Guarding the Silences of the Bible.

[12strings]

A Quote, a question, and a Link.

QUOTE, From Connected Christianity, a book by Arturo G Azurdia III:

"The moral person lives by a self-determined definition of right and wrong and delights to impose it on other people...The holy person yields to the Word of God as the final authority, which, in turn compels him to guard the silences of the Bible and, therefore, honor the freedoms these allow among those who serve the same Savior."


QUESTION: What biblical interpretational principles can we use to say that something is right or wrong, especially when we are making a pronouncement about something that we believe is a sin for all people, but that thing is not specifically stated as such in scripture? (areas for discussion might included movies, music, alcohol, dancing, tattoos, caffiene, dress styles...)


LINK: Here's what I believe to be a good example of someone guarding the silences of scripture on a particular topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0xz2KKYZV4

 

[Bronconagurski]

A Quote, a question, and a Link.

QUOTE, From Connected Christianity, a book by Arturo G Azurdia III:

"The moral person lives by a self-determined definition of right and wrong and delights to impose it on other people...The holy person yields to the Word of God as the final authority, which, in turn compels him to guard the silences of the Bible and, therefore, honor the freedoms these allow among those who serve the same Savior."


QUESTION: What biblical interpretational principles can we use to say that something is right or wrong, especially when we are making a pronouncement about something that we believe is a sin for all people, but that thing is not specifically stated as such in scripture? (areas for discussion might included movies, music, alcohol, dancing, tattoos, caffiene, dress styles...)


LINK: Here's what I believe to be a good example of someone guarding the silences of scripture on a particular topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0xz2KKYZV4

Well, I am pretty sure that dancing naked into the movies with Black Sabbath eminating from a boom box around your neck that is covering your nazi symbol tattoos after drinking 12 cups of Irish coffee would be taboo.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[12strings]

Well, I am pretty sure that dancing naked into the movies with Black Sabbath eminating from a boom box around your neck that is covering your nazi symbol tattoos after drinking 12 cups of Irish coffee would be taboo.:smilewinkgrin:

WHAT???!!! Irish coffee has all four major food groups: sugar, fat, alcohol, & caffeine...everything the body needs.

 

[Bronconagurski]

A Quote, a question, and a Link.

QUOTE, From Connected Christianity, a book by Arturo G Azurdia III:

"The moral person lives by a self-determined definition of right and wrong and delights to impose it on other people...The holy person yields to the Word of God as the final authority, which, in turn compels him to guard the silences of the Bible and, therefore, honor the freedoms these allow among those who serve the same Savior."


QUESTION: What biblical interpretational principles can we use to say that something is right or wrong, especially when we are making a pronouncement about something that we believe is a sin for all people, but that thing is not specifically stated as such in scripture? (areas for discussion might included movies, music, alcohol, dancing, tattoos, caffiene, dress styles...)


LINK: Here's what I believe to be a good example of someone guarding the silences of scripture on a particular topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0xz2KKYZV4

On a more serious note, I presume the weaker brother rules would apply to some of these. The scripture doesn't forbid you to drink alcohol if you don't get drunk, but don't tempt someone that thinks it is a sin to do so by drinking around that person. Then there is the scripture that tells us if we allow something in our life that is not by faith, then we commit sin. If I perceive drinking to be a sin to me, then it is a sin if I drink.

 

[humblethinker]

On a more serious note, I presume the weaker brother rules would apply to some of these. The scripture doesn't forbid you to drink alcohol if you don't get drunk, but don't tempt someone that thinks it is a sin to do so by drinking around that person. Then there is the scripture that tells us if we allow something in our life that is not by faith, then we commit sin. If I perceive drinking to be a sin to me, then it is a sin if I drink.

So, the point should be, imo, not so much a question of "Is this a sin" but an action of living forward in faith and all the while seeking to preserve and grow relationships.

 

[Bronconagurski]

So, the point should be, imo, not so much a question of "Is this a sin" but an action of living forward in faith and all the while seeking to preserve and grow relationships.

You are correct, sir. Well said. We have two main responsibilities: vertically toward God and horizontally toward mankind.

 

[mont974x4]

we always seem to assume it is the weaker brother struggling to not be a drunk. What about the weaker brother being the one struggling with legalism?


My general rule of them is let God draw the lines. When He clearly says something is a sin, like being a drunk or being sexually immoral then we can stand on the line He draws. When He chose to not draw the line, but rather gave us freedom (Col 2 and Rom 14 for example) then I encourage people to prayerfully read the Word and ask God to form your own convictions. I am not so inclined to force my convictions on others in areas of freedom.

