The Second Way To Apply The Silence Of The Scriptures

Colossians 3:17 reads “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.” This verse shows we must have authority for all we do, both religiously and in our personal lives. Since the scriptures furnish us “unto all good works” (II Timothy 3:17), when it comes to how we worship, how the church operates, etc., if the Bible is silent regarding a certain practice, then that practice is not authorized; it isn’t a good work; we shouldn’t do it. For example, since the Bible is silent (specifically and generically) regarding a congregation using its treasury for social or recreational purposes, eating in the church owned building and church gymnasiums are not authorized. This is the way we should apply the silence of the scriptures when talking about authority for our actions. However, when it comes to talking about facts or events, silence works a little differently. If the Bible is silent about a fact or event, then we don’t know if that fact is true or if that event occurred.

The Thief On The Cross

Let me illustrate with the common Baptist argument that the thief on the cross proves we don’t have to be baptized to be saved. This argument is false for a number of different reasons, the main being that the thief lived under a different covenant than we do (Hebrews 9:15-17); new covenant baptism did not apply to him. Beyond that, we should perhaps notice the Baptists are assuming in their argument that the thief was never baptized. It is probably true he wasn’t baptized while on the cross <grin>, but it is very possible he was baptized with John the Baptist’s baptism at a previous time. The Baptist argument assumes the thief was never baptized simply because the scriptures do not tell us that he was. But this is an incorrect way to apply the silence of the scriptures. Since the Bible does not tell us one way or the other if the thief was baptized, then we cannot assume either way. We just have to say we don’t know. The evidence is inconclusive. And we can’t draw a conclusion on a related topic (the necessity of baptism) by assuming one way or the other.

Holy Spirit Baptism

Another example of how the silence of the scriptures is sometimes misapplied is many of our brethren’s contention that we know Holy Spirit baptism is not for today because it was only promised to the apostles, and there are no apostles today. This argument is absurd on the face of it. Since when does me promising my son Heath a gift necessarily prove that my other son Josh will not receive the same gift? We all understand a promise to one or a group does not tell us either way if others will receive the same. And we should have realized this anyway. Cornelius and his household received the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:15-17) even though we have no scriptural record of it having been previously promised to them. Holy Spirit baptism may have only been promised to the apostles, but Cornelius received it, therefore that opens the door for others to receive it also. And assuming we define Holy Spirit baptism as receiving a miraculous measure of the Spirit directly from God, I suggest that Acts 4:31 might just describe another case.

A related false argument for the truth is the contention that the miraculous must have ceased when the last apostle died and the last one the apostles laid hands on died. But this argument ignores the fact that God could have (if He had wanted to) given another person a miraculous measure of the Spirit directly without the apostles’ intervention. Let’s don’t try to put God in a box the scriptures never say He put himself into.

The correct way to prove the miraculous measure of the Spirit and the miraculous gifts have ceased is not to talk about who Holy Spirit baptism was promised to or the laying on of the apostles hands, but to press the only two places in the Bible that tell us the duration of the miraculous, I Corinthians 13:8-13 and Zechariah 13:1-4. I Corinthians 13:8-13 proves the miraculous gifts would cease when the New Testament law was completed. We may not know the exact year that happened, but just picking up a completed Bible in our hand shows us it happened sometime in the past. God does not perform miracles through men’s hands today, but we should only use sound arguments to prove that.

Infant Baptism

Those who advocate infant baptism make essentially the same silence of the scripture mistake as our brethren do on Holy Spirit baptism. They look at a verse like Acts 16:15 which mentions the baptism of Lydia’s household, and assume there were infants in her household, and therefore infants were baptized. Besides ignoring passages like Acts 8:37 which clearly show a person must first be a believer before they are baptized, this argument is unsound because it draws the conclusion there were infants in Lydia’s household simply because the text doesn’t say there was not. Since the Bible doesn’t tell us if infants were in this household, then we cannot assume either way in order to draw a conclusion about the infant baptism issue.

The War Question

Our brethren make the same silence mistake as those contending for infant baptism, when they use Acts 10:1ff and Acts 16:25-36 to try to prove a Christian is authorized to kill for his nation’s military (contradicting many passages, among them Matthew 5:39,43-48 and Romans 12:17-21). It is true enough Cornelius and the Philippian jailer probably held “punitive agent” type jobs before they became Christians, but to assume they kept those jobs with those duties after they repented and became Christians is arguing from the silence of the scriptures. The texts do not tell us either way if they continued as punitive agents, so to assume one way or the other in order to prove a related position is just as invalid as Methodists assuming babies were baptized in Acts 16:15 in order to prove their practice of infant baptism.

Summary

Many other examples could be given. The bottom line is that when we are talking about what a Christian is authorized to do, silence about an activity excludes that activity from being authorized. Facts or events are different though. When the Bible is completely silent about a fact or event, we cannot assume either way about that fact or event in order to prove another assertion to be true. If the Bible does not tell us, then we do not know if a certain fact is true, and we do not know if a certain event has occurred. We must draw no conclusion, and we cannot prove any other position by our unwarranted conclusion.

April 4, 2008

hear Bible Crossfire Sunday nights at 8:00 central on SiriusXM radio Family Talk 131 and 62 local stations across America or at www.BibleCrossfire.com