Its unauthorized to say that silence equals a command of God.

- DRA -

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2004
3,560
96
Texas
✟4,218.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Red Herrings??? Hmmmm... examining your argument is a distraction? Sorry - I didn't realise we were supposed to take everything you say at face value. I can appreciate how it must be difficult for you to be asked to explain your handling of scripture. Nonetheless it seems to me that it's actually pertinent to the discussion.

There is no problem discussing my handling of Scripture ... just as there should be no problem discussing your handling of Scripture. However, stating the so-called "folly" of "my approach" which just so happens to be a point made in Hebrews 7:14 is indeed a red herring. God's word makes a point about the silence of priests from the tribe of Judah. God specified the Levites would be priests. Although He was silent about the tribe of Judah, they simply weren't authorized to be Levitical priests. That meant Jesus couldn't be a Levitical priest. The point? God called Him to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek according to Psalm 110:4. "Silence" is brought up in Heb. 7:14 to support why Jesus was a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Like it or not, when God specifies what He wants, "silence" about other so-called options doesn't authorize any of them. Rather, only that which is specified is authorized. You know, I don't think this principle is that hard to understand. However, the application of this principle to issues such as IM is surely going to present problems for some. Therefore, such folks are faced with decisions: either discredit or undermine the point being made in Hebrews 7:14, or change the way they view passages such as Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 and simply do the things God specified in those passages.

Let's apply some integrity to the discussion and reexamine the way it has progressed.

You concluded: Rather, it prohibited them from being priests.

To be fair, your preceding sentence acknowledged that Jesus couldn't be a "Levitical" priest, but you have regularly missed that qualifier in your argument. I'd suggest that it's a very important qualifier but an inconvenient one for your argument.

Thanks for being fair and acknowledging what I said in its context. I do not believe that Hebrews 7:14-17 is teaching that Jesus couldn't be a priest - that point is made in 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:6,10; 6:20; and is the basis for the discussion in chapter 7 ... that continues through chapter 10. The point being made in Heb. 7:14-17 is that Jesus couldn't be a Levitical priest. And, an additional point is also emphasized in this text. The change in priesthood meant that there would also be a change in the law, which was discussed in 8:6-13.

Frankly, I think the point in Hebrews 7:14 is a valid principle that needs to be considered when people attempt to deviate from what God specified. If the point is invalid, then please explain to us why it's even there. Do you think God makes invalid points? Uses poor reasoning skills? By all means, if my understanding of Heb. 7:14 is amiss, then please explain to us exactly what the point is of this passage in its context.

Firstly - I agree 100% that it says that the scripture is silent about priests from the tribe of Judah. I've never argued otherwise. The issue isn't whether or not it's stated but whether or not it is being interpreted and applied correctly in your argument. That's what I'm disputing and I'd suggest that it's arrogant to insist that your argument is necessarily God's argument.

Good. You acknowledge what the passage plainly says. Now, why exactly is it "arrogant" (another personal attach - a red herring) to think that when God specifies what He wants (e.g. priests from the tribe of Levi), His silence doesn't authorized something else (e.g. priests from the tribe of Judah). I'm kind of lost here. You acknowledge what the passage says, but don't give us any indication at all of how we should apply the principle taught in the passage. But, I'm "arrogant" for accepting what the passage teaches and applying it. Help me out here. :scratch: Surely now, since you are not blinded by a beam in your own eye (i.e. Matt. 7:1-6), and should be able to help us see the truth revealed in Heb. 7:14.

Now let's consider it carefully.

Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Now - it's very clearly demonstrated here that scripture is silent about priests from the tribe of Judah. Noone could dispute that... BUT how is it applied?

If it's concluded that silence prohibits, then it necessarily follows that this passage would conclude that Jesus couldn't be a priest at all, wouldn't it? Any other conclusion demands that He could be a priest DESPITE scripture's silence on that point.

No, it wouldn't and it doesn't. Assuming that you have indeed studied the book of Hebrews, you should be familiar with the previous passages that declare that Jesus is a High Priest (3:1, 4:14-15) after the order of Melchizedek (5:6,10; 6:20). Note carefully the point being made in Hebrews 7:14-17. It's not that Jesus couldn't be a priest period. The point is that Jesus couldn't be a Levitical priest. That is the point. It's supports why Jesus was a priest of a different order. He wasn't authorized to be a Levitical priest. However, He was authorized to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek, which genealogy played no part in (7:3).

To make sure the point is clear, Jesus' genealogy is only a factor to be considered when evaluting whether or not He could have been a Levitical priest. He couldn't. God specified the Levites. Jesus was from the tribe of Judah. Therefore, He couldn't have been a Levitical priest. Rather, He was a priest of an order that genealogy played no factor in whatsover.

Far from making the point that silence prohibits, it emphasises the point I've made all along - that we should consider what IS said instead of focussing on what isn't.

Sorry, but the point being stressed in Hebrews 7:14-17 is that silence indeed prohibits. It meant that Jesus couldn't be a Levitical priest. If a point can't be made about God's silence when He specified what He wanted, then the writer of Hebrews made an invalid point - which would also mean that God made an invalid point (2 Tim. 3:16a). That, my friend, is not a valid conclusion in my reasoning. :mad:

I agree. We should focus on what is said rather than what isn't said. That is why I brought up the example earlier of Nadab and Abihu in Lev. 10 and got a :doh: for my efforts.