One thing that seems to greatly impact how we handle these things is the mistaken idea that Christianity is an American religion.

 

[mont974x4]

On a more serious note, I presume the weaker brother rules would apply to some of these. The scripture doesn't forbid you to drink alcohol if you don't get drunk, but don't tempt someone that thinks it is a sin to do so by drinking around that person. Then there is the scripture that tells us if we allow something in our life that is not by faith, then we commit sin. If I perceive drinking to be a sin to me, then it is a sin if I drink.

Conversely if your abstaining is not of faith, then your abstinence is sin.


I heard someone else, I think it was Matthew West, say (roughly..cuz my memory aint what it once was) that the NT standard taught by Christ is more difficult to live out than the OT Law. The reason is that it is not a list we can look at at check off. We cannot really love God and love people by looking at a list. We have to know them. We have to know if they enjoy a cold microbrew after cutting the grass on a hot day or if they struggle with alcohol addiction. We have to know if they can watch certain movies or play certain games. We have to know if they struggle with gossip, or shoplifting, or have a temper.

 

[webdog]

On a more serious note, I presume the weaker brother rules would apply to some of these. The scripture doesn't forbid you to drink alcohol if you don't get drunk, but don't tempt someone that thinks it is a sin to do so by drinking around that person. Then there is the scripture that tells us if we allow something in our life that is not by faith, then we commit sin. If I perceive drinking to be a sin to me, then it is a sin if I drink.

I hear this argument a lot, but i think that statement (concerning eating meat offered to idols) is misused when dealing with alcohol which is not only spoken of in a positive manner (unlike offering to idols) but considered a blessing at times, not having it a curse at times, and the outright permitance to partake in others. If someone doesn't feel righ about eating something offered to a false god, thats one thing...but to hold onto extrabiblical "sins' of man is another.

In the case of alcohol abstinence is not the answer, education on what the Bible says and not mans tradition is. If they would rather hold to mans teaching over God's, it is on them at that point.

 

[Bronconagurski]

I hear this argument a lot, but i think that statement (concerning eating meat offered to idols) is misused when dealing with alcohol which is not only spoken of in a positive manner (unlike offering to idols) but considered a blessing at times, not having it a curse at times, and the outright permitance to partake in others. If someone doesn't feel righ about eating something offered to a false god, thats one thing...but to hold onto extrabiblical "sins' of man is another.

In the case of alcohol abstinence is not the answer, education on what the Bible says and not mans tradition is. If they would rather hold to mans teaching over God's, it is on them at that point.

Oh, so you are not your brother's keeper. :tear: How can you get around the fact that anything means anything?

Romans 14:21 (ESV)
21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.

 

[humblethinker]

we always seem to assume it is the weaker brother struggling to not be a drunk. What about the weaker brother being the one struggling with legalism?


My general rule of them is let God draw the lines. When He clearly says something is a sin, like being a drunk or being sexually immoral then we can stand on the line He draws. When He chose to not draw the line, but rather gave us freedom (Col 2 and Rom 14 for example) then I encourage people to prayerfully read the Word and ask God to form your own convictions. I am not so inclined to force my convictions on others in areas of freedom.

One thing that seems to greatly impact how we handle these things is the mistaken idea that Christianity is an American religion.

Amen amen and amen... Now where is that thumbs up icon on my phone ...

 

[webdog]

Oh, so you are not your brother's keeper. :tear: How can you get around the fact that anything means anything?

Romans 14:21 (ESV)
21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.

Define stumble.

 

[Bronconagurski]

Define stumble.

The NIV says to make your brother fall. The point is that you cause him to stumble by doing something he considers sin. So, you cause him to sin. Isn't that something? One thing can be a sin to one person, but not to another.

 

[webdog]

The NIV says to make your brother fall. The point is that you cause him to stumble by doing something he considers sin. So, you cause him to sin. Isn't that something? One thing can be a sin to one person, but not to another.

What do verses 3, 19 andd 22 say? The weaker brother also has the responsibility to shed that term.

 

[Bronconagurski]

What do verses 3, 19 andd 22 say? The weaker brother also has the responsibility to shed that term.

I understand there is mutual responsibility, but the weaker brother needs to be educated by those who are spiritually stronger. It takes time, just like it does with children. Not everyone grows at the same rate. Once we know something might make someone stumble, then we shouldn't do that around them. Away from them is fine. Some people grow up in legalism and have not been taught any different. They may have been saved for years, but are still babes, not able to handle meat.

