Where Scripture is silent...

[Splayd]

As much as I really do love the whole ideal of speaking where scripture speaks and being silent where scripture is silent... I can't help but appreciate the irony that it's an extrabiblical ideal that we essentially hold as a creed in the RM (along with No Creed but Christ ;)).

Anyway - it's also occured to me that a great many of us really only pay lip service to it and demonstrate something entirely different.

Could it be that some really use these unspoken rules instead:

Where Scripture is silent...
a) condemn
b) make up a rule
c) Huh? Silent??? You just haven't proof-texted it enough.

It seems to me that many of our hardline brethren take those approaches at times.

Where Scripture is silent...
a) anything goes
b) everything can be adressed with "judge not lest you be judged"
c) or even just displaying a bias (according to my perception)...

It seems to me that many of our more liberal brethren take those approaches at times.

Where Scripture is silent...
a) defer to the Early Chuch Fathers (where they agree with you)
b) debunk the Early Chuch Fathers (where they disagree with you)
c) defer to recent RM tradition
d) for goodness sakes... come up with an answer somehow from somewhere

It seems to me that many of us fall into those at times too.

Personally - I've probably been "guilty" of all of these approaches and more. Ultimately, I'd suggest that while the "ideal" is perhaps "designed" to keep us accountable to scripture, our various takes on it often become a licence to avoid any real sort of accountabilty at all.

Just a thought. Peace :)

[OneInTheLordJC]

As much as I really do love the whole ideal of speaking where scripture speaks and being silent where scripture is silent... I can't help but appreciate the irony that it's an extrabiblical ideal that we essentially hold as a creed in the RM (along with No Creed but Christ ;)).

Anyway - it's also occured to me that a great many of us really only pay lip service to it and demonstrate something entirely different.

Could it be that some really use these unspoken rules instead:

Where Scripture is silent...
a) condemn
b) make up a rule
c) Huh? Silent??? You just haven't proof-texted it enough.

It seems to me that many of our hardline brethren take those approaches at times.

Where Scripture is silent...
a) anything goes
b) everything can be adressed with "judge not lest you be judged"
c) or even just displaying a bias (according to my perception)...

It seems to me that many of our more liberal brethren take those approaches at times.

Where Scripture is silent...
a) defer to the Early Chuch Fathers (where they agree with you)
b) debunk the Early Chuch Fathers (where they disagree with you)
c) defer to recent RM tradition
d) for goodness sakes... come up with an answer somehow from somewhere

It seems to me that many of us fall into those at times too.

Personally - I've probably been "guilty" of all of these approaches and more. Ultimately, I'd suggest that while the "ideal" is perhaps "designed" to keep us accountable to scripture, our various takes on it often become a licence to avoid any real sort of accountabilty at all.

Just a thought. Peace :)
I have to say...

That is the most perceptive post I have read to date. I know I felt a pang of guilt with some of those choices.

Right on!

[Everlasting]

With all of the current debates about global warming, and it's implications to world. Some Christian's are referring to the phenomenon as one of the last plaques. Because the Bible is an intricate detailed work of God's creation, I am compelled to believe the following:

2 Pet 3:8

But beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Ps 139:5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.

2 Peter 3:10

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in which the heaveans shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with feverant heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Rev 15 1:2

And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.

And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.

Since a moment in time is like a thousand years to the Lord. And no one can say to a certainty how God's plan has evolved;

Could God's ministry be infinate? Has it ministered against evil from the beginning, not allowing evil to take full root?

And has that manifested itself through God's word, still being praised today?

Is God's love in intercession? Allowing mankind to remember, consider and glorify His word.

I dont' believe scripture is silent at all. I believethat we fulfill God's will by living our lives, and praising his name. There is no will; but good and evil in the world. Our lifetime is but a moment to the Lord. And whether we live for ever or we perish; it will be because of the choices, condemnations, and judgements we make on other people. Being therefore renewed in mind through the spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, we put on the new armour of truth, and understanding. God's word would never be silent.


Faith, Hope and Love

Everlasting
Bible Inspired Author
Moon Over Key Biscayne
booksandmore.4t.com

:crosseo:

[JDIBe]

As much as I really do love the whole ideal of speaking where scripture speaks and being silent where scripture is silent... I can't help but appreciate the irony that it's an extrabiblical ideal that we essentially hold as a creed in the RM (along with No Creed but Christ ;)).