Mightn't the argument be better understood along the lines of:
"Scripture is silent about priests coming from the tribe of Judah. Right?
And only Levites can be priests. Right?
So Jesus can't be a priest. Right?
WRONG! Don't forget good old Melchizadek. He wasn't a Levitical priest but he was still a priest. In fact his is a better priesthood and that's the sort of priest Jesus is."

The red-bolded font shows where the wrong conclusion was drawn that make your next conclusion also wrong. While it is true that only the Levites could have been priests under the Levitical system (which was coupled with the law of Moses), you have overlooked a point being made in the latter part of Heb. 7:3 about Melchizedek - "having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually" (NKJV). The point? There is no record of Melchizedek's birth nor death. Therefore, his office remained open. And, as the writer goes on to explain, Jesus filled that open office.

Now I agree entirely with the point that noone other than Levites could be a Levitical priest. I've never argued against that either... BUT it in no way whatsover makes a case for silence prohibiting.

Whether or not you like the consequences, Hebrews 7:14-17 is indeed making a case that God's silence doesn't authorize when He specified what He wanted.

NOW - to the Noah situation again.
Ummm... That's my conclusion too. Noah did as God asked. Again - the issue was never about what scripture said. It was about your understanding and application of what it says. What I asked for is evidence that Noah approached the matter by considering what the silence meant. I submit that there is none and further that the only evidence we have is that he followed the positive instruction.

Peace

Actually, Noah's consideration of God's silence wasn't a point I made. The point I was after is how we should understand Noah's faith i.e. Hebrews 11:7. Being the man of faith that he was, he did just what God told him (Gen. 6:22). Today, looking back at what God told Noah and his example of obedience, there is a lesson there for us to follow. And, if we are tempted to deviate from God's will for us today under the gospel of Christ, we indeed should apply the principle taught in Hebrews 7:14. For sure, Noah didn't deviate. Neither should we. God doesn't have to list all the things that aren't acceptable when He specifies what He wants. He didn't when He specified Levite priests ... and He didn't when He specified gopherwood. I believe it is God's will that we learn from His word and apply things like this in our lives today (Rom. 15:4).

:bow:
 
Upvote 0

- DRA -

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2004
3,560
96
Texas
✟4,218.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sarcasm does no good and is not indicative of how a christian should talk

My intent wasn't to be sarcastic, but simply to accept and acknowledge what you said (see the quote posted below in blue-bolded font).

This has EVERYTHING to do with Colossians 2:14! These verses outline specifically what was nailed to the cross. It wasn't the whole "old testament" it was the handwriting of ordinances that were against us. Personally I have no bone to pick about the IM, I just want to go by the bible and the bible alone for my doctrine. This idea of silence making doctrine I have found is not biblical. Col 2 is loud and clear what was done away with, there is NO silence. The law of types that foreshadowed Jesus as our savior is no more. This included the commands regarding the levitical priesthood. This is how Jesus could be a High Priest and and not violate the law. If the law had not been nailed to the cross then God would have been breaking the law by ordaining Jesus as the High Priest. Simple as that, there is NO silence.

Actually, according to what you wrote in post # 69 on page 7 ...

From Loveaboveall's post # 69 on page 7:
I think you just about missed my whole point

What was nailed to the cross was the ceremonies given to the children of Israel. They were not needed because Jesus was our perfect sacrifice. Does this mean that all of the old testament should be thrown out? Psalm 150 specifically tells us to worship God with instruments and all I hear is that we are not under the old covenant. How was this done away with at the cross? Or anything else that is mentioned in the old testament that does not specifically deal with the "Ordinances and Shadows" which pointed to the cross.


... you tell us what the real reason behind your understanding of Colossians 2:14 involves - a desire to justify the use of instrumental music under the gospel of Christ based on Psalm 150. To me, that is not an indicator of someone who is sincerely interested in truth. Someone interested in Colossians 2:14 should be willing to consider the passage in its context, also consider synomymous passages, and then be willing to ensure the understanding derived from Col. 2:14 harmonizes with other passages.

Please explain clearly and precisely which parts of the law of Moses didn't end on the cross per your understanding of Col. 2:14. Does it include the things specifically mentioned in verse 16? Circumcision? Note the things considered by the council in Jerusalem in Acts 15:1,5 (i.e. circumcision and the law of Moses) to determine what things from the old law the Gentiles had to keep. Now, consider the conclusion that council reached (verses 23-29). Does your understanding of Col. 2:14 agree with this text? Not according to what I understand you are saying. Please explain why you reached a different conclusion that the apostles did?

Does God really care who your ancestors are when determing whether to offer salvation to them? To suggest that God would only save the Israelites and no one else is completely against the character of God.I gave evidence of Gentiles who became a part of the children of Israel and thus were bound by the old covenant! With the bible clearly showing that Gentiles could be part of God's people and worship Him under the old covenant how can you dismiss it?

