The Regulative Principle in Interpretation: When is Silence Prohibitive?
The regulative principle presents several
difficult questions for serious Biblical interpreters. The purpose here is to discuss the
possibilities and difficulties of the question, “When is silence
prohibitive?” One of the difficulties
of trying to answer this question has to do with the numerous traditions and
diverse backgrounds of many Christians today.
Some may come to faith from an orthodox or Catholic background, some
Lutheran, or some perhaps from the Churches of Christ, Christian Churches, or
some other tradition whose attempt is to restore primitive New Testament
Christianity in its practice and theology.
The regulative principle bears many
intricacies of its own. As stated in
the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1648;
"The whole counsel of
God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith,
and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary
consequence may be deduced from the Scripture:
unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new
revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men" (I.6).
It is in this context that the
question, “When is silence prohibitive?” should be asked. My background in the non-institutional
churches of Christ had a very specific answer to this question. I remember many sermons and lessons that
left the thought emblazoned in my mind, “silence is not permission.” I vividly remember one sermon that I took
very detailed notes on in one of my Bibles.
The bottom line on this topic is that to state that “silence is not
permission”, or to simply ask the question “When is silence prohibitive?”
requires a lot of background information.
An article by Larry Fain of Watchman
Magazine summarizes the attitude of some of the non-institutional churches of
Christ when he states that, in regard to silence in the scripture, “Legitimate
biblical support is not always necessary if they can frame an authority search
by appealing to negative authority, what the Bible does not say.” He continues, “We ought to be asking,
"Where does it say in the Bible that I can?"[1] Many scholars hold the same position in
regard to the discussion of silence in the scripture. One must consider, however, that an approach that asks these
questions and makes these statements is reminiscent of an attitude which only
sees scripture as a pattern that must be rigidly followed in exact measure and
specific example. This is the method I
was exposed to expressly throughout my first 20-25 years in churches of
Christ.
The method of establishing Biblical
authority is vitally important in our day as well as it was in the early days
of Christianity. However, there are
many variables – both then and now – that must be considered in a discussion of
hermeneutical approach and the role of silence in scripture. Was scripture, and specifically the New
Testament regarded as the one and only method of establishing authority for
practice in the first and second centuries?
What role did the acquisition of canonical books play in established
authority of the day? Did silence then,
or now immediately assume condemnation or prohibition of any action, as some
would state today? All of these
questions are superficial to the real issues surrounding the role of silence in
the regulative principle.
Richard Hughes alludes to the
difficulty in the restoration hermeneutical methods when he mentions F. LaGard
Smith’s book, The Cultural Church. In
his thoughts, Smith’s reaction to Michael Casey’s narrative approach to
interpreting scripture was a knee-jerk to the politically correct move to deal
with women’s roles.[2] Silence has remained a hairy monster in
hermeneutics for generations. Woody
Woodrow made a great observation when he quoted Benjamin Franklin, the 19th
century restoration movement pioneer, on opposite sides of the silence question
within himself.[3] In his balanced article, Woodrow
demonstrates how many restoration leaders were on both sides of this question,
and in fact saw the dilemma of silence not a question to be on sides of; but as
merely a dramatic pause in the rhetoric of scripture that must be dealt with
theologically. Franklin opposed infant
baptism when the scriptures were silent in regard to it, basing his logic on
the theological principles that more importantly negate the baptism of
individuals with no level of faith.
Franklin also defended the building of public church buildings and
meeting houses, based on the argument that the silence of scripture in these
matters reflects “divine authority is silent in regard to them.”[4]
Don Juel’s thoughts on the silence of
scripture are conveyed in part that, “The concept of language as a force acting
on the world, rather than as a series of signs to be deciphered, accounts for
the absence of specificity in ancient descriptions of literary response.”[5] He continues along the lines of silence
merely being an accidental left by the Holy Spirit for the purpose of all times
and cultures being able to interpret them as they see fit. That these instances with a lack of
specificity are merely reminiscent of the different culture and understood
context of that time by the readers is understood to Juel.
Leroy Garrett observed,
“First of
all, I am at a loss to see how there can be a hermeneutics of silence, for
there has to be something said before there can be an interpretation of what is
said. One may as well speak of "The Geography of Nowhere" or
"The Physics of Nothing" as to speak of the hermeneutics of silence.
