Authority and Silence

[JDIBe]

Just a thought after reading a quote from Fireinfolding in another thread, reproduced below.....

According to that thought do you not drink Pepsi simply because the bible is silent on Pepsi (or chose one to your liking)^_^ Okay, okay, Im kidding on that one;)

I have an electronic keyboard in front of me right now. I can hear it yet its not a real instrument of music (agreed). On it I can fellowship online with other Christians even as you yourself can right? Would not fellowshipping in this manner (after that thought, then becoming neutral on it) become something we must avoid doing if the bible is simply silent concerning "the computer"? See what I mean?


I think this example brings up an important point regarding silence. (Yes, I understand you were kidding.)

One can take things to either extreme and end up in a situation not pleasing to God. The example of "forbidden Pepsi" is a good one. However, one can go to the other extreme and say anything not expressly forbidden is acceptable. One can make the argument that infant baptism is acceptable and good because the Bible is silent on the matter of infant baptism. Neither position seems to hold much weight.

No wonder we disagree occasionally on such matters. So how do we find that proper balance? I would submit two things that would help would be to read the passages that deal with a given subject:

1. Try to find out why and for what purpose the command was given.
2. Ask ourselves if what we are doing helps or hinders carrying out that command in any way.

Imagine a group of people high off the ground in a tree sitting on a branch. There are two types of people, (actually its a continuum, I suppose) and two types of branches. Some branches taper off from the trunk very quickly, some taper off more slowly. Some people are "tree huggers". They sit as close to the trunk as they possibly can so the branch won't break. Others move out various degrees from the trunk. Both are still safe.

However, it is important to realize that if you keep moving out, eventually the limb will break and you will fall. So there is room for liberty and disagreement in some issues, but absolute liberty does not seem correct either.

What's most important to all of us, (I think I speak for everyone here...) is that we want to do what God wants. If our opinions coincide with that, great. If they don't, well, we need to change our opinions...:)

So how do we find the proper balance?

[Fireinfolding]

Just a thought after reading a quote from Fireinfolding in another thread, reproduced below.....



I think this example brings up an important point regarding silence. (Yes, I understand you were kidding.)

One can take things to either extreme and end up in a situation not pleasing to God. The example of "forbidden Pepsi" is a good one. However, one can go to the other extreme and say anything not expressly forbidden is acceptable. One can make the argument that infant baptism is acceptable and good because the Bible is silent on the matter of infant baptism. Neither position seems to hold much weight.

No wonder we disagree occasionally on such matters. So how do we find that proper balance? I would submit two things that would help would be to read the passages that deal with a given subject:

1. Try to find out why and for what purpose the command was given.
2. Ask ourselves if what we are doing helps or hinders carrying out that command in any way.

Imagine a group of people high off the ground in a tree sitting on a branch. There are two types of people, (actually its a continuum, I suppose) and two types of branches. Some branches taper off from the trunk very quickly, some taper off more slowly. Some people are "tree huggers". They sit as close to the trunk as they possibly can so the branch won't break. Others move out various degrees from the trunk. Both are still safe.

However, it is important to realize that if you keep moving out, eventually the limb will break and you will fall. So there is room for liberty and disagreement in some issues, but absolute liberty does not seem correct either.

What's most important to all of us, (I think I speak for everyone here...) is that we want to do what God wants. If our opinions coincide with that, great. If they don't, well, we need to change our opinions...:)

So how do we find the proper balance?

I didnt see you here. Hello there, glad my joking could somehow find some kind relevance. Be blessed.

We do have liberty in Christ, but it takes some time as we are first only able to hear what the law saith before we can hear what the Spirit saith. Recall Peter in Acts seeing a vision of animals and the Lord saying Arise to Him "kill and eat"? Peter responded as one under the law, No Lord I have never eaten of anything uncommon or unclean.

At first it appears the vision of animals (given he was hungry) was speaking of food. In reality however it was shown as speaking of eating with the gentiles. Peter comes to this realization as he thought on the vision.

Keeping that in mind, when the Lords voice said rise KILL and EAT thank God Peter did not get up and kill the gentiles right? ^_^ See how the vision can be deceiving somewhat as to what its talking about? Yet both truths are verified through it.

The Lord also said do not call common or unclean that which God has cleansed. Nothing outside a man can make one unclean, its what ((comes out)) of a man that defileth a man. This agrees with James concerning the TONGUE which defiles the whole body. So the principle is according to the truth as Jesus shows it. Not only so but as we judged its measured to ourselves in respect to these things, we are growing up developing our senses that we can ((discern)) what is good and evil. We also begin to discern who serves the Lord and who does not.

To the pure all things are pure, but to the defiled is always in relation to their own conscience and how they see or judge a thing. One cannot help but see the things as defiled if he himself is defiled (as it pertains to their own conscience).