Try looking at it another way. The law of Moses was given exclusively to the Israelites. I am of Gentile descent. Thus, my people were never under that law. Unless you are Jewish, you also were never under that law. Therefore, Psalm 150 is not a direct command given to us today. It's direct application was to Jews ~ 3,000 years ago who lived under the law of Moses.

The bottom line is: the law of Moses was given exclusively to the Jews i.e. Romans 2:14. It is true the Gentiles could convert to Judaism, but God previously promised a seed/blessing who would bless "all" families of the earth (Gen. 12:3). That promised wasn't fulfilled in the Moses and the law that he gave, but in Jesus and the law that He gave (Acts 3:25-26).

Where were the children of Israel commanded to circumcise their boys? In the Handwriting of ordinances that was against us and contrary to us, right? Wouldn't this have been nailed to the cross? The Galatians still wanted to require the Gentiles to become circumcised as they would have had to under the old covenant if they converted. Paul wrote a whole letter to them to speak out against keeping the Handwriting of ordinances that was against us. He tells them several times, this law is a curse to you if you don't keep all of it, and you aren't required to keep it so why do you want to. You have freedom in Christ! That is his point!

Circumcision was first commanded in Genesis 17, and became a part of the law of Moses. Yes, the requirement for physical circumcision was nailed to Jesus' cross - meaning that it ended. From that point on, circumcision was a matter of indifference with God i.e. Gal. 5:6. However, note Col. 2:11. Circumcision is presented as a foreshadowing of baptism into Christ.

You make a good observation about a point made in the book of Galatians. Particularly, 5:3. Those who go to the old law to justify a particular practice find themselves obligated to keep the whole law. Please keep that in mind when you consider Psalm 150.

But it still goes back to this idea of silence... Hebrews 7 clearly makes the point that Jesus COULD NOT be a priest under the original law that governs the priesthood, He was not a levite. There is not silence there. Col 2 specifically states this law of the priesthood was done away with at the cross. The writer of Hebrews makes this very point! The law was nailed to the cross, it was changed, this is why Jesus could be our High Priest and it is much better because it is not after a carnal commandment that was contained in ordincances with curses but He is a priest after the order of Melchizidek which never ends.

My point was ... and still is ... that Hebrews 7:14 makes a point about God's silence that we shouldn't overlook. God specified priests from Levi. God was silent about Judah? Therefore, were those from Judah authorized? Nope. That's the point. It's application? Jesus was from the tribe of Judah. Could He be a Levitical priest? Nope, He was from a tribe that God was silent about when He specified who would be priests under the law of Moses. So, could Jesus be a priest? Yes, He could be (and was declared to be) a priest after the order of Melchizedek, which did not depend upon lineage/genealogy (Heb. 7:3).

When Jesus died, His testament/will went into effect (Heb. 9:16-17). Shortly after His death, the terms to His will were made known by His apostles in Acts 2 to the Jews. In Acts 10, the gospel was first extended to the Gentiles. Later, in Acts 15, this statement was made about the law of Moses, "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (KJV)" Since you seem to desire to bind select portions of the old law upon the disciples of Christ today, perhaps you can answer the question. :scratch:
 
Upvote 0

- DRA -

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2004
3,560
96
Texas
✟4,218.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
God speaks to us and there is no silence.


Yes ... but ...

Some folks simply aren't content to just listen to what God says through His word.

Rather, they try to speak on God's behalf (which is contrary to 1 Pet. 4:11a), and ignore what God has specified to justify an addition, subtraction, or substitution to God's instructions.

For sure, when God specifies what He wants, silence does NOT authorize deviations (Heb. 7:14).
 
Upvote 0

crawfish

Veteran
Feb 21, 2007
1,731
125
Way out in left field
✟10,043.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sarcasm is DEFINITELY unauthorized.

Loveaboveall said:
Sarcasm does no good and is not indicative of how a christian should talk

I have no point here, other than to be slightly amused by this turn of events. ^_^
 
Upvote 0

GoldSolThumpkin

Active Member
Jun 10, 2007
71
6
Mesa, AZ
✟15,224.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This thread did one good thing. It helped us refresh on the arguments against the title. It sure did get a lot of people against the title. Take a look at that post count! We have many people here with something to say on this topic. My opinion is that where God is silent, I use caution. But that's just me. I fear God. Have any of you guys ever got silence from a wife or girlfriend and taken it to mean do whatever you want? Bad interpretation!
 
Upvote 0

Loveaboveall

Senior Member
Mar 14, 2007
678
10
✟8,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Try looking at it another way. The law of Moses was given exclusively to the Israelites. I am of Gentile descent. Thus, my people were never under that law. Unless you are Jewish, you also were never under that law. Therefore, Psalm 150 is not a direct command given to us today. It's direct application was to Jews ~ 3,000 years ago who lived under the law of Moses.

The bottom line is: the law of Moses was given exclusively to the Jews i.e. Romans 2:14. It is true the Gentiles could convert to Judaism, but God previously promised a seed/blessing who would bless "all" families of the earth (Gen. 12:3). That promised wasn't fulfilled in the Moses and the law that he gave, but in Jesus and the law that He gave (Acts 3:25-26).


Two questions...

What is the law of moses? and is the book of Psalms part of the law of Moses?