 

[Tom Butler]

QUESTION: What biblical interpretational principles can we use to say that something is right or wrong, especially when we are making a pronouncement about something that we believe is a sin for all people, but that thing is not specifically stated as such in scripture? (areas for discussion might included movies, music, alcohol, dancing, tattoos, caffiene, dress styles...)

I'll single out one of those you mentioned.

The scriptures are not silent about tattoos. Leviticus 19:28

[FONT=Arial, helvetica]Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
[/FONT]

One webpage I visited said this, quoting a respected theologian:

[FONT=Arial, helvetica]In Lev. 19:28 we find two prohibitions of an unnatural disfigurement of the body: 'Ye shall not make any cutting in your flesh for the dead, nor any print any marks upon you.' The latter (Heb. qa aqa, incision) refers to tattooing, and has no reference to idolatrous usages, but was intended to inculcate upon the Israelietes a proper reverence for God's creation."
(Merrill F. Unger, Unger's Bible Dictionary, 1974 ed., p. 696) [/FONT]

I do admit that I don't find any mention of movies in the Bible. Or caffeine.

 

[12strings]

I'll single out one of those you mentioned.

The scriptures are not silent about tattoos. Leviticus 19:28

Tom, Did you follow the YouTube Link? Here's the he points too:


Leviticus 19:26 “You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes.

--> So if you eat a medium rare steak, you are in sin?

v.27 You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.

--> If you get a close haircut, you are in sin?

v.28 You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord.

--> These were specifically "for the dead", as in thinking these cuts and marks were somehow suffering vicariously for their dead relatives. If these apply to NT believers, should not piercings (including ears) also be forbidden?

also, if we want to take it very literally, it does not even single out PERMANENT MARKS, so temporary tattoos are out too, as is the hand-stamp you get that lets you back into the theme park...and drawing a smiley face on your thumb to amuse your 2-year old son!

 

[webdog]

,

Tom, Did you follow the YouTube Link? Here's the he points too:


Leviticus 19:26 ?“You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes.

--> So if you eat a medium rare steak, you are in sin?

v.27 You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.

--> If you get a close haircut, you are in sin?

v.28 You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord.

--> These were specifically "for the dead", as in thinking these cuts and marks were somehow suffering vicariously for their dead relatives. If these apply to NT believers, should not piercings (including ears) also be forbidden?

also, if we want to take it very literally, it does not even single out PERMANENT MARKS, so temporary tattoos are out too, as is the hand-stamp you get that lets you back into the theme park...and drawing a smiley face on your thumb to amuse your 2-year old son!

Good post :thumbs: My cross tattoo was not done for the dead...He is very much alive!,,

 

[Tom Butler]

Oooh, no hand-stamps at the amusement parks? No smiley faces on the thumb? Interesting take.

 

[ktn4eg]

FWIW, I still remember what one of the deacons of the IFB of which I was a member from 1969-72 [Faith BC, Sellersville, PA; the late {and, to me, great}, David Auckland, Pastor] told me about his own personal practice re: drinking beer with family/friends.

To better understand this deacon's rationale for his personal practice on this, one needs to understand his cultural background.

This deacon was born, reared, and born again in Sweden.

There, as in many European cultures, drinking a glass of beer following a fine meal is an accepted practice, even among dedicated and sincere followers of Our Lord Jesus Christ (much the same as drinking a cup of coffee following a meal would be to to many of us here in the US).

What was this deacon's personal practice?

When he was in Sweden (or in other Scandinavian countries) either on a business trip (He owned/operated a small chain of Scandinavian furniture stores in the mid-Atlantic region.), and/or to visit his relatives (who, like he, were dedicated Christians) /friends, he saw nothing wrong in joining with them as they all drank a glass of beer after a fine meal--oftentimes during which they'd discuss various biblical views regarding different subjects of interest.

At no time did any of the individuals consume enough beer such that would cause any of them to be drunk. They were all simply engaging in a commonly accepted practice (even by dedicated Christians) in that particular culture. That deacon never once considered what he did while in that particular culture to be casting a stumbling block for a "weaker" brother.

OTOH, that same deacon would never drink a glass of beer here in the US. Why not, you ask?

Because in most particular cultures here in the US, for that deacon of an IFB church to drink a glass of beer, in the US would, in most cases, be to cast a stumbling block.

Now, I'm sure that somebody, somewhere here would crititcize that deacon for being inconsistent with regards to his personal practice of drinking (or not drinking) a glass of beer following a meal.

I, for one, am not one of those critics.