“Not Forbidden” is Our Authority Now?
Quote: Everything must
begin with truth. Truth is the foundation of all things. Suppose we substitute
the converse, “not false”, which is a valid definition of “true.” If the thing
between them (or the question between us) is not false or not forbidden, then
continue to the next step. If it is false or untrue, then stop.-Unquote !
(Max Ray)
TB: Everything must begin with truth, and truth is foundational. Truth is complete as well. So, we do not necessarily look for what is “not forbidden” but for what is “not approved”. If it is approved, then continue to the next step. If it has not been approved by any statement, command, or example, then it is not part of the “all truth” God wanted to reveal (John 16:13). Thus, even things that are not forbidden must be proven to be approved. I can give my daughter a grocery list. If she starts picking up things on the basis that I did not forbid that item, my bill will be larger than I was planning on and I will not be pleased with her approach to my authority (expressed in the list). She knows that the list is for the things that I approved. How should she look at the authority of my will expressed in the grocery list? Should she buy all that I did not forbid? Or, does she buy only what she knows I approved?
I believe our brother commits a fundamental error in his
view above. He thinks that in order for
a thing to be “false” it has to be specifically forbidden. That allows him all
kind of room to bring into the church things that are not authorized, but not
forbidden. Such things as kitchens and gyms and instrumental music are not
specifically forbidden. Perhaps you
could also bring in new offices or leaders for the church such as a presiding
bishop over a diocese of churches. After all, once you open the door by saying “not
forbidden” you have opened the door to anything and everything that is not
specifically forbidden. That is how you
reason to the position of Pope and Cardinals. “Not forbidden” and therefore don’t
object unless it is specifically forbidden.
There is a serious flaw to this way of thinking. It is not a new approach. It has been around
a long time.
Jefferson David Tant observed: These questions rose early in
the church, as Tertullian (ca. 150-222) wrote of those who claimed that “the
thing which is not forbidden is freely permitted.” Tertullian responded with,
“I should rather say that what has not been freely allowed is forbidden.”
In the Reformation
There were
differences in the approach to the Scriptures by the Reformists Martin Luther
(1483-1546) and Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531). In his early reformist years,
Luther wrote, “Whatever is without the word of God is, by that very fact,
against God.” He based this upon Deuteronomy 4:2: “You shall not add to the
word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the
commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you.” In later years Luther
changed his view, stating, “What is not against Scripture is for Scripture, and
Scripture for it.” The Swiss Zwingli taught that practices “not enjoined or
taught in the New Testament should be unconditionally rejected.”
Luther’s view won the day, and his looser interpretation
became the preferred practice as denominations developed and proliferated. If
Zwingli’s view had been preferred, then the history of the religious world
might be quite different. But Luther lived 15 years longer than Zwingli, and
thus had a longer period of influence. Zwingli suffered an untimely death after
a Protestant pastor was captured by a Catholic group, tried for heresy and
sentenced to be burned. The Protestant Zurich government declared war against
the Catholics, and in a subsequent battle, Zwingli was serving as a chaplain
when he was wounded and died. It was October 10, 1531. http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/BiblicalAuthorityAndTheSilenceOfTheScriptures.html
Think how this view has evolved the Roman Catholic Church
with icons and relics that are not specifically forbidden and new offices that
were not specifically forbidden. Think of infant baptism. Does scripture forbid
it? When you think about this approach to authority, was Cain’s offering
forbidden? Was the fire used by Nadab
and Abihu forbidden? The oxcart on which
David put the ark to bring it home from the Philistine territory was not
specifically forbidden. Yet, none of these approaches fit the standard of
authority enjoined by God’s word. The
question we should be asking is: “Does the scriptures approve it?”
The Word of God enjoins upon us the responsibility to “prove
what IS acceptable”(Rom.12:2; Eph.5:11; 1 Thess.5:21). It does not enjoin upon us the responsibility
to “prove what IS NOT acceptable to the Lord”.
There is a huge difference between those two ideas.
Our brother has started down the same path that brought
about the apostasy that developed the Roman Catholic Church, and that kind of thinking has endorsed every
major denomination of the Protestant Reformation movement. It is a step in the wrong direction. He talked about how the two women at Philippi
could come to unity of faith, but it was not for one of the sisters to yield to
a practice of the other sister unless she could show it was a practice that was
forbidden. A better example would have
been an appeal to the issue of circumcision in Acts 15. If they had thought in terms of asking if it
is “forbidden”, then it was not forbidden.
They asked another question instead:
Was it positively taught in the original teaching of the apostles? If not, then it was not to be imposed on the
church. It is automatically forbidden as
a matter to impose on others if the apostles did not teach it. Brethren need to take heed to the fruit of
this kind of teaching. “Prove what IS
acceptable to the Lord”. If you can’t
prove it first, then refrain from it. That is what is “true”. The two women would work out their
differences by putting Jesus first and behaving themselves under that authority
and peace. That is what we must do too.
Terry W. Benton