Romans 2:14-15 states that the Gentiles did not have the law, BUT they kept the law and demonstrating that it was in their hearts. What does it mean to be under the law? and if the gentiles were not under the law, why did they keep it and why in the world was it written on their hearts?
 
Upvote 0

Splayd

Just some guy
Apr 19, 2006
2,547
1,033
52
✟8,071.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is no problem discussing my handling of Scripture ... just as there should be no problem discussing your handling of Scripture. However, stating the so-called "folly" of "my approach" which just so happens to be a point made in Hebrews 7:14 is indeed a red herring.
OK. I give up. One moment you say it's ok to discuss your handling of scripture and the next you refuse to, insisting that your interpretation IS what is said. I simply can't see how I can communicate with someone who can't recognise the difference.

Hebrews 7:14 says Jesus came from Judah and that Moses said nothing about priests from Judah. That's essentially what is said. Isn't it????

It doesn't say that silence prohibits. It very simply and obviously is NOT stated here. That conclusion is drawn by you from your understanding of the text... but it isn't in the text. Of course that doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, but you refuse to acknowledge that there can be a difference between your understanding and God's expressed intent. I'm sorry that it causes you offense, but I do see that as arrogant and dangerous too. It's certainly not an attitude that's condusive to meaningful discussion, so I'll leave it there.

Peace
 
Upvote 0

- DRA -

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2004
3,560
96
Texas
✟4,218.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
OK. I give up. One moment you say it's ok to discuss your handling of scripture and the next you refuse to, insisting that your interpretation IS what is said. I simply can't see how I can communicate with someone who can't recognise the difference.

Hebrews 7:14 says Jesus came from Judah and that Moses said nothing about priests from Judah. That's essentially what is said. Isn't it????

It doesn't say that silence prohibits. It very simply and obviously is NOT stated here. That conclusion is drawn by you from your understanding of the text... but it isn't in the text. Of course that doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, but you refuse to acknowledge that there can be a difference between your understanding and God's expressed intent. I'm sorry that it causes you offense, but I do see that as arrogant and dangerous too. It's certainly not an attitude that's condusive to meaningful discussion, so I'll leave it there.

Peace

Let's not forget God's commentary Hebrews 7:13-17 in 8:14, which says, "If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law" (NKJV).

Unlike you, I don't think it is either "arrogant" or "dangerous" to accept what God's word says. BTW, since you still seem compelled to resort to the red herrings when you can't deal with the Scriptures, you might want to consider the "folly" of this tactic. The Pharisees tried it in Matthew 12, starting in 22.
 
Upvote 0

Splayd

Just some guy
Apr 19, 2006
2,547
1,033
52
✟8,071.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
DRA - I won't be responding to your posts any more. My argument has never been with what the scriptures say but with your commentary of them. I'm always happy to discuss what scripture does say. I'm also happy to discuss my own or other's understanding of what scripture says... but I simply won't do it while the condition is that we accept the other person's commentary as God's word.

If anybody else would like to correct an error in my understanding, ask me to clarify a point I've made or discuss their understanding further, I'll happily do so, even if it's about the same stuff DRA has brought up. I'm happy to discuss the issue with people that recognise that their commentary is exactly that.

Peace

Peace
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

- DRA -

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2004
3,560
96
Texas
✟4,218.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Two questions...

What is the law of moses? and is the book of Psalms part of the law of Moses?

John 10:34 says, "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, 'I said, Ye are gods?' "

Two observations:
1.) Jesus' audience in John was Jewish, and, "Written in your law," is a reference to the law the Jews were under - the law of Moses.
2.) "I said, Ye are gods," is a quote from Psalm 82:6. And, since Jesus considers the Psalms to be a part of Jewish law, I conclude that the law can be viewed in a broad sense to include the whole of that which Moses spoke and the O.T. prophets and writings that followed.

Romans 2:14-15 states that the Gentiles did not have the law, BUT they kept the law and demonstrating that it was in their hearts. What does it mean to be under the law? and if the gentiles were not under the law, why did they keep it and why in the world was it written on their hearts?

Perhaps 1 Corinthians 5:1 might help you. Certain basic moral things seem to be understood by the Gentiles as being wrong. Although they weren't given the law per se, they did have a basic understanding of right and wrong.

As far as being under law, today Jesus has all authority (Matt. 28:18). Whether obedient or not, all of us are under His law. Obviously, those of us who acknowledge Jesus as both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36) look at His rule differently than those who do not give Him the respect and reverence that He deserves.

One Question:
Which part or parts of the O.T. law do you practice today?
 
Upvote 0

- DRA -

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2004
3,560
96
Texas
✟4,218.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
DRA - I won't be responding to your posts any more. My argument has never been with what the scriptures say but with your commentary of them. I'm always happy to discuss what scripture does say. I'm also happy to discuss my own or other's understanding of what scripture says... but I simply won't do it while the condition is that we accept the other person's commentary as God's word.

If anybody else would like to correct an error in my understanding, ask me to clarify a point I've made or discuss their understanding further, I'll happily do so, even if it's about the same stuff DRA has brought up. I'm happy to discuss the issue with people that recognise that their commentary is exactly that.

