If the Bible doesn't forbid it, is it forbidden?

[RamistThomist]

I hear a lot of evangelicals make this argument,
"If the Bible doesn't condemn it, then it necessarily is allowed?"

Something seems fishy about it. If so, what is the critique and what is the alternative?

 

[satz]

I think there are two board ways something can be forbidden by the bible...

Either it is directly forbidden, or it is indirectly forbidden because something opposite is commanded.

Similarly, I think it is necessary to distinguish between situations where God has already addressed something and where he has not. So although the bible never forbids milk and cookies for the Lord's Supper it is forbidden because he said it should be bread and wine. However, he never said anything about what you have for your afternoon tea, so since he never forbade milk and cookies, by all means go for it.

In the end though I think every dilemma has to be examined in light of every possible verse in the bible that might be relevant to it.

 

[bookslover]

...he said it should be bread and wine.

I don't think there's a positive command anywhere in Scripture that bread and wine, specifically, must be used in the Lord's Supper. Rather, Christians use bread and wine (or grape juice) because those are the items which were used by our Lord in the Supper, and so we follow that example. I don't think following that example rises to the level of a command, though.

In some parts of the world, soda pop is used in the Supper because the water is no good and wine is scarce and expensive. I don't believe the Lord has a problem with that.

 

[tcalbrecht]

I hear a lot of evangelicals make this argument,
"If the Bible doesn't condemn it, then it necessarily is allowed?"

Something seems fishy about it. If so, what is the critique and what is the alternative?

Are you speaking of general life issues, or worship? Since you posted to this forum I assume you are speaking of general life issues.

The answer is, whatever is not forbidden is permitted within the framework of verses like Rom. 14:13ff and 1 Cor. 8:12,13. There is also the consideration of the role of the magistrate in setting boundaries for the welfare of the civil community. Even though the Bible does not say “Thou shalt not drive faster than 65 MPH”, if the magistrate says so, it is so. Our liberty in Christ does not give us license to speed.

Just to point out the rules for worship are different. There it is, “whatever is not commanded is forbidden,” aka the regulative principle.

 

[RamistThomist]

I was thinking the general life, not worship.

 

[bwsmith]

I was thinking the general life, not worship.

When the Lord comes back, would He be pleased finding you doing "it," generally?

 

[bob]

Paul uses the phrase that "nature itself" reveals that long hair to a man is shameful. The Scriptures of course specifically address many issues and a solid foundation of biblical principles may address many things indirectly. Other things may be unwise and consequently sinful, even though the Scriptures may not specifically address them, because common sense should prevail in such matters. You ought not allow your children to play on the steep barn roof, for instance.

In regard to law of nature, Barnes remarks:

That which is universal we say is according to nature. It is such as is demanded by the natural sense of fitness among men. Thus we may say that nature demands that the sexes should wear different kinds of dress; that nature demands that the female should be modest and retiring; that nature demands that the toils of the chase, of the field, of war —the duties of office, of government, and of professional life, should be discharged by men. Such are in general the customs the world over; and if any reason is asked for numerous habits that exist in society, no better answer can be given than that nature, as arranged by God, has demanded it.

When it becomes the rage to have an elephant tusk surgically attached to our cheek, the believer should have the good sense to suggest that such a practice ought not be utilized without fear of the rest of Christendom calling him a legalist when he fails to come up with a specific chapter and verse.

 

[RamistThomist]

When the Lord comes back, would He be pleased finding you doing "it," generally?

That's the issue under question. How could you tell? If the Lord came back and saw me drinking a Guinness Extra Stout beer, I think he would be very pleased. But others would not be able to say that. So, how do you tell?

 

[Peter]

That's the issue under question. How could you tell? If the Lord came back and saw me drinking a Guinness Extra Stout beer, I think he would be very pleased. But others would not be able to say that. So, how do you tell?

Why do you drink Guinness Extra Stout beer?

 

[RamistThomist]

Why do you drink Guinness Extra Stout beer?

It tastes good.

 

[Peter]

It tastes good.

Why do you like things that taste good?

 

[bwsmith]

That's the issue under question. How could you tell? If the Lord came back and saw me drinking a Guinness Extra Stout beer, I think he would be very pleased. But others would not be able to say that. So, how do you tell?

The Lord’s pleasure is always the issue, isn’t it. He has shown us, however, what is good and what He requires. (Micah 6:8) Using all the cross-references, we can see a bit of how to please Him who was pleased to show compassion to us.

 

[polemic_turtle]

If others have not your strong sense of being allowed to do "x" because it's not condemned in the Scriptures, then it would be wrong for them to do it, because they do it not in faith( Rom 14:23 ). You, on the other hand, may in some cases be "strong" and sure of the freedom you have under God's law. At least that's my grasp on the issue.