So theres a difference, there are lies in hypocricies as it pertains to a seared conscience. These are those who do not know or believe the truth. They see just about everything as unclean and can not seeing that all things are indeed pure. These having a defiled conscience. This does not mean that we are to heed the commandments of men in regards to them.

And just as there is sinning ignorantly or wilfully, there is also a difference in having a brother who has yet a weak conscience. Paul adresses this as well.

If your brother is distressed by what you eat dont eat meat while the world standeth (specially not in his presence). Your liberty will be judged by another mans conscience. Not only that, his conscience is enbolden to partake in that which his conscience allow not for, even though your conscience does allow you.

In truth you partake of it by faith (doubting not in yourself). Unfortunately because he doubts (his partaking is not by faith). He might feel condemned in doing what your conscience might allow. We dont want to stumble our brother and destroy him in this way because of our own liberty in Christ.

So why would any of this be important at all? Why would Paul mention this? Because in regards to the faith anyone of us who has (( put off )) a GOOD CONSCIENCE has been made shipwrecked in regards to the faith.

I can then understand how blessed one is in NOT feeling condemned in the thing for which he allows. See how that works? We are to be convinced in our own minds but not at the expense of our brother. BOTH are adressed really, he that eateth and he that refrains from eating, or he that regards a day and he that does not regard a day, does so before the Lord alone. We are not to judge another in these respects, though not that all obey that :doh:

The study of the "conscience" is pretty good, as we wax strong in the Spirit we can prove much more readily that which is good in His sight.

Keeping it simple, on two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Love God and your neighbor as yourself. Love wouldnt harm another, nor seek to destroy anothers conscience but respect it, help it to understand if the door is open to do just that. The world standeth not forever ;) We all have our own convictions, someone elses might not be "my own" but if it is their conviction they must live by their own.

When ""matters"" arise that come into question we are to appoint men who are "least esteemed" to judge these things. Here we excericising ourselves unto judgment as it pertains "to matters". Herein do we grow strong weighing things out and the body finds a partcipation among its members as we all have a part amen?

Its God who makes these clear to us. He does this according to where we are and whats permitted for us and what might not be. This can be very individual as Paul shows this.

For instance (just taking this one, though many might not agree and thats NORMAL ) God might allow for one, to have a drink, they feel no condemnation in themselves doing this. He might NOT allow that same liberty to another who might be abusive to any such allowance. For example, the alcoholic, see what I mean? Im reasoning after carnal things to make the point the best way I can.

We cant take the commandments and makes them into a thousand (thats been done before^_^ ). Theres nothing new under the sun right? lol We know in ourselves whats right or wrong as our conscience should be accusing us or excusing us. We should always strive to keep a conscience clear of offense toward God and man.

If our hearts dont condemn us we have confidence before Him. Thats important as I see it. That dont neglect the fact that if our hearts do condemn us that HE is not Greater then our hearts. But as we grow up in Christ we do seek to walk in love (more perfectly) as He teaches us to love one another and do what is right in His sight in accordance to love.

Sorry I drag on, I dont mean to.

Peace

Fireinfolding

[Splayd]

Hey there JDIBe

This is a great thread idea and addresses a topic that is quite pertinent to the RM. You raise some good points as does fireinfolding.

For now I'm just checking in to subscribe to the thread while I contemplate my response to the topic.

Thanks for the thread :)

[JDIBe]

Thanks. Looking forward to your comments.

[JDIBe]

That dont neglect the fact that if our hearts do condemn us that HE is not Greater then our hearts.

Fireinfolding

Explain?? :scratch:

[Fireinfolding]

Explain?? :scratch:

Sorry I should have just posted the verses instead I wrote freely. Forgive me, here...


1John 3:20 For if our hearts condemn us, God is greater then our hearts, and (((knoweth all things )))


1John 3:21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then we have confidence before God.


Rom 14:22 Hast thou Faith? (((( have it to thyself before God )))) Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.


Peace

Fireinfolding

[JDIBe]

Ok, thanks. The extra NOT in there threw me for a second.

Hmmm.....Thinking about all this. Will try to reply when I can.

[AJB4]

Well, about infant baptism for starters, I'm not sure it's completely silent, as entire households were baptised on more than one occasion (which would exclude nobody in the household - infants included). Actually, the Bible is silent, but it's implied.

I think that there's room for freedom. I don't view the Bible as a book of rules, and I think that a lot of stuff beyond accepting the sacrifice of Jesus is just I-dotting and T-crossing.

Besides, many churches do things that the scriptures are silent about, including the RM churches, who seem to be the most concerned about silence out of everyone, including paying preachers and evangelists with human money to do the Lord's work, and using multiple communion cups, whereas in the Bible they only used one. It annoys me how the RM churches get in a snit about musical instruments, yet they pay their preachers and do other things that the Bible doesn't authorise.