Peace

Peace

By all means, do whatever you feel that you need to do to save face. I am content to defer this matter as the Lord directed (Romans 12:17-21). Meanwhile, the truth is right there in God's word as Jesus promised (John 8:32), unless of course, one chooses to have things their own way and resents trivial things such as Scriptures from getting in their way (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12).

No hard feelings. ;) However, if you post something that needs examination or further consideration, then don't be surprised if I choose to respond to it.

BTW, seriously, I put a lot of emphasis in Bible study by what Jesus taught in Matthew 4:5-7 ... that the truth should harmonize between passages. Perhaps you can benefit from it as well. :idea:
 
Upvote 0

- DRA -

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2004
3,560
96
Texas
✟4,218.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
don't know about all this but.
Silence is a command from the girl I like. she says that sometimes friends don't need to talk when they are together.

:wave:

For sure, God is able to discern the thoughts and intents of our hearts. The discussion thus far hasn't really been about us communing with God, but has rather focused on how God's silence factors in to His word. People use different approaches. Some reason that everything not expressly forbidden is acceptable. Others use silence to justify adding to God's word. And, some even try to speak on God's behalf and make things binding that God never addressed (neither directly or in principle). So, as you might suspect, there is potential for a lot of disagreement. The nice thing is that we have an opportunity to follow different reasonings in light of the Scriptures. For sure, the truth has nothing to hide and is not harmed at all by examination.
 
Upvote 0

RefrusRevlis

Regular Member
May 25, 2007
378
13
55
Western Australia
✟8,084.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Splayd said
2nd June 2007 in the "Do Church of Christ Believe" thread (page 10)
No I don't think silence authorises anything. I also don't think it condemns. I find no biblical basis for approaching matters in that way at all.

As I pointed out previously, this idea that silence neither authorises (permits) nor condemns (does not permit), is a logical contradiction, it is self-contradictory. You can't be allowed and not allowed to do something at the same time.


It seems that the line or argument is that the Bible neither authorises nor forbids an action about which it is silent and therefore we are free to do as we choose. The problem being that this amounts to saying that the Bible neither permits nor forbids , so it permits. This is self-contradictory and thus false.


Splayd responded (post #101):

Oh please. Silence is silence is silence. By it's very definition it says nothing on it's own. By itself it can neither condone nor condemn. That stuff comes from context not silence.


What I have been trying to point out is the fact that requiring one thing in scripture does not necessarily exclude another unless we also understand that the silence of scripture prohibits. I think the gopherwood topic has been dealt with extensively, so I will suggest another analogy:


I am a Grade 3 teacher (true) and getting my students to make posters on the 5 food groups.
I could make a few statements about how I wanted the students to colour in the poster. I could say:


"You may not use felt-tip markers on your poster" I have prohibited their use. It is unauthorised to use them.


"You may use felt-tip markers to colour your poster" It is understood that this is not a requirement, but permission only. Their use is authorised.


"You must use felt tip markers to colour your poster" Tells us that the students, are obliged (commanded) use the specified, but equally as important, they are not by this specification prohibited from using other colourants in addition to the specified markers, unless it is understood that my silence on the matter prohibits. Felt tip markers are not only permitted, but also required.


"You must only use felt tip markers to colour your poster" Tells us quite clearly there can be so substituting of a different colourant, nor can their be any additional colourant used.


It is important to note that how silence is to be interpreted varies; in some circumstances it permits, and in some it does not.



Let's now recap some things that have been said about silence:
Splayd:
Oh please. Silence is silence is silence. By it's very definition it says nothing on it's own. By itself it can neither condone nor condemn. That stuff comes from context not silence.

Looking at your statement again, an important thing to point out is that silence is not on "its own" as you state. The silence has a relationship to non-silence. By this I mean that the scriptures tell us all we need for every Good work (2 Timothy 3:16), this is the non-silence. The silence is that not dealt with by scripture, either explicitly or implicitly. The two (Bible-silent and Bible-non-silent) form a whole to include all acts that one could perform. The area of silence is defined by the non-silence. Does this sound a bit Zen? (My wife thinks so). My point here is silence is defined as being all that which the Bible does not speak about either to command, permit or prohibit (either implicitly or explicitly). It is outside the realm of the Bible-authorised.


The Bible is not silent about its own silence. It tells us how to interpret its own silence. Consider this quote:

"Every system of authority, to be complete, must inform us about how to interpret its silence. Otherwise, it would not be complete, for it would be leaving us without direction on those actions on which it had nothing to say"
How Implication Binds and Silence Forbids George F Beals p88


The Bible says of itself that it is complete, as we have seen in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, by it we are equipped for every good work. There is nothing lacking. It is perfect. It tells us that "whatever is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23) and "Test all things; hold fast what is good. " (1 Thess 5:21). In addition we are told, "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17)


Putting these verses together:


The scriptures equip us with every good work.
We should test all things and hold fast what is good.
Therefore we should hold fast only the things that the scriptures equip us with.


(this refutes the validity of: "No I don't think silence authorises anything. I also don't think it condemns. I find no biblical basis for approaching matters in that way at all.")




Faith comes from God's word
Whatever is not of faith is sin.
Therefore whatever does not come from God's word is sin.