Anyway - it's also occured to me that a great many of us really only pay lip service to it and demonstrate something entirely different.

Could it be that some really use these unspoken rules instead:

Where Scripture is silent...
a) condemn
b) make up a rule
c) Huh? Silent??? You just haven't proof-texted it enough.

It seems to me that many of our hardline brethren take those approaches at times.

Where Scripture is silent...
a) anything goes
b) everything can be adressed with "judge not lest you be judged"
c) or even just displaying a bias (according to my perception)...

It seems to me that many of our more liberal brethren take those approaches at times.

Where Scripture is silent...
a) defer to the Early Chuch Fathers (where they agree with you)
b) debunk the Early Chuch Fathers (where they disagree with you)
c) defer to recent RM tradition
d) for goodness sakes... come up with an answer somehow from somewhere

It seems to me that many of us fall into those at times too.

Personally - I've probably been "guilty" of all of these approaches and more. Ultimately, I'd suggest that while the "ideal" is perhaps "designed" to keep us accountable to scripture, our various takes on it often become a licence to avoid any real sort of accountabilty at all.

Just a thought. Peace :)
...So what's the solution?

[HeyHomie]

Where the Scriptures are silent...

1) Appeal to reason and common sense.
2) Consider the ethical implications on their own merits.
3) Always be mindful of the law of the land.

Example the first: Masturbation:

1) Common sense says that there is no harm to come from masturbation - at least, that seems to be the consensus among psychologists and physicians.
2) The only person who "suffers" any effects from masturbation is the person doing it.
3) It's not illegal.

Therefore, masturbation is up to the conscience of the believer.

Example the second: Child Pornography

1) A market for CP encourages more to be made; ergo, when you buy or download CP, you contribute to the market for it, therefore people will continue sexually exploiting children as long as there is profit in it.
2) Sexual exploitation of children is unethical because they cannot consent for themselves.
3) It's illegal in every civilized society.

Therefore, posessing child pornography is immoral and shouldn't be done by anybody, believer or otherwise.

[Everlasting]

1) Appeal to reason and common sense.
2) Consider the ethical implications on their own merits.
3) Always be mindful of the law of the land.

Example the second: Child Pornography


I still do not believe the scriptures are silent.

Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.



The bible tells many untold stories. We seek with a pure heart, for the answers to be revealed.


Everlasting
Bible Inspired Author
Moon Over Key Biscayne

:crosseo: :crossrc:

[DanielRB]

Peace, Splayd :wave:

As much as I really do love the whole ideal of speaking where scripture speaks and being silent where scripture is silent... I can't help but appreciate the irony that it's an extrabiblical ideal that we essentially hold as a creed in the RM (along with No Creed but Christ ;)).

Anyway - it's also occured to me that a great many of us really only pay lip service to it and demonstrate something entirely different.

Could it be that some really use these unspoken rules instead:

Where Scripture is silent...
a) condemn
b) make up a rule
c) Huh? Silent??? You just haven't proof-texted it enough.

It seems to me that many of our hardline brethren take those approaches at times.

Where Scripture is silent...
a) anything goes
b) everything can be adressed with "judge not lest you be judged"
c) or even just displaying a bias (according to my perception)...

It seems to me that many of our more liberal brethren take those approaches at times.

Where Scripture is silent...
a) defer to the Early Chuch Fathers (where they agree with you)
b) debunk the Early Chuch Fathers (where they disagree with you)
c) defer to recent RM tradition
d) for goodness sakes... come up with an answer somehow from somewhere

It seems to me that many of us fall into those at times too.

Personally - I've probably been "guilty" of all of these approaches and more. Ultimately, I'd suggest that while the "ideal" is perhaps "designed" to keep us accountable to scripture, our various takes on it often become a licence to avoid any real sort of accountabilty at all.

Just a thought. Peace :)

Yes, I've been guilty of these approaches, too. I think the ideal is still sound, though. The problem is in application. For some, the Scripture may speak loudly on a subject that others say the Scripture is silent on--it depends on their interpretation. (Some interpretations are more sound than others, of course.)

Perhaps "silent" is too strong a word. Maybe "where the Scriptures are unclear to us", though that's not as poetic. And frankly, it still gives us license to say "well, this isn't really clear at all..." when in fact we may not want it to be clear, because it may jeportize a pet theory, theology or practice we have.

In Christ,

Daniel

[- DRA -]

Here's an example of "silence" that many folks don't seem willing to discuss ...