Hermeneutics has to do with meaning and nothing more, and how can one make
meaning out of nothing?[6]
How can
silence be authoritative in itself?
Does silence enforce anything itself, or is it simply… silence? Silence is used in a very careful way in an
article on Slavery, by Thomas Campbell when he said,
“Upon the
whole, with respect to American slavery, wherever distinguished
by any inhuman and antichristian adjuncts, by any unnatural, immoral, and
irreligious usages, we may justly and reasonably conclude that as Christianity and
truly moralized humanity prevail, it must and will go down; and that, in these
respects, no Christian can either approve or practice it.”[7]
If the
church is to condemn all things on the basis of whether or not the scriptures
provide a “thus says the Lord” then the church must all relinquish views
condemning slavery. The scripture is
not silent in regards to slavery, nor is it condemning of it by nature. In fact Paul’s instruction to slaves and
masters proves quite to the contrary.
In condemnation, or at least disapproval of some thing on a scriptural
authoritarian basis, silence must never be used as a definitive tool to condemn
unless it clearly implies it throughout other passages and theological
constructs in the scripture. Was Thomas
Campbell right? Perhaps he was, and
certainly it seems that his logic is rock solid on this point. Remembering that this statement was written
twenty years before the Civil War should remind us that his opinions were
well-studied and based on solid theology and rationality, not closed,
oversimplified condemnation of an act based on the scripture’s silence toward
it.
Again, in another statement by Thomas
Campbell around 1845, the following statement shows his thoughts regarding the
silence of scripture:
That with
respect to the commands and ordinances of our Lord Jesus Christ, where the
scriptures are silent, as to the express time or manner of performance, if any
such there be; no human authority has power to interfere, in order to supply
the supposed deficiency, by making laws for the church; nor can anything more
be required of Christians in such cases, but only that they so observe
these commands and ordinances, as will evidently answer the declared and obvious end of their institution. Much less has any human authority
power to impose new commands or ordinances upon the church, which our Lord
Jesus Christ has not enjoined. Nothing ought to be received into the faith or
worship of the church; or be made a term of communion amongst Christians, that
is not as old as the New Testament.”[8]
William Webb presents a great case for
the silence of scripture in his book; and while discussing homosexuality he
makes a valid point about the silence of scripture. For the creation account to say nothing about abstinence in the
creation, but to imply that it is acceptable is one thing; but to say that
silence regarding homosexuality from the creation narrative implies acceptance
of the homosexual lifestyle is completely another, requiring a considerable
leap in logic.[9] Yet there are some who would state that the
silence of scripture in the case of homosexuality implies it is approved of
God, even though numerous scriptural texts refute this rationale. He continues the point about homosexuality
with the texts about David and Jonathan, and Ruth and Naomi, two classic
examples where the pro-homosexual movement would advocate scriptural
precedent. He uses the text of 2 Samuel
1:26, “I grieve for you, Jonathan, my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more
wonderful than that of women.” Several
issues exist here, in regard to scriptures silence. In the near-eastern cultures, both then and now, embracing,
weeping together and kissing were standard customs among heterosexual males.[10] The relationship between David and Jonathan
had been tested numerous times, ending ultimately with Jonathan casting his lot
with his friend David, over his father Saul.
This text, while clearly wording David’s love for Jonathan, demonstrates
the cultural impact and the stress David was going through at the time. A recognition not of sexual satisfaction
between the two, but merely the devotion and true brotherly dependence they
shared with each other.
Continuing with the theme of the
pro-homosexual use of silence in scripture, the example of Ruth and Naomi is
often used. While similar dependence
and love phrases are used in this example from Ruth 1, clearly Naomi tried to
discourage Ruth from coming to be with her.
She also played somewhat of a matchmaker between Ruth and Boaz, and
shows her joy when they web at the end of the book; the marriage “fills up” the
empty and bitter Naomi.[11] Silence must be kept in concert with the
ultimate meaning of scripture, and while the argument of scripture’s static
nature may be strong, it must be understood that the static nature of scripture
in its context does not reveal a different God or different morality than we
have today. In this case, silence
demands deeper cultural study.