Now, looking at some statements previously made in this thread:


June 16
The instruction to use gopherwood is a positive instruction (ie: do this). On it's own it doesn't contain any negative instruction (ie: don't do this) but it's understood that by using another wood, he wouldn't have followed the positive instruction. By trying to make more of the issue by looking for the negative implications we necessarily add to the instruction and enter into an entirely unecessary world of complications, insinuations, disclaimers and definitions. I'd rather stick to what's actually said.




June 22
By contrast, my argument is that Noah was given the positive instruction to build an ark with gopherwood... and did. That's it. I can speculate that he shouldn't use other woods and that he didn't use other woods but I acknowledge that it's speculation and base it entirely on the facts as presented. He built an ark using gopherwood.





You seem to have softened you position from
but it's understood that by using another wood, he wouldn't have followed the positive instruction.


to:

I can speculate that he shouldn't use other woods and that he didn't use other woods but I acknowledge that it's speculation and base it entirely on the facts as presented.




So is it understood, or speculation?


Do you still hold to the position " I don't think silence authorises anything. I also don't think it condemns..."? (ie "it permits")


Refrus
 
Upvote 0

Splayd

Just some guy
Apr 19, 2006
2,547
1,033
52
✟8,071.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hey RefrusRevlis :wave:

Reading through that last post, it actually appears that our understanding is converging more than you realise.

Although you refute the following quotes:
No I don't think silence authorises anything. I also don't think it condemns. I find no biblical basis for approaching matters in that way at all.
Oh please. Silence is silence is silence. By it's very definition it says nothing on it's own. By itself it can neither condone nor condemn. That stuff comes from context not silence.

You said this:
It is important to note that how silence is to be interpreted varies; in some circumstances it permits, and in some it does not.
BINGO! That right there is exactly my point and I agree entirely. There is no default position for "silence". I think we basically agree as to this nature of "silence" generally.

It's from here that our understanding appears to diverge. I hold the afore mentioned nature of interpreting silence holds throughout scripture as it does everywhere else. ie: Considering what is said determines the relevance and meaning of what isn't. My understanding is that there isn't a default position of "silence prohibits" in scripture generally, though I recognise that sometimes the context demands that interpretation on an instance by instance basis.

Considering the much discussed passage regarding priesthood, we recognise that the silence regarding priests coming from Judah is complete. There is nothing in the OT about any sort of priest coming from that tribe - beit Levitical OR from the order of Melchizadek. Now did the "silence" prevent Jesus from becoming a Levitical priest? Yes, basically. Not as much because of the silence but more because of what was said. Levitical priests are to be from the tribe of Levi and that necessarily excludes others. Anything else would be a contradiction.

Meanwhile - did that silence prohibit Jesus from being a priest after the order of Melchizadek? No. There's no contradiction there. That order is not dependant on birth or appointments of men, but rather is appointed by God Himself. That exact same silence is applied differently within different contexts in the very same passage.

Mind you - I almost think the problem has less to do with how we interpret silence and the fact that we're even trying to use a principal of "interpreting silence" at all. We simply don't need to in my opinion. I don't see an example of it being done. I don't see an instruction to do it. I certainly don't see some default position (ie: silence prohibits) being taught, enforced or even exercised anywhere in scripture and that I think is at the very heart of our disagreements on this matter.

I'll come back to address the rest of your post including the scriptures you've provided to make your case shortly.

Peace
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Splayd

Just some guy
Apr 19, 2006
2,547
1,033
52
✟8,071.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Bible is not silent about its own silence. It tells us how to interpret its own silence. Consider this quote:
OK. I guess this is the crux of the issue in a lot of ways. If I understand your point you are saying that scripture presents a definitive default for interpreting it's silence. I disagree. I don't think it even attempts to address the issue of "interpreting silence". I got excited for a moment though. When you said that scripture does tell us and then offered a quote, I assumed it was going to be the quote from scripture that would tell us how to interpret silence. Instead it was an extrabiblical authority. Not that I have a problem with others offering commentary at all, but I just thought you were going to offer support for your statement.

Anyway - let's consider the scripture you have offered.

The Bible says of itself that it is complete, as we have seen in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, by it we are equipped for every good work. There is nothing lacking. It is perfect. It tells us that "whatever is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23) and "Test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thess 5:21). In addition we are told, "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17)
Alright; let's examine these more carefully. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are suggesting that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 indicates that "The Bible" is a complete and perfect volume. Am I reading to much into your interpretation? I find it ironic that this passage is often used to support the idea of NT-only authority, because there was no such thing as the NT when it was written. Let's look at it:

2Ti 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Of course it's true. ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God. At the time of writing that basically just meant the OT, but we both agree that it necessarily includes subsequent scripture. What's more interesting it that some would determine that it REALLY means everything BUT what was considered scripture by the writer. I also find it confusing that you would refer to this passage as an appeal for our bible being a complete and perfect volume. Now I'm inclined to believe it is, but that's not what the writer is saying. Our bible didn't exist then. In fact, I don't see that the concept of a complete and perfect volume of scripture even existed then. If it did, then it was the Septuagint which contains books we reject and doesn't contain books we accept. Surely if the passage does in fact refer to a compiled volume of scripture it would refer to the one in use at the time and not the one compiled hundreds of years later. Of course I don't think it is at all. I just think it's saying what it can be seen to be saying: ALL scripture is inspired by God. As such it can teach and correct etc... that we might be perfected.