Hebrews 7:12-16; 8:4 (NKJV) says,

12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.
13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing [was silent about] concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest
16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life.

And, 8:4 says,
4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law.

Questions:
Jesus is presented earlier in the book as being our High Priest (Heb. 3:1). However, according to the law of Moses, the High Priests must be descendants of Aaron i.e. Levi. God's word was silent about those from the tribe of Judah being priests. Therefore, did silence authorize someone from that tribe to be a priest (i.e. Jesus), or did silence mean those from Judah could NOT serve as a Levitical priest? Was Jesus a Levitical priest?
Or, was Jesus a priest after the order of Melchizedek?

According to this example, when God specifies what He wants, does His silence about other things authorize them, or prohibit us from deviating from what He specified?

[Splayd]

That's a wonderful example DRA that offers us a wonderful insight into law.

Careful consideration demonstrates that a change of law doesn't negate previous law. If older law is rendered entirely obsolete then there's no need to justify new law at all... however Paul still appeals to law to make the point that there is no contradiction here.

He rightly points out that Mosaic law is in fact silent about anyone other than Levites being priests and subsequently recognises that according to that law, Jesus wouldn't be recognised as such... BUT he then goes even further back to establish the precedent that recognises Christ's priesthood. Of course, there's be no need to recognise the precedent if his audience didn't believe the Mosiac law had any application to them at all. Even more pertinent to the discussion - the appeal to older precedents would have been pointless if those people felt the Mosaic law cancelled any previous law. Rather - we're presented with a complete picture that presents God's law as being in harmony throughout.

According to the example presented - a valid approach to determining solutions from silence in a current law is to consider previous precedents in past law.

[holo]

...So what's the solution?Well, we have such things as experience, common sense, gut feeling, debate, a renewed mind, prayer and not least the Holy Spirit.

The bible never portrays itself as some sort of rule book. In fact, it never promises that we get a bible at all, it only promises a Spirit. Weird then, that people get the idea that the bible is supposed to be some sort or moral manual. It's an utterly unbiblical idea.

[JDIBe]

Weird then, that people get the idea that the bible is supposed to be some sort or moral manual. It's an utterly unbiblical idea.

2 Tim. 3:16
Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

Ps 119:9
Wherewith shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to thy word.

Yeah, I don't know where people could have gotten such a silly idea...;)

See you guys Monday. Have a great weekend...:wave: :wave:

[holo]

2 Tim. 3:16
Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

Ps 119:9
Wherewith shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to thy word.

Yeah, I don't know where people could have gotten such a silly idea...;)

See you guys Monday. Have a great weekend...:wave: :wave:Profitable, yes. A manual, no. A list of dos and don'ts, not at all.

We need to hear the voice of the Lord, not merely recite scripture.

[JDIBe]

Profitable, yes. A manual, no. A list of dos and don'ts, not at all.

We need to hear the voice of the Lord, not merely recite scripture.

Is Scripture not the voice of the Lord?

[holo]

Is Scripture not the voice of the Lord?No. It's poetry, history, prophesy, eywitness accounts, personal letters, letters to churches, visions, genealogies and more, and in some places it quotes the Lord as well as the devil, slaves, children, prophets, kings, and in one instance a donkey, I believe.

[annie1speed]

I'm thinking you are way off base here.

What about the verse that says all scripture is God breathed? What does God breathed mean if not God's voice, His word?

I am refering to 'God breathed' as used as an adjective to describe the noun scripture - so do not refer me back to when God breathed into man a living soul.

[holo]

I'm thinking you are way off base here.

What about the verse that says all scripture is God breathed? What does God breathed mean if not God's voice, His word?

I am refering to 'God breathed' as used as an adjective to describe the noun scripture - so do not refer me back to when God breathed into man a living soul.God's word is what God says. The bible simply isn't a transcript of God's monologue.

[JDIBe]

Well then, I seriously doubt any more discussion on the matter between us would solve anything.

I wish you luck in your walk, though. Have a good day.

[Everlasting]

I think when looking for a personal relationship with God,
you find the bible: is a vessel by which you can begin
communicating.

Jam 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure,
then peaceable, gentle, [and] easy to be intreated, full of mercy
and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former
conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the
deceitful lusts;

Eph 4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind


The Bible is a historical document of people who have
had personal relationships with Jesus Christ and
communicated with God. The book represents
a wide scale view of the world, and summarizes
the wrongs you have experienced in your life.
How can anyone or anything know just how you feel.
If you have ever found a scripture; that explains the
way you feel: heart and soul. Then you would
know the soundness of the bible. It's comfort is
enough to renew a person's faith and hope.

