Next to this one is the "If the Bible is silent on a subject, we should be, too" line. On the surface that one sounds quite reasonable. And, to be honest, for the most part it is. But, just like Jesus's silence on some subjects, just because the Bible is silent on some subjects is not a reason to conclude that it's okay (let alone, as some allege, blessed by God).
There are a few considerations to take into account on subjects on which the Bible is silent. Sometimes the Bible is silent because there is nothing to say. Take, for instance, circular squares. The Bible is silent on that subject, so it must be perfectly okay to have circular squares, right? And, of course, that's just silly. The Bible is silent on circular squares because they don't exist. The Bible nothing to say on anything that doesn't exist.
Sometimes a specific isn't mentioned because the principle involved is already taken care of. For instance, there isn't a word in the Bible about speeding. Thus, we can rightly conclude that it's perfectly okay to speed ... well, as long as you don't get caught, right? But the fact is that the principle behind this concept is covered.
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment (Rom 13:1-2).This covers a multitude of things the Bible doesn't talk about. Is it okay to smoke marijuana? The Bible doesn't say. But it is illegal (in this country, at least), so there's your answer. How about if I cheat on my taxes? The Bible doesn't say I can't cheat on my taxes. No, but the authority that God has established says it's illegal, so the Bible is not exactly "silent" on the issue even though it is not specifically mentioned.
Here's another example. No one can argue that the Bible directly addresses abortion. It's not in there. It does, however, address the sanctity of life and the sin of murder. So just because there is no verse that says "Thou shalt not abort your baby" does not mean that the Bible is silent on the topic.
There are certainly things on which the Bible is actually silent. Is it a sin to watch TV? The Bible doesn't say. There are considerations (wasted time, perhaps, or sinful content, certainly), but a blanket "It's a sin to watch TV" is not in there. There is a lot of room for Christian Liberty that gets closed up by well-meaning but misguided Christians falling into the trap of Eve. (God said not to eat of the tree, but she said not to touch it.) I remember hearing about "no dancing" and "no movies" and "no card playing" because it might be misconstrued. But the Bible says no such thing, and on these things we might be better of remaining silent ourselves.
The most recent one I've heard is "The Bible is silent on gay marriage." Seriously? You want to stand on that? I mean, certainly there is no mention of "gay marriage" in the Bible. (Well, actually I think there were some happy weddings, but ...) Does that mean that this falls into that third category -- let's keep silent on it? I don't think so. First, the Bible has nothing to say on "same sex marriage" because the Bible defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. As such, it wouldn't comment on two people of the same gender marrying, the marriage of a man and his dog, or any other such nonsense. It doesn't exist. Second, the Bible is not unclear on its views on homosexual behavior. Argue if you want, but it cannot be said that the Bible is silent on "a man lying with a man as with a woman" (and vice versa). So the activity is a sin. Now, would I anticipate that the Bible would need to explicitly forbid a man marrying a man? No. It falls outside the definition of "marry" and it falls within the definition of sin. I wouldn't expect the Bible to talk about a man marrying his dog, either, for both of the same reasons.
This whole "The Bible is silent" issue seems to me to be disingenuous most of the time. On one hand, there is so much about which the Bible is not silent that one has to ask, "Are you doing those?" So many people ask, "What is God's will for my life?" Too often the answers are ignored. It's God's will that you do justly, that you love your neighbor, that you love mercy, that you love God ... tell you what; when you get all that done, we'll get back to your question. Far too often the ones touting "The Bible is silent on ..." are ignoring what the Bible does say. On the other hand, in most cases that I hear "The Bible is silent" I find that the Bible really isn't silent and the goal is not to rightly determine what God wants, but to simply legitimize a pet sin. Are we really limited to the exact words of the Bible? Is our real goal to obey to the minimum level? Are we afraid that we might end up, in the final analysis, obeying too much? I don't get that at all.
6 comments:
Stan,
What have you been reading anyway? I have no comment on your post, I believe your last couple of statements really get to the heart of the issue.
"Are we really limited to the exact words of the Bible? Is our real goal to obey to the minimum level? Are we afraid that we might end up, in the final analysis, obeying too much?"
Do you have a copy of C.S. Lewis' Christian Reflections? There is an essay of his in there called "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism" that does a great job of addressing this and similar issues.
This sounds alot like Bibliolatry to me, through the back door yes, but still.