Moving along... let's look at 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

I agree with you that we test all things by considering them in the light of scripture. Again I find it curious that some would only consider it valid if tested against the NT though, given that this was written prior to the NT. The reader at the time could really only test against the OT and the things they'd been taught. The other thing I find interesting is that many of us aren't testing things by looking at what scripture actually says. Some test things by considering what scripture doesn't say OR even more intriguingly they ignore what some parts of scripture say and focus instead on what other parts of scripture don't say :confused:. Doesn't exactly sound like proving anything, especially when one considers that the part they ignore is the exact same part the writer would have used for proving and the part that contains the "silence" was even written yet.

Romans 10:17 does indeed say that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Context is interesting here. The passage is about the need to preach the gospel. Essentially it's saying that we need to tell people about Jesus because they won't have faith unless they hear God's word in the first place. Your understanding is dependant on your understanding of 2 Timothy as discussed earlier in this post.

The inclusion of Romans 14 for your argument is an interesting one.

Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Context seems to have been completely overlooked to find a convenient prooftext for your conclusion which followed. It's even more intriguing that it might be used for an argument that silence prohibits when one considers the preceding verse.

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.

Finally, let's consider your conclusion.
a Faith comes from God's word
b Whatever is not of faith is sin.
c Therefore whatever does not come from God's word is sin.
Forgive me for adding the red letters. I did that for convenience. You are saying that a + b = c and I disagree. It's poor logic to assume as much, though I understand how you did.

a)You've equated God's word directly with the text of the NT, demanding a 100% correlation. Now it is true that the NT only contains God's word, but it isn't true that God's word is only contained in the NT. Without that direct correlation the argument falls apart. Further, you've made the statement an exhaustive one. ie: Faith ONLY comes from the text of the NT. That's another flaw in your understanding. People had faith before it was written and people can have faith without ever hearing the exact words of the NT. Of course they'll have to hear of the things it contains to have faith in Christ, but they don't need to hear the exact words to have faith. Those who were asked to preach the word in the correlating passage didn't even have the exact words yet.

The rest of the argument needn't even be considered if a) isn't an exclusive statement specifically about the NT because one is no longer compelled to reach the conclusion you do.

I'll get back to more later. I realise I'm writing a fairly lengthy response, so I'll take a break.

Peace
 
Upvote 0

AJB4

Senior Veteran
Sep 21, 2006
2,989
92
New Zealand
✟11,180.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
To a degree, perhaps silence does equal a command of God, but y'all must admit: We apply it rather selfishly.

The Bible may be silent about many things, but does that mean that all things the Bible is silent about are prohibited? If everything the Bible was silent about equaled a command of God, then there would be many things we couldn't do that we do every day without even realizing.

For example, we couldn't drink coffee, tea, or energy drinks. The Bible is silent about those. We couldn't even be typing on this forum now, because the Bible doesn't say we can. Most things we ever do, the Bible is silent about.

I'm not saying we can't respect the silence of scripture, but where do you draw the line where you stop applying it? Even those who most diligently respect the silence of scripture, whether they realize it or not, only practice it to some self-set degree.
 
Upvote 0

- DRA -

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2004
3,560
96
Texas
✟4,218.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To a degree, perhaps silence does equal a command of God, but y'all must admit: We apply it rather selfishly.

The Bible may be silent about many things, but does that mean that all things the Bible is silent about are prohibited? If everything the Bible was silent about equaled a command of God, then there would be many things we couldn't do that we do every day without even realizing.

For example, we couldn't drink coffee, tea, or energy drinks. The Bible is silent about those. We couldn't even be typing on this forum now, because the Bible doesn't say we can. Most things we ever do, the Bible is silent about.

I'm not saying we can't respect the silence of scripture, but where do you draw the line where you stop applying it? Even those who most diligently respect the silence of scripture, whether they realize it or not, only practice it to some self-set degree.

Take the example of priests from Levi that we have been discussing in Hebrews 7:13-17; 8:4. Priests from Levi were specified. God was silent about priests from Judah. Therefore, were they authorized? No. Only priests from Levi were authorized under the law of Moses - because God specifically said so.

On the other hand, sometimes things are authorized by God in a general way. Take the command to "go" in Matthew 28:19. What the disciples were to go with was specified - the gospel (i.e. Mark 16:15-16, which is a paralled passage), but the means of travel was not specified. Therefore, when gospel preachers traveled to preach, we find them using the various means of travel available to them (e.g. running in Acts 8:30; riding in a chariot in Acts 8:31,36; and sailing in a ship in Acts 13:4). In the same way, "preach" (2 Tim. 4:2) or "teach" (Matt. 28:19) are generic commands with no particular means/method of teaching specified. Therefore, we have authority for teaching the gospel today using the means available to us.

In summary, when God specifies what He wants, then we must do specifically what He said. However, when God gives a general command, then we must still obey Him, but we have more options available to us. Either way, we must have authority from God to do what we do (i.e. Colossians 3:17).