Everlasting
Christian Science Fiction Novel
Moon Over Key Biscayne
booksandmore.4t.com

:crosseo:

[SpiritDriven]

I'm thinking you are way off base here.

What about the verse that says all scripture is God breathed? What does God breathed mean if not God's voice, His word?

I am refering to 'God breathed' as used as an adjective to describe the noun scripture - so do not refer me back to when God breathed into man a living soul.

Well look how religion today teaches against the word of God.........
Also I do believe that Universal Salvation of all Men theology is banned from most Forums here.... yet the word of God speaks for itself..... and does not contradict itself between old and New Testament.

OT

He is God, and there is no other. He has sworn by Himself, the word has gone forth from His mouth in righteousness and will not turn back, that to Him every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance (Isaiah 45:22,23).

NT

There is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, to be testified in due time (1 Timothy 2:5-6).

God will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4).

No contradiction here

Peace

[hopeinGod]

Either there is a definite purpose for the Lord's refusal to address all things in Scripture or we have yet to discover all transcripts inspired by the Holy Spirit.

If the first, I would ask why. Why not be as direct as possible in regard to all issues, especially those that effect one's life and lifestyle?

If the second, I doubt, if found, anything more would be accepted by the majority of the Church.

David

[DanielRB]

Peace, hopeinGod :wave:

Either there is a definite purpose for the Lord's refusal to address all things in Scripture or we have yet to discover all transcripts inspired by the Holy Spirit.

If the first, I would ask why. Why not be as direct as possible in regard to all issues, especially those that effect one's life and lifestyle?

If the second, I doubt, if found, anything more would be accepted by the majority of the Church.

David

I agree with you on the first; why would God stay silent on some issue we deem important? I believe that sometimes what we consider important isn't all that important to God. Second, sometimes he does speak clearly, but we don't want to accept it because it conflicts with our lifestyle/pet theories/current society/etc.

I don't think God has "hidden" any revelations (let's say, lost writings from Paul) that will be discovered in the near future that will somehow address things that aren't currently addressed in Scripture. I would be extremely skeptical of any such "epistle" turning up, knowing the enormous number of frauds that were produced in the early centuries of Christianity to advance certain pet theories (like Gnosticism).

In Christ,

Daniel

[Everlasting]

The Bibles purely symbolic text :hug:

Through varying gifts of the spirit this scripture may have infinate definitions. Nothing that is written is scripture is useless.

Rom 12:4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:

My Interpretation:

The differences in people, and what spiritual gifts they bring.

Many people do not believe the concept of race has been discussed in the Bible. Leading people down another unpaved
avenue for Satan, with more contentions, that drive a division between our harmony with God.

The Bible is a Masterpiece :crossrc:
:crosseo:
__________________________________________

Everlasting
Bible Inspired Author
Moon Over Key Biscayne
:angel:

[SwordOfGod]

You know, the Bible says nothing about polygamy, does that mean you should be silent about it?

[Splayd]

You know, the Bible says nothing about polygamy, does that mean you should be silent about it?Yes... and No.
Where Polygamy is illegal - it's a no-brainer. We're still to follow the laws of the land.

Now where Polygamy is legal - I'd suggest that while Scripture doesn't condemn Polygamy outright, a clear case for Monogamy (as God's design) is made in the NT. Is there a distinction? Sure - If you're a Christian in one of these countries and you don't already have multiple partners, then you shouldn't take multiple partners. On the other hand - if you're already married to multiple partners before coming to Christ, there's no need to abandon them all to come to Him.

Peace

[DanielRB]

Peace, Everlasting :wave:

The Bibles purely symbolic text :hug:

Through varying gifts of the spirit this scripture may have infinate definitions. Nothing that is written is scripture is useless.

Rom 12:4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:

My Interpretation:

The differences in people, and what spiritual gifts they bring.

Many people do not believe the concept of race has been discussed in the Bible. Leading people down another unpaved
avenue for Satan, with more contentions, that drive a division between our harmony with God.