Yes, that is almost always disingenuous on their part. My response to the claims that "Jesus never mentioned divorce / homosexuality / etc." is typically this: Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy, Jesus inspired all scripture, He supported the Old Testament law to the last letter, the "red letters" weren't silent on these topics in the sense that they reiterated what marriage and murder were, He emphasized many other important issues that these liberal theologians completely ignore (Hell, his divinity, his exclusivity, etc.), He was equally "silent" on issues that these folks treat as having the utmost importance (capital punishment, war, welfare, universal health care, etc.), He didn't specifically mention child abuse and other obvious sins though that wouldn't justify them, and abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren't hot topics for 1st century Jews.
Yes, we ALL know, friends, that arguing from silence is a logical fallacy. For instance, it is a logical fallacy to argue from silence that gay marriage is right. It is a logical fallacy to argue from silence that gay marriage is wrong. Both are logical fallacies.
Fortunately for at least me and my friends, I know of no one making that argument from silence.
What we DO do, though, is point out the argument from silence on the other side (gently, hopefully). Because we are concerned about following God's will and striving to glean some understanding from the Bible, we want to be sure NOT to make the argument, for instance, that when the Bible says "men shall not lay with men," that we strive to understand it contextually and not argue from silence that this is a condemnation of ALL gay behavior if the text does not support that conclusion.
That WOULD be a logical fallacy.
So, when you draw conclusions like this...
So the activity is a sin. Now, would I anticipate that the Bible would need to explicitly forbid a man marrying a man?
You are jumping the gun, you are begging the question (another logical fallacy). Reading "men shall not lay with men, if they do, kill 'em" and deciding that is a passage applicable to all people in all settings rather than a specific message to specific people about a specific set of circumstances is arguing from silence. It is presuming that your cultural presupposition (all homosexual behavior) is supported in the Bible because "obviously" that passage MUST be universally applied.
What we are ALL trying to do (and obviously, sometimes, Dan, sometimes Stan, sometimes ALL of us will fail) is read the Bible AND use our God given reasoning AND pray for wisdom, seeking to find God's will.
DOES that passage mean ALL gay behavior at all times in all cultures, or is it more specific? The text does not say. We have researched it, studied it, prayed over it and come to different conclusions.
It happens.
We just need to (seems to me) be gracious towards our brothers when we have perceived that they have come to a mistaken conclusion on a topic not covered in the Bible (like the conclusion that gay marriage is wrong or that all homosexual behavior is wrong), praying for wisdom for one another.
Yes?
Well, now, Dan (Trabue), let's be honest here. I wrote this post after several repeated comments from you and yours on other blogs that said exactly this. You have often said things like "It's not in Scripture" followed by "God blesses it". You have often said, "I know of no biblical reason to say ..." when you do know the reason ... you just disagree. (For instance, I know the biblical reason for infant baptism. I just disagree.)
Dan Trabue: "DOES that passage mean ALL gay behavior at all times in all cultures, or is it more specific? The text does not say."
I think you had the Leviticus passage in mind (which, by the way, is in amongst a pile of general, sexual sins like adultery, incest, and bestiality -- I suppose, if you're consistent, you'd have to admit, then, that those things are only wrong for "specific people" in "a specific set of circumstances" and not everybody). Actually, I was thinking about the Romans passage which is a generic description of the decline of Man ... so, yes, I can't conclude anything but "that is a passage applicable to all people in all settings" ... you know, except perhaps for those who either are not people or are not part of Mankind. Unless you're going to require some textual statement that says, "This is applicable to all people at all times" (which doesn't exist anywhere), I don't see any other possibility. Nor do most arguing in favor of homosexual behavior. They just discard it because that was Paul -- you know, a misogynist and a bit hot headed. Not someone to really heed.
Indeed. Dan and his fellow enablers and activists begin their argument from silence for sure and then find ways to make Scripture conform to their preferred point of view. The argument from silence is their anchor, the basis upon which their foolishness rests. But first, of course, they must work over what IS in Scripture in a manner that leaves open the possibility that homosex marriage might be permissable. Create enough doubt in the minds of those who do not have better and more accurate interpretations and explanations, and you can then make the argument from silence work for you. Fortunately, there are enough honest and objective scholars out there to make mincemeat of the enablers' inane attempts to subvert the Word.
For example (allow me the one digression, please), I posted a link to an article in the comments section of my last blog post (loved your recent comments there, BTW, Stan). It was a good find as a result of a link of Dan's that he thought helped his case (but actually helped my position at least equally well). From that link I found a far better explanation for the Levitical prohibitions that do indeed deny ANY form of homosex behavior. (I was going to paste it here, but it is too long. I'll do it at my blog instead.)
The point, though, is that if one wishes to create an argument from silence, one does need some known principle under which the argument could could be covered. Jeremy tried to make that case at my blog as well (I thought he did a great job of it, too.) as Stan has made it here.
Post a Comment