Is this approach "selfish?" I don't see it as such. I see it respecting what God's word says - "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1 Peter 4:11a).
 
Upvote 0

Splayd

Just some guy
Apr 19, 2006
2,547
1,033
52
✟8,071.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As I see it, "silence" could equate to a command IF and only if the reference is both exhaustive and explicit.

This is something I believe to be true generally, not just within scripture... BUT if something is both exhaustive and explicit, there's no need to "interpret silence".

Consider the examples provided by RefrusRevlis:

I am a Grade 3 teacher (true) and getting my students to make posters on the 5 food groups.
I could make a few statements about how I wanted the students to colour in the poster. I could say:


1 "You may not use felt-tip markers on your poster" I have prohibited their use. It is unauthorised to use them.


2 "You may use felt-tip markers to colour your poster" It is understood that this is not a requirement, but permission only. Their use is authorised.


3 "You must use felt tip markers to colour your poster" Tells us that the students, are obliged (commanded) use the specified, but equally as important, they are not by this specification prohibited from using other colourants in addition to the specified markers, unless it is understood that my silence on the matter prohibits. Felt tip markers are not only permitted, but also required.


4 "You must only use felt tip markers to colour your poster" Tells us quite clearly there can be so substituting of a different colourant, nor can their be any additional colourant used.


It is important to note that how silence is to be interpreted varies; in some circumstances it permits, and in some it does not.
*Red numbering is mine.

RefrusRevlis addressed the other things to an extent, but primarily focused on how the statements affected the use of felt tip markers... But they weren't the things he was silent about. Rather - he was silent about things such as crayons, coloured pencils, paint etc... Now - of the 4 statements only one was both exhaustive and explicit. Can you pick which one? Let's examine them one at a time.

1) While it's clear that we can't use felt tip pens, we're left to determine whether or not we can use crayons or pencils etc... Of the 4 statements it would seem to be the most permissive and may even appear to some to actually permit their use (as they aren't specifically prohibited) but it really doesn't. This isn't an exhaustive scenario. Other information is needed if one is to be certain of what else is or isn't permissible. eg: If a student proceeded to get a can of spray paint from their bag and start using it on the poster I imagine that would be problematic even though it wasn't addressed specifically ;)

2) This statement is ambigious when it comes to the use of the "others". By itself it neither prohibits nor permits, though most would lean towards an understanding of permissiveness generally, the same sort or disclaimers from 1 would be apparent. Further, the context would need to be considered to be certain of the extent of the permission.

3) As noted already by RefrusRevlis, this statement (which may appear to some to prohibit) doesn't satisfactorily address the use of the "others". It isn't exhaustive and the things which this statement is silent about need to be considered in light of the context and other previous statements. Even then, it's possible that the matter hasn't yet been appropriately addressed and further information may be required to be certain.

4) This is it!!! This is the only statement which is both exhaustive and explicit. As such it really isn't silent about the "others" at all. The use of the qualifier "only" in the statement necessarily addresses the "others". In mathematics we'd call them the complement of felt tip markers. "ONLY USE felt tip markers" directly and necessarily equates to "DO NOT USE anything other that felt tip markers". There's simply no silence to consider as all scenario's are covered. Of course there still may be a need for clarification regarding the definitions of the items and the terms, but that's another matter.

If we're honest about this issue, the only real area where disagreement appears in when scripture makes statements like #3. Those who use the "silence prohibits" argument don't apply it to scenarios like #1 and #2 and those who don't agree with the "silence prohibits" argument don't recognise #4 to be an issue of silence anyway.

NOW - IF context provides the additional information for #3 type statements there's no issue. Likewise, if we're given a default position for statements like #3 there also wouldn't be an issue... although the provision of a default position essentially means there isn't really any silence to consider. The closest thing I've seen to a "default position" isn't "silence prohibits" though. I haven't seen that anywhere, in any form, ever. Nope. The closest thing I've found is when Paul says that all things are permitted though not all things benefit. Hmmmm.... Still - I'm not about to insist that the default understanding is that "silence permits".

This also addresses the "apparent" softening of my position on the gopherwood. Truth is - statements like #3 (which the gopherwood scenario is) are often understood to prohibit... but don't necessarily do so. SO, while I acknowledge that as the common understanding, I also appreciate that it's a speculated understanding. ie: If we later (eg:chatting with Noah in heaven :)) find out that the ark was actually made from gopherwood AND pine (in places) then I can appreciate that while the statement was never in error, my understanding was. That's the full extent of my specualtion and subsequently my potential error if I'm wrong. If, on the other hand, I have determined that my understanding is necessarily correct, I won't be able to accept that information and my understanding of the statement has been elevated above the statement itself. Further, any conclusions based on the first conclusion are also necessarily in error.

Peace
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JDIBe

Senior Member
Oct 3, 2006
1,029
71
Midland, TX
✟9,039.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Here is a principle I have found helpful. I throw it out there for everyone's benefit.

Silence is "prohibitive" if....

1. That in question is opposite, or leads one in a different direction from that which is commanded.

2. That in question hinders the performance of that which is commanded.
 
Upvote 0