The Bible is a Masterpiece :crossrc:
:crosseo:
__________________________________________

Everlasting
Bible Inspired Author
Moon Over Key Biscayne
:angel:

I disagree that the Bible is "purely symbolic text." The Bible contains numerious genres, and it is important to keep the particular genre in mind when interpreting a passage. For example, the book of Revelation is apocalyptic, using quite a bit of symbolism. The book of Leviticus, however, is more of a legal/holiness code. You shouldn't confuse the genres when interpreting, or you'll come up with some rather weird interpretations.

In Christ,

Daniel

[Everlasting]

Lev 8:7 And he put upon him the coat,and girded him
with the girdle, and clothed him in the robe, and put the
ephod upon him, and he girded him with the curious
girdle of the ephod and bound it upon him there within.

Taking on the breastplate of armour means confronting and
withstanding all of the premises of evil. Curiously
seeking the full knowledge; of the love of the Lord, takes
more than one understanding of the Word.

The Old Testament presents the knowledge of Godly
worship without the knowledge of Christ who dwells
in everyone without hypocrisy. The foundation of
loving everyone as one member of the body of Christ;
with diverse spiritual gifts, is the foundaton of living
Christ like.

:crosseo: :crossrc:

Everlasting

Bible Inspired Author
Moon OVer Key Biscayne

:wave:

[pennsyginny]

Sometimes I wonder what
Jesus would say to much of what we think
He means.

[annie1speed]

Agreed, pennysginny. On the issue of polygamy. In the verses discussing the characteristics of elders and deacons, they are both to be the husband of ONE wife. What message do you think this give us concerning polygamy? Just curious.

Annie

[pennsyginny]

I don't think God ever intended that there be more than one man, one wife. Man did the rest. I think scripture is pretty clear about it. While I have been married and divorced twice, I do not think it is something that is pleasing to God. I know He's my loving Father and He loves me unconditionally but he did not choose my life's patterns.

[Splayd]

How did this become a conversation about polygamy anyway? Regardless it sounds like we're all basically agreed on that topic.

Peace

[annie1speed]

I don't know. I guess i'm easily distracted. :P Shall we be disagreeable? Seriously I apologize if I derailed the thread.

Annie

[Splayd]

No - it's cool :)

[sidekick]

Silence of scripture simply does not give us the right to act if it violates the law. We need biblical authority in the form of a direct command, approved example, or necessary inference. Now, we do have all kinds of liberties, but these should not violate scriptural authority. There are examples in scripture showing that the silence of God does not give us the right to act against His Word. Here is one : Lev 10:1And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
Lev. 10:2And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
God didn't say they couldn't offer fire or couldn't offer fire in a way they felt right. Verse 1 says that ...which He had not commanded them. If He hadn't commanded them, is that silence? And if so, does that give them the right to act?

[mrconstance]

This is an honest question from someone who is still trying to understand the a capella tradition.

I hear Nadab and Abihu brought up all the time, but they're worshipping under the OT law--which doesn't apply to us now. Why is this story from Leviticus seen to be so persuasive when other OT examples are not?

Alan

[sidekick]

There is also Acts 15:2 No commandment from God on the issue does not give license to require circumcision. God didn't say not to circumcise.
Also Heb 7:14. No commandment for a priest other than a Levite, no authority for a priest from another tribe.

With the acapella version, we have examples in the NT to sing. That is all. Once we have the command, then it excludes other types. For example, unleavened bread and fruit of the vine. Since these are items specifically commanded, then it would violate scripture to use cookies and milk, etc. Since we have the command to sing, if we add music, it then becomes another type of music. Some say music is an aid. An aid cannot be another type of the specific item. An aid has to be lawful to fulfill the command.

[mrconstance]

There is also Acts 15:2 No commandment from God on the issue does not give license to require circumcision. God didn't say not to circumcise.
Also Heb 7:14. No commandment for a priest other than a Levite, no authority for a priest from another tribe.

With the acapella version, we have examples in the NT to sing. That is all. Once we have the command, then it excludes other types. For example, unleavened bread and fruit of the vine. Since these are items specifically commanded, then it would violate scripture to use cookies and milk, etc. Since we have the command to sing, if we add music, it then becomes another type of music. Some say music is an aid. An aid cannot be another type of the specific item. An aid has to be lawful to fulfill the command.
The gist of your post seems to be that the a capella argument isn't basely solely, or even primarily, on the story of Nadab and Abihu. And I appreciate that. But your post doesn't really answer my question--why does it make sense to bring up Nadab and Abihu at all?

