• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
The Silence of the Scriptures
From a book entitled A Short History of Christianity by Stephen Tomkins I quote asfollows: "The basic difference between Zwingli and Luther was in their attitudes to theBible. Zwingli saw it as a precise blueprint for church life. For Luther, what is notforbidden is permitted; for Zwingli, what is not permitted is forbidden." (page 141) BothZwingli and Luther lived in the Age of Reformation often called the ProtestantReformation and both men were leading figures in its beginnings. The subject of thisarticle is the issue that separated Luther from Zwingli, namely, the silence of thescriptures. Does the silence of the scriptures on a practice permit that practice or forbidit?This can only be answered by an appeal to the scriptures to which we will go but beforedoing so it would be good to make the point that many have answered this question without an appeal to scripture at all. The Roman Catholic Church is not concerned with what the scriptures say. Authority with the Catholic Church resides in the church itself,their church, not in scripture. There is no need for anyone to get mad over me sayingthis. It is established fact. Their church doctrine overrides scripture. Where does onefind in scripture the idea of praying to dead saints just as an example? I have got time. Ican wait but it is certain I will be dead before you find the passage teaching such in yourNew Testament. When one takes the position Luther took one cannot complain too much, and beconsistent, about wild innovations in the church. If what is not forbidden is permittedthen pretty much anything goes. In searching the internet I actually came upon achurch site that has a "music and arts" page. The page states that this church "has along tradition of outstanding musical worship and offers a variety of musicalopportunities for those who would like to share their talents as an offering through
musical worship. …musicians celebrate the Lord with voice, instruments and drama."
 Can you imagine in your wildest imagination Peter or Paul acting in a dramaperformance and that in a worship service?But that is but the tip of the iceberg. Type into your Google search engine the words"experiential worship ideas" and do some research. You will be amazed. Here are somethings I found that are not just ideas but things actually being done. Tattoo stationsduring communion where people would get a black cross put on their hand or wrist tosymbolize their decision to become bondslaves of Christ, repentance windows duringcommunion where you would write your name on a board as a confession of your sinand then have it pronounced that your sins were forgiven and your name would beerased from the board, gift flags made during worship to symbolize your desire to offer your gifts to God, and on and on it goes. The fantasies of men dreaming up ways to worship God the way that pleases and satisfies them seems to be endless, anything andeverything the mind of man can imagine. As I said earlier research it on your own.But what do the scriptures teach for those desiring to know? If there was only onepassage one could use to settle this debate as it relates to worship it would be for meJohn 4:24, "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
 
(NKJV) It is easy to overlook a very important word in this passage, the word "must."That means neither you nor me have any choice in the matter. It is we "must." It is theonly worship God will accept, that which is in spirit and truth, or else the word "must" isa word without meaning. We know what is meant when we are told we must worship in spirit and I think all areagreed about the meaning of that part of the passage. That leaves only the word truthand the question about that only revolves around the meaning of the word "truth" itself.Pilate asked the question of Jesus, "What is truth?" (John 18:38 NKJV) Had he of listened carefully to what Jesus told him just prior to his question and would have believed what Jesus said he would not have needed to ask the question. Hear Jesus inthe verse just prior to verse 38, "
You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I wasborn, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to thetruth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice
." (John 18:37 NKJV)Now let me ask a question about what Jesus said when he said he had come into the world to bear witness to the truth. How did he do that? Could he have done it withoutspeech? Let me develop this thought. The Bible teaches the purpose of miracles was toconfirm the word spoken that it was from God (read Mark 16:20 and Heb. 2:1-4). Jesus was once confronted by a group of Jews who demanded of him an answer to a questionthey had as follows:"
 How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesusanswered them, 'I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father'sname, they bear witness of Me
.'" (John 10:24-25 NKJV) Jesus' works (miracles)confirmed his word that he was not only who he said he was but that he spoke words of truth.Hear Jesus again, "
 For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father whosent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak
." (John 12:49NKJV) Jesus came into the world to bear witness to the truth but that could not be done by miracles alone without words or speech. Miracles cannot confirm words that are notspoken. Jesus' bearing witness to the truth involved both delivering truth and thenconfirming it via miracles. "
Truth came through Jesus Christ 
." (John 1:17 NKJV) Whatever Jesus spoke was "truth." In prayer to the Father Jesus said in John 17:17,"
Your word is truth
." (NKJV) The words Jesus spoke, whatever, wherever, to whomever were truth. He spoke the words the Father had given him.To worship in truth then involves worshipping by the word of God. That means, and itseems so obvious that I do not see how men overlook it, that if there is no word fromGod there is no truth in matters religious. If God has not spoken on a practice how doesman practice that thing, whatever it be, and say he is worshipping in truth?There is such a thing as the teachings of men. Listen to Jesus again, "
 Hypocrites! Well 
did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: …'And in vain they worship Me, T 
eaching asdoctrines the commandments of men
.' " (Matt. 15:7-9 NKJV) Paul says in Titus we areto not give heed "
to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from thetruth
." (Titus 1:14 NKJV) A worship practice that does not have a precise
 
commandment from God (book, chapter, and verse for it) is a commandment of men, aninvention of men, and is certainly not worship in truth for if it was then clearly book,chapter, and verse could be provided.Now I know many are with Luther on this
—
if a practice or act is not specifically forbidden then it is permitted. If he was right then truth does not matter and one can onhis own authority, manmade and man given, institute worship according to one's liking.I said I would provide more than this one argument from scripture. Paul's rebuke of theCorinthians regarding the Lord's Supper provides further evidence that what is notallowed is prohibited. The Corinthians had been taught about the Lord's Supper or elsethey would not have been observing it in any manner, correctly or incorrectly.Furthermore, Paul comes right out and tells us they had been taught when he says, "ForI received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you." (1 Cor. 11:23 NKJV) That ispast tense. Since he had last met with them they had obviously made some changes inthe way they were observing the supper. I ask the question
—
on whose authority didthey do so? Some like to think today that little changes make no difference. Whodecides how little a thing is--man or God?Now someone might object to what I have just written and say it is a bad argument for itis a subject about which there is no silence of the scripture. The scripture speaks. So itdoes but note the principle Paul is establishing. He is telling the Corinthians do what you are told to do in scripture via inspiration and do not make changes or additions orsubtractions. To do so is to change the word of God and is to go outside of truth forone's worship.In the book of Deuteronomy we find Moses addressing the children of Israel acting as,as he was, God's spokesperson. Hear what he has to say, "
You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
" (Deut. 4:2 NKJV) Upon what evidence do youthink that principle has changed today? Do you think that today God does not mind usadding to his word or taking away from it? I can assure you it did not change withregards to what is contained in the book of Revelation. "
 For I testify to everyone whohears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away fromthe words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of  Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book
." (Rev.22:18-19 NKJV)If these passages do not teach one must remain inside the pages of scripture I do notknow what they teach. That being the case the silence of the scriptures prohibits ratherthan frees one to act as he pleases. Luther was wrong; Zwingli was right. What thescriptures do not permit they prohibit. One is not free to add to scripture. We recognize the principle of silence being prohibitive in human wills and legaldocuments. Why do we not recognize the same principle in the last will and testamentof our Lord and Savior? What was left out of that will was left out for a reason.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...