It's self-contradictory and oxymoronic.

[HeyHomie]

"Where the Scriptures speak, we speak. Where the Scriptures are silent, we make something up."

[Wordgazer]

Hey, everyone-- I'm a newbie, so bear with me, ok? :)

I want to say that when I found the Restoration church ("Christian Church") I now attend, one of the main things that attracted my husband and I was the "No Creed but Christ" thing. Also, that "we are not the only Christians, but we are Christians only." We interpreted that to mean that as long as we believed in the basic doctrines of Christianity (ie, that Jesus is the son of God, second Member of the Trinity, died for our sins, rose from the dead, etc.), we were not going to be challenged on any other area. As time went by, the way we were treated bore that out, and we were grateful, having come from church where the basic idea was, "If you don't agree with me on tongues, tithing and teetotalling, you may still be a Christian, but you're not as good a one as I am."

Our pastor in his sermons preaches the truths from the Bible that are self-evident, and doesn't seem to worry if there are divergent opinions in his congregation on other matters. I have always had the impression that though our church has certain practices that have been decided upon regarding things like how often to take communion or whether to use musical instruments in the service, these were mere side issues-- a decision is made because the church has to choose some practice, but one practice is not necessarily superior over another. Christians are free to read the Bible for themselves and follow their own consciences.

So I'm a bit surprised to come to this thread and find a bunch of discussions about how often to take communion and whether or not to use musical instruments. Why is this? Are these really fundamental doctrines, or just arguments about individual church practices (in which case I just can't see them as important)?

[AJB4]

Hey, everyone-- I'm a newbie, so bear with me, ok? :)

I want to say that when I found the Restoration church ("Christian Church") I now attend, one of the main things that attracted my husband and I was the "No Creed but Christ" thing. Also, that "we are not the only Christians, but we are Christians only." We interpreted that to mean that as long as we believed in the basic doctrines of Christianity (ie, that Jesus is the son of God, second Member of the Trinity, died for our sins, rose from the dead, etc.), we were not going to be challenged on any other area. As time went by, the way we were treated bore that out, and we were grateful, having come from church where the basic idea was, "If you don't agree with me on tongues, tithing and teetotalling, you may still be a Christian, but you're not as good a one as I am."

Our pastor in his sermons preaches the truths from the Bible that are self-evident, and doesn't seem to worry if there are divergent opinions in his congregation on other matters. I have always had the impression that though our church has certain practices that have been decided upon regarding things like how often to take communion or whether to use musical instruments in the service, these were mere side issues-- a decision is made because the church has to choose some practice, but one practice is not necessarily superior over another. Christians are free to read the Bible for themselves and follow their own consciences.

So I'm a bit surprised to come to this thread and find a bunch of discussions about how often to take communion and whether or not to use musical instruments. Why is this? Are these really fundamental doctrines, or just arguments about individual church practices (in which case I just can't see them as important)?
Nope. Just arguments about church practises.

[Wordgazer]

Thanks for answering, AJB4. :) But . . . doesn't it seem kind of odd to you, that in a Christian movement that characterizes itself as "no Creed but Christ," people spend time wrangling over these little issues? :scratch: I got the impression the church was founded by people who were trying to get away from arguments over non-essentiels.

I'm not trying to find fault, though. I really enjoy all the Restoration people I've met. :D

[AJB4]

Thanks for answering, AJB4. :) But . . . doesn't it seem kind of odd to you, that in a Christian movement that characterizes itself as "no Creed but Christ," people spend time wrangling over these little issues? :scratch: I got the impression the church was founded by people who were trying to get away from arguments over non-essentiels.

I'm not trying to find fault, though. I really enjoy all the Restoration people I've met. :D
I know. I like to call issues like these 'i dotting and t crossing'. It's a shame that we argue so much over them. Even the Restoration Movement has it's flaws (gaping ones, actually), just like all organised Christian religion. It may have the least flaws of all, but it still has flaws nonetheless - a reason why it's not really any better than any other Christian church in the long run.

[WesWoodell]

Well, about infant baptism for starters, I'm not sure it's completely silent, as entire households were baptised on more than one occasion (which would exclude nobody in the household - infants included). Actually, the Bible is silent, but it's implied.

Not really. If that were true, then other Scriptures that command repentance before baptism would be contradicted. We also know from history that infant baptism didn't become a prevelant practice until later.

Besides, many churches do things that the scriptures are silent about, including the RM churches, who seem to be the most concerned about silence out of everyone, including paying preachers and evangelists with human money to do the Lord's work ...

You sure about that? :)

The ministry of Jesus was supported financially, as well as the ministry of Paul. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable could give you some more examples and Scriptures.