Alan

[sidekick]

Alan,
sorry for not making myself clear. Sometimes the words don't come out as I think them. Concerning silence of the scriptures, I used Nadab and Abihu, Acts 15, and Heb. 7:14 as some direct examples. Now concerning acapella music, we go to the subject of biblical authority. This in itself is a little different from silence of the scriptures mentioned above.
I believe authority comes in the form of a direct command, approved example, and necessary inference. If Noah was told to use gopher wood to build the ark, does that mean God would accept any other wood? When Moses was told to make an altar of acacia wood, does that exclude other types of wood? Everything has a pattern specified by God. Whether it is the ark, altar, garments, worship, emblems, etc. So, in the New testament we are told to use unleavened bread and fruit of the vine for the Lord's supper. Does this exclude using other emblems? I think it does. And when we are told to sing, which is a type of music in itself, does this exclude playing instruments? I believe it does. Whether it be wood, metal, clothing, music, it is specified by God what to use. Is it really necessary for God to say "Thou shalt not use..."and go through a whole list of things? So at this point I believe that singing, or acapella, is the type of music specified by God. To make it instrumental would make it another item.But, alot of people would argue that instruments are an aid to the singing, (which is another topic of aids vs. additions), I can understand that and I love music myself, but The Church of Christ believes that instruments are another kind of music. Another thing, psallo, means to make melody, sing. The instrument is our heart, Eph. 5:19.
I hope this helps you.

[Everlasting]

You know, the Bible says nothing about polygamy, does that mean you should be silent about it?

:crosseo:


Actually the Bible isn't silent on this.

Mat 5:31

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

:yawn:

Wife being single, not plural.

:amen:


Everlasting
Bible Inspired Author
Moon Over Key Biscayne
booksandmore.4t.com

[Splayd]

sidekick - it's hard not to generalise... but the Church of Christ isn't entirely non-instrumental. There are also instrumental ones. In Australia I'm not sure there are any non-instrumental CofC's (apart from the little 3 person mission in town which condemns us).

Everlasting - I agree the bible isn't silent on polygamy but not because of that verse. It tells us nothing about the matter really. If I have 4 wives, every one of them is my wife (singular) and if I was planning on ditching one I'd still be talking about a wife (singular). That verse works for any scenario. The only reason it would or could say wives is if a) polygamy is ok AND b) people tended to ditch more than one wife at a time AND c) it was believed the singular case didn't satisfactorally address the matter. Seems kinda far-fetched really.

[RefrusRevlis]

Splayd said:
sidekick - it's hard not to generalise... but the Church of Christ isn't entirely non-instrumental. There are also instrumental ones. In Australia I'm not sure there are any non-instrumental CofC's (apart from the little 3 person mission in town which condemns us).

In Australia, what is called the church of Christ would be called perhaps something like "disciples of Christ" or "Christian church" in the US. Here in Armadale W.A. there is a non-instrumental church of Christ.
Refrus

[Splayd]

Yes - I'd suggest we're probably more like the "Christian Church" in the US. I was just reinforcing that not all CofC's are non-instrumental. Even in the US there are instrumental ones.

[LivingWordUnity]

As much as I really do love the whole ideal of speaking where scripture speaks and being silent where scripture is silent... I can't help but appreciate the irony that it's an extrabiblical ideal that we essentially hold as a creed in the RM (along with No Creed but Christ ;)).

Anyway - it's also occured to me that a great many of us really only pay lip service to it and demonstrate something entirely different.

Could it be that some really use these unspoken rules instead:

Where Scripture is silent...
a) condemn
b) make up a rule
c) Huh? Silent??? You just haven't proof-texted it enough.

It seems to me that many of our hardline brethren take those approaches at times.

Where Scripture is silent...
a) anything goes
b) everything can be adressed with "judge not lest you be judged"
c) or even just displaying a bias (according to my perception)...

It seems to me that many of our more liberal brethren take those approaches at times.

Where Scripture is silent...
a) defer to the Early Chuch Fathers (where they agree with you)
b) debunk the Early Chuch Fathers (where they disagree with you)
c) defer to recent RM tradition
d) for goodness sakes... come up with an answer somehow from somewhere

It seems to me that many of us fall into those at times too.

Personally - I've probably been "guilty" of all of these approaches and more. Ultimately, I'd suggest that while the "ideal" is perhaps "designed" to keep us accountable to scripture, our various takes on it often become a licence to avoid any real sort of accountabilty at all.

Just a thought. Peace :)

Nice thought. Thanks, and may God bless you. Peace :)