply to other Christian bodies.

Egg-zactly.

I am curious, though: what is your position on what we are to do regarding a practice or belief upon which the Bible is silent?

 

[TimothyH]

Really?

Where is making the sign of the cross before you pray?

The ancient Christians made a small sign of the cross on their foreheads. They did not make the large sign of the cross across the torso. Look at Ezekiel 9:4 as well as Revelation 9:4, 14:1 and 22:4. Making the sign of the cross on the forehead has evolved into what we do today.

The phrase “in the name of” appears 20 or 30 times in the New Testament. I haven’t counted exactly. The early Christians did everything “in the name of” God or Jesus. In Acts of the Apostles Peter does everything “in the name of.” Catholics do the same. Those who don’t do anything “in the name of” are not doing what the Bible says the early Christians did.

In the Bible we see the root of what we do. The word subsists comes to mind.

You can nitpick my post apart and challenge me repeatedly if you want but the fact remains that most of what we do and believe is in the Bible. I said that in my first post - vast majority or most. If I can point to it then it doesn’t matter whether it is forbidden or permitted.

-Tim-

 

[mattp0625]

The ancient Christians made a small sign of the cross on their foreheads. They did not make the large sign of the cross across the torso. Look at Ezekiel 9:4 as well as Revelation 9:4, 14:1 and 22:4. Making the sign of the cross on the forehead has evolved into what we do today.

The phrase “in the name of” appears 20 or 30 times in the New Testament. I haven’t counted exactly. The early Christians did everything “in the name of” God or Jesus. In Acts of the Apostles Peter does everything “in the name of.” Catholics do the same. Those who don’t do anything “in the name of” are not doing what the Bible says the early Christians did.

In the Bible we see the root of what we do. The word subsists comes to mind.

You can nitpick my post apart and challenge me repeatedly if you want but the fact remains that most of what we do and believe is in the Bible. I said that in my first post - vast majority or most. If I can point to it then it doesn’t matter whether it is forbidden or permitted.

-Tim-

Not in the bible:

Wedding rings
Wedding ceremony procedures
Saved by faith alone
Age of reason
One saved always saved
Scripture alone is the sole authority
Altar call
The essentials or nonessentials
New world order
The antichrist is the pope

 

[PRmerger]

The ancient Christians made a small sign of the cross on their foreheads. They did not make the large sign of the cross across the torso. Look at Ezekiel 9:4 as well as Revelation 9:4, 14:1 and 22:4. Making the sign of the cross on the forehead has evolved into what we do today.

The phrase “in the name of” appears 20 or 30 times in the New Testament. I haven’t counted exactly. The early Christians did everything “in the name of” God or Jesus. In Acts of the Apostles Peter does everything “in the name of.” Catholics do the same. Those who don’t do anything “in the name of” are not doing what the Bible says the early Christians did.

In the Bible we see the root of what we do. The word subsists comes to mind.

You can nitpick my post apart and challenge me repeatedly if you want but the fact remains that most of what we do and believe is in the Bible. I said that in my first post - vast majority or most. If I can point to it then it doesn’t matter whether it is forbidden or permitted.

-Tim-

Still waiting for the bible verse which states we should do this before and after we pray.

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;13891803]So when in discussions with Protestants, we are often called to provide apologia for our Catholic practices/beliefs, such as praying the rosary, praying for the dead, papal infallibility, etc etc etc.

The discussion always turns to: the Bible doesn’t say that [insert Catholic belief A, B and C here] so you shouldn’t do it.

Sometimes. It depends on the “protestant”, which really is a useless term. There are protestants that pray for the dead, protestants that pray the/a Rosary. And Orthodox Christians reject papal infallibility, and they are not protestant.

So that should be the Protestant mantra, right? “Where the Bible is silent on a practice, it’s forbidden.”

No. It shouldn’t be. Necessarily. That certainly not what Lutherans believe.

However, when I ask Protestants to provide Scriptural apologia for their beliefs/practices, such as bowing one’s head when praying, Tuesday evening Bible studies, church steeples, their response is: the Bible doesn’t forbid it, so it’s fine.

Just like genuflecting, making the sign of the cross, kneeling for prayer, standing to praise, sitting to listen, receiving the sacrament on the tongue or in the hand, receiving by intinction, and a plethora of other practices are just fine. Even Eucharistic Adoration is acceptable for some protestants.

Does anyone else see the double standard here?

Shouldn’t it be the same paradigm for both Protestants and Catholics?

Which protestants are we speaking about? As you can see, it all depends.

Either: where the Bible is silent, it’s permitted

Or: where the Bible is silent, it’s forbidden.

Good question. For the Lutheran, if the practice does not damage the Gospel, but instead supports and uplifts it. Chanting, for example, is not in the bible, but it supports and uplifts the Gospel.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Catholic Dude;13892324]This has been a significant point of dispute within Protestantism from the very start. Generally speaking, the Calvinist/Reformed traditions say that “if the Bible doesn’t command it, don’t do it,” while the Lutheran traidtions say that “if the Bible doesn’t forbid it, it’s allowed”. This is clearly a problem for Sola Scriptura and there’s no answer from Protestants because they will always fall within one of the two camps and thus reject the other “version” of Sola Scriptura as wrong.

Actually, it has nothing to do with sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is the practice of the Church to hold doctrine accountable to the final norm.
You here are is representing the Lutheran Tradition.

I’ve found that one of the most effective approaches is to ask the Protestant about the Christian Liturgy. What the Bible say we should do on Sunday for Christian worship?

Please tell me, where in the Bible is set out exactly what Sunday worship should look like. Please be specific with chapter and verse.

The Reformed/Calvinist would say “only do on Sunday what the Bible directs us to do on Sunday,” but the problem is the Bible doesn’t actually give much detail on Sunday Worship at all, so the Reformed person is basically in a bind because we all know we need to worship on Sunday in a liturgy, but without Biblical instructions they don’t know what to do on Sunday.

You seem to have taken on the mantle of speaking for Reformed/Calvinists. Perhaps a source to back it up.

The Lutheran would say “if the Bible doesn’t forbid us from doing something for Sunday Liturgy, then we are allowed to do it,” but the problem here is that since the Bible doesn’t speak much about Sunday Liturgy that this suggests we can make up our own Liturgy. But making up your own Liturgy isn’t liturgy any longer, because basically you’re worshiping yourself by only doing what your personal tastes want to do on Sunday.

Please tell me specifically where the Catholic liturgy is found in scripture, and if it is not, how that is not “making up your own liturgy”? Further, where does Catholic Tradition state that if you worship God in a given way that this is worshipping yourself? You see, I’ve read in the Catholic Catechism the following:
** 819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.“274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. **
What you call worshipping yourself the CCC calls “elements of sanctification and truth”, “means of salvation”, interior gifts of the Spirit”.
It actually seems like to me that you’ve designated yourself as a separate entity from the CC.

It’s ridiculous to suggest God doesn’t care how a person worships Him, .

Then why are you suggesting it?

which is why Catholics rightly say that Liturgy comes to us from Divine Revelation, because it is crucial for Christians to know how to worship God as He wants to be worshiped, and we say this knowledge comes mostly from Apostolic Oral Tradition and only implicitly in the Bible

To say that the Mass only implicitly comes from the Bible is utter nonsense. The entire Mass - Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Orthodox - is entirely from the Bible. Liturgy of the Word, Liturgy of the Sacrament. These come from the bible. Invocation, collect, OT, epistle and Gospel readings, the Psalms. The words of Institution. The distribution and reception of the sacrament. Benediction.
It is absurd to suggest that these are only implicitly from the Bible.

Jon