Ultimately, we must maintain a “Da Sein” perspective, that is, being
“there/here” shows our understanding of culture in its original setting, and
applying the principle to our here and now.[12]
Silence has been abused repeatedly by
the misapplication of principles through the dogmatic approach of silence being
condemnation. This is demonstrated all
over the religious world, specifically noted in this instance in an article on
Marriage, Divorce and Fellowship, by Bob Waldron.
“Therefore,
if a couple were living in adultery before they became Christians, and they lived
in exactly the same relationship after becoming Christians, the reason escapes
me why they would not still be in adultery.
A church would have no choice but to reprove them. If they would not give up their adulterous
relationship, the church would have to put the wicked couple away.”[13]
The example above shows a type of
assumption made by many in extremely conservative circles. Assumption is one of the most dangerous and
abused tools of the student of hermeneutics in this case. While Jesus does not mention this situation
in any of his instructions in Matthew 5 or Matthew 19, he does make a blanket
statement about any man who would marry a woman who is put away. The scripture never states that a man or
woman must now renounce his spouse, now that he has become a Christian and been
washed in the blood of Christ. While
this situation is difficult, it is also a situation that demonstrates not only
an assumption made by many about the silence of Jesus’ interpretation here, but
it is demonstrative of a more general attitude that regards scripture as a book
of laws and each chapter and verse a legal manifesto, irrespective of its
cultural setting or other passages in scripture.
Richard Hughes documents this type of
hermeneutical approach, by referring to the Baconian nature of many brothers’
interpretation of scripture. He remarks
that many in the Non-Institutional movement in churches of Christ “rendered the
Scripture indiscriminatingly flat and binding on every point.”[14] This is also clearly upheld in the writing
of Larry Fain, when he states, “The language required to gain approval by
silence is overwhelming. Nowhere in the realm of human communication do we seek
or gain approval by silence. God’s chosen means of communication is His word,
not His silence.”[15] While this paper is not meant to demonstrate
differences within sects of the church of Christ, it is intended to demonstrate
the broad perspective of understanding on the issue of the silence of
scripture.
A few examples of the application of silence
in a positive way is the building of buildings, houses of worship,
participation in ministries, sharing in the works of other congregations. While there is much discussion between
groups whether any or all of these activities are rightly to be shared in by
Christians in different places, the point is that Scripture’s silent treatment
of each of these examples leave a point to be discussed and decided upon by
local elderships. No one would deny
that “do not forsake the assembling of yourselves together” in Hebrews implies
that there must be a place to meet together.
The silence of scripture in regard to the building of buildings to meet
in is one example where the regulative principle is assumed. The silence here implies freedom.
The Lord’s Supper is never addressed in
any specific way other than on the first day of the week, and yet much
discussion has abound over the approved days or methods of partaking of that
memorial feast. Everett Ferguson stated
that, “both theologically and sociologically, the Lord’s supper was the central
act of the weekly assemblies of the early church.”[16] While there is no specific command in the
scripture to observe the supper on the Lord’s day, the examples imply that was
the only time that the early church took the supper together. Silence in regard to this church practice
might mean freedom to partake of the supper any time, but the examples in
scripture, and the documentation by the early church seemed to exemplify only
Sunday observance of this memorial feast.
There is one unique principle regarding
grace that has not yet been discussed.
In the example of Hezekiah’s Passover in 2 Chronicles 30, Hezekiah
clearly violated something that was not only silent, but specifically commanded
in Numbers 9. It seems that in our
discussion of the dogmatic to passive nature of the role of silence in
interpretation – we have overlooked an all-important principle that Hezekiah
came to understand. The unclean people
of 2 Chronicles 30 were not in the right to eat the Passover, and yet because
of the heart of their leader, Hezekiah, God overlooked the abuse of this great
feast. Not only was it overlooked, but
Hezekiah prayed for God’s “abounding loving-kindness” and God “heard Hezekiah
and healed the people.” (2 Chron.
30:19-20) This example should keep us
in touch with the motive of pure interpretation. God desires mercy over sacrifice. This example should not disregard the efforts of conscientious
interpreters to remain true to the word and the legal commandments of it, but
the motive of the heart must be first obedient and centered on God to interpret
scripture in a holy way.[17]
Eugene Boring summarizes the opinion of
J.D. Thomas and the hermeneutic of churches of Christ when he refers to
Thomas’s work; “the meaning of the Bible is clear… differing interpretations
are not the inevitable result of fallible human subjectivity, but are a matter
of ‘laziness, wishful thinking, personal prejudice, stubborn will, lack of
humility, lack of teachableness, emotional bias, vested interest (such as
employment) faulty logic, honesty in dealing with facts and evidence, lack of
scientific authority,… ‘ and so on.[18] Basically, Boring believes that “pattern
authority” – of which “silence is always prohibitive” proponents come – must
mean that whoever doesn’t practice this type of interpretation are lazy, dumb,
or simply ignorant of the truths of God.
Allan McNicol summarizes his perspective in an
article on the Lord’s supper. It is in
the context of his exposition of 1 Corinthians 11 and the abuses of the supper
in which he states, “Unfortunately,
many Churches of Christ today approximate the situation described in 1
Corinthians 11:29. We do not discern
the body when the words and actions at the table bear faint resemblance to the
ancient rite. We must foster respect
for the apostolic tradition about the Supper and be ready to correct our
practices.”[19] It is in this way that many churches today
miss the boat in the importance of doing solid theology. McNicol accurately observes that churches of
Christ today are often in the same situation of not discerning the body
rightly.
All too often, what seems to occur is an
intellectual idiocy of what the cultural context must be in light of the
comments by the Biblical authors. We
take Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians or the Galatians as having meaning
and application for us as also, and without batting an eye, often we just
basically ignore the true intent of the Apostle’s teaching. Clark Pinnock has observed that often we are
guilty of “exegetical malpractice.”[20] He continues that, “We must
stop pretending it is an easy matter to retrieve biblical answers to modem
questions from the Bible… What does the Bible teach about gender roles, about
wealth and poverty, about violence, about capital punishment, about
predestination? Is it not all too common to find people using the Bible as a
weapon in their own particular cause quite irresponsibly?”[21]
A
number of abuses have taken place in attempts to explain the situation in
Corinth in chapter 11. But over the
years, there have also been many interpretations that totally miss the scope of
the Corinthian situation. In the
conservative traditions in which I grew up, the patternistic view of the text
demanded that it was unscriptural to “eat in the meeting house”. Silence in the scripture about the agape
love feast caused considerable confusion over the meaning of the “drunk” and
“hungry” comments because the scripture could not possibly be allowing for some
sort of meal in the taking of the supper.
Further, “drunk” implied something other than Welch’s grape juice for
the communion, and we “know” the Lord’s church did not use alcoholic wine; or
at least this was the deep set conviction of many. However, upon further examination of the Greco-Roman history, it
is evident that the Corinthians were utilizing a format very similar to the
historical “saturnalia”, a meal set in the context of an exemplified social
structure of the day. Rick Oster
pointed out that the cultural context of the Corinthian letter must be
understood in light of believers who in most cases were no more than 48 months
old as Christians.[22]
For
a culture 2000 years later to assume the text of that day means that we cannot
eat food in the church building assumes a number of things. It demonstrates a scientific Baconian level
of deduction which makes out the Corinthian supper as a modern pinch and sip of
the supper that we observe today.
Granted, this has been the evolution from something greater, to something
simple and succinct that can be included as a small organized fashion. More than this, it assumes they were in
church buildings, which almost certainly there were none yet at this time. The social structure of the Corinthian
society was fashioned around the table and the triclinium, a three-sided table
in a dining room of the Roman villa, in which a host would graciously show his
hospitality to guests.[23] For conservative church of Christ scholars
to assume that instruction like this was so shallow as to address the mere
consumption of food in the meetinghouse is a stretch. Much more likely, is that the church was caught up into its own
culture and not distinguishing between its social strata and its spiritual strata. The same distinctions remained in the church
that were present in society, and the same behaviors remained; the rich
consuming to excess, and the poor, literally arriving later, remaining hungry
while his brother in Christ has already consumed until drunkenness.
Another
example of the presumptuous methods of interpretation of some is the position
of Mike Willis in his Corinthians commentary; concerning the “have you not
houses to eat and drink in” instruction, “He is not only condemning the refusal
of the rich to share with the poor, he is forbidding altogether the practice of
eating a common meal at the public assembly.”[24] This does not fit with the context and
demonstrates a lack of cultural understanding of the day.
Walter Brueggemann aptly observed that,
“Interpretation is not the reiteration of the text but, rather, the movement of
the text beyond itself in fresh, often formerly unuttered ways.”[25] The role of silence in interpretation must
certainly be a movement beyond the text alone.
There are far too many students of the scripture who have said that the
Bible is sufficient alone, irrespective of other influences. If this is the case, what happens when the
scripture does not specifically address something occurring in our
society? What of women’s roles, drug
addictions, internet pornography, and gay marriage? Ultimately, if we do not move beyond the text, our interpretive
methods are reduced to the inductive method and science.
John Lankford, and evangelist in Fort
Smith, Arkansas has posted the following on his website,
“If there
is no mention of a teaching or practice, then this "raw
silence" by itself proves nothing. For example, the
"silence" of the New Testament on the topic of Purgatory is used to
both prove and condemn it. It "cuts both ways." In another case,
infant baptism has been both affirmed and denied based on the mere non-mention
of the practice in the New Testament. Any historian/lawyer will testify that a
case cannot be made on just mere silence without any positive
testimony to accompany it. Only "silence-in-context" is
significant. That is, if all the statements point toward a specific conclusion,
this will shed light on what is not stated. For example, when
all the New Testament information is collected on baptism together with early
Christian testimony (e.g., Didache, late 1st century), it points
toward the conclusion that immersion was normative. As such, the silence of the
New Testament on other modes (e.g., sprinkling, pouring) is
"explained." Here what is SAID allows for an accurate
understanding of the silence.”[26]
So when is silence prohibitive? The bottom line on the issue of silence in
interpretation of scripture seems to be this: to be rational, fair, and honest,
silence may neither be prohibitive, nor permissive in and of itself. Silence is a hairy animal that must be taken
into the context of any given set of verses, and it must not be loaded with
unfair ammunition for those with an agenda to promote or prevent. The fact that we live in a time when the
arguments over Biblical interpretation should remind us that more than ever, we
must be accurate when we exegete, and accurate when we apply that exegesis of
Scripture. The silence of Scripture
must be taken as silence, not as an implication in and of itself. If there is silence on any given topic, is
it for a reason? Was it
inadvertent? Was the silence left
because in the days of the New Testament certain things were just never
considered issues? All of these are
great questions, but the underlying challenge of hermeneutics is to
appropriately apply scripture in its own cultural sphere and bring it forward
to apply accurately to the things that concern us as well.
Works Cited
Boring, M.
Eugene. Disciples and the Bible,
Chalice Press; St. Louis, MO, 1997.
Brueggemann,
Walter. “Biblical Authority”. Text
found entirely online at www.religion-online.org.
Campbell,
Thomas. “Elder Thomas Campbell’s Views
on Slavery” in Millennial Harbinger, II, January, 1945.
Campbell,
Thomas. “Interpretation of the
Scriptures” in Great Pioneer Papers,
assimilated
by Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, and Dr. Robert
Richardson, 1945.
Fain,
Larry. “Silence Never Authorizes”, in
Watchman Magazine; http://www.watchmanmag.com/0610/061018.htm
Ferguson,
Everett. The Church of Christ: and
Biblical Ecclesiology for Today, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1996.
Garrett,
Leroy. “Is There a Heremeneutics of
Silence?” in Restoration Review
29: 3, March 1987.
Hicks, John
Mark, & Greg Taylor. Down in the River to Pray:
Revisioning Baptism as God’s Transforming Work, Leafwood Publishers, Siloam Springs, AR,
2004.
https://drewellisfamily.tripod.com/supper.htm
Hughes,
Richard. Reviving the Ancient Faith,
Eerdmans:
Grand
Rapids, MI., 1996.
Juel,
Donald. “The Strange Silence of the
Bible,” in
Interpretation
n51v1, January, 1997.
Lankford, John.
“A Closer Look at the Silence of
Scripture”,
posted entirely at
http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/evidences/silence.htm.
McNicol, Allan. “The Lord’s
Supper As Hermeneutical Clue:
A Proposal on Theological Method for Churches of
Christ,” Christian Studies 11.1 (Fall
1990), 41-54.
Oster, Jr.,
Richard E. “I Corinthians”, in the
College
Press
NIV Commentary, College Press; Joplin, MO, 1995.
Pinnock,
Clark. “How I Use the Bible in Doing
Theology”.
Smith, James K.
A. The Fall of Interpretation,
Intervarsity
Press, Downers Grove, IL, 2000.
Waldron,
Bob. “Marriage, Divorce and Fellowship”
in Is It
Lawful? A Comprehensive
Study of Divorce, ed.
Dennis Allan and Gary Fisher, 1989, Fisher Publications, LaGrange, KY.
Webb, William
J. Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals:
Exploring
the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis, Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL,
2001, 131-132.
Willis,
Mike. First Corinthians in
Truth Commentaries.
Guardian
of Truth; Bowling Green, Kentucky, 1994.
Woodrow, Woody. “The
Silence of Scripture and the
Restoration Movement”, in Restoration
Quarterly, 28.1,
1985/1986.
[1] Larry Fain, “Silence Never Authorizes”, in Watchman
Magazine; http://www.watchmanmag.com/0610/061018.htm
[2] Richard Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith,
Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI., 373-374.
[3] Woody Woodrow, “The Silence of
Scripture and the Restoration Movement”, in Restoration Quarterly, 28.1,
1985/1986, 27-39.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Donald Juel, “The Strange Silence of the Bible,” in Interpretation
n51v1, January, 1997.
[7] Thomas Campbell, “Elder Thomas Campbell’s Views on Slavery”
in Millennial Harbinger, II, January, 1945.
[8] Thomas Campbell, “Interpretation of the Scriptures” in Great
Pioneer Papers, assimilated by Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell, Walter
Scott, and Dr. Robert Richardson, 1945.
[9] William J. Webb, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals:
Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis, Intervarsity Press,
Downers Grove, IL, 2001, 131-132.
[10] Webb, 102.
[11] Webb, 103.
[12] James K. A. Smith, The Fall of Interpretation,
Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 2000, 89. Smith continues to advocate a hermeneutic of Da Sein throughout
the book; demonstrating the importance of situatedness of examples in
scripture. He contrasts this theory with
the ideas of Heidegger and Jacques Derrida.
[13] Bob Waldron, “Marriage, Divorce and Fellowship”, in Is It Lawful? A Comprehensive Study of Divorce, ed. Dennis Allan and Gary
Fisher, 1989, Fisher Publications, LaGrange, KY, 434-435.
[14] Hughes, 226.
[15] Larry Fain, “Silence Never Authorizes”, in The Divine
Hermeneutics, Watchman Magazine, http://www.watchmanmag.com/0610/061018.htm.
[16] Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ: and Biblical
Ecclesiology for Today, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1996, 249.
[17] John Mark Hicks & Greg Taylor, Down in the River to
Pray: Revisioning Baptism as God’s Transforming Work, Leafwood Publishers,
Siloam Springs, AR, 2004, 186-189.
[18] Eugene Boring, Disciples and the Bible, Chalice
Press; St. Louis, MO, 1997, 285-287.
Boring makes some assumptions in his interpretation of these church of
Christ authors, but by in large summarizes well the approach by church of
Christ theologians of the 20th century.
[19] Allan McNicol, “The
Lord’s Supper As Hermeneutical Clue: A
Proposal on Theological Method for Churches of Christ,” Christian Studies 11.1 (Fall 1990), 41-54.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Richard E. Oster, Jr., “I Corinthians”, in the College Press
NIV Commentary, College Press; Joplin, MO, 1995, 23.
[24] Mike Willis, First Corinthians in Truth Commentaries,
Guardian of Truth; Bowling Green, Kentucky, 1994, 323.
[25] Walter Brueggemann, “Biblical Authority”, text found
entirely online at www.religion-online.org.
[26] John Lankford, “A Closer Look at the Silence of Scripture”,
posted entirely at http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/evidences/silence.htm.