Who Started This "Argument from Silence?"

By Paul Earnhart

The students of John L. Girardeau, professor at Columbia Seminary, South Carolina in the 1880’s, asked him to explain to them why he opposed the use of instrumental music in the worship of the Presbyterian churches. In response, he wrote a book which was published in Richmond, Virginia in 1888. It was titled, “Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church.” Girardeau’s expanded discussion of this subject gives some valuable insights into how men of the Reformed tradition in late 19th century America decided the question of whether or not a practice was pleasing to God.

Girardeau began his discussion with a statement of principle which guided his arguments throughout the book: “A divine warrant is necessary for every element of doctrine, government, and worship in the church; that is, whatsoever in these spheres is not commanded in the Scriptures, either expressly or by good and necessary consequence from their statements is forbidden.”

It may surprise us that a 19th century Presbyterian seminary professor not only understood the “argument from silence,” but used it and felt confident that others would be persuaded by it. I suspect that there has been the feeling on the part of some that those who labored so earnestly in the last century to turn men back to simple New Testament Christianity were the originators of the idea that God’s silence on a matter was equal to a divine prohibition. Clearly, that was not true.

The arguments Professor Girardeau makes will sound very familiar to those of us who have been concerned to “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where it is silent.”

He first says that the prohibitory significance of God’s silence is deducible from 2 Tim. 3:16-17, which affirms that God’s man is fully equipped for “every good work” by the “holy scripture.” Everything therefore not mentioned in the Scripture would not be a “good work.” Sound familiar?

 Girardeau then proceeds to give some biblical statements that verify his principle of silence. Ex. 25:40, “And see that thou make them after their pattern which hath been showed thee in the mount.” Deut. 4:2, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you.” He cites also Deut. 12:32; Prov. 30:5-6; Heb. 8:5; Matt. 15:6; 28:18-20; Col. 2:20-23; 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and Rev. 22:18-19.

In extending his argument further, our Presbyterian professor treats several concrete instances that argue the prohibition of God’s silence. He cites the cases of Cain and his sacrifice, Gen. 4. He mentions Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, Lev. 10:1-3 about which he comments: “But they presumed to add to God’s commandments, exercising their own will in regard of his worship, they did that which he did not command them, and they were instantly killed for their wicked temerity.” He adds the cases of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, Num. 16, Moses’ striking of the rock, Num. 20, Saul’s sacrifice at Gilgal, 1 Sam. 13, Uzzah’s touching of the ark, 1 Chron. 13:7-10, and the presumption of King Uzziah, 2 Chron. 26:16-21.

His arguments are then summarized in the following words: “The mighty principle has thus been established by an appeal to the didactic statements of scripture and to special instances recorded in scriptural history... that whatsoever is not in the Scripture, either explicitly or by good and necessary consequences, is forbidden.”

Girardeau goes on to observe that instrumental music was never used in the worship of Israel without God’s explicit command, 2 Chron. 29:25-26 and, therefore, could not be used in New Testament worship without an explicit New Testament command. He notes that instrumental music was never used in synagogue worship and that Rabbinic literature forbade its use on the Sabbath, save in the Temple.

From the New Testament, Girardeau simply asks, “Did Jesus teach or practice it?” “Did the Apostles teach or practice it?”

From what he writes, it is obvious that this Presbyterian teacher had paid a price for his convictions: “it is easy to see how irrelevant and baseless is the taunt flung by high churchmen, ritualists and latitudinarians of every stripe against the maintainers of the opposite principle, that they are narrow-minded bigots who take delight in insisting upon trivial details. The truth is exactly the other way. The principle upon which this cheap ridicule is cast is simple, broad, majestic. It affirms only the things God has commanded, the institutions and ordinances that he has prescribed, and besides this discharges only a negative office which sweeps away every trifling invention of man’s meretricious fancy.”

The irony is that I first found this old book preserved in the library of a college operated by avowed restorationists who practice the very thing which Girardeau condemns. The book’s card revealed it had lived a quiet life. Who started this “argument from silence?” As nearly as we can determine, God did. &

The Nature of Angels

By Bob Myhan

Angels are higher than men (Heb. 2:5-7), in that they are “greater in power and might” (2 Peter 2:11). However, as “spirits” (Heb. 1:14), they do not have “flesh and bone” bodies.

Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, "Peace to you." But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. And He said to them, "Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." (Luke 24:36-39).

Therefore, they are not subject to physical death and they do not have the ability to procreate.

And Jesus answered and said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” (Luke 20:35-36)

Angels have appeared on earth as men (Gen. 19:1-16; Luke 24:1-4; John 20:11-12; Heb. 13:2), though they are generally invisible to the naked eye (Num. 22:21-31; 2 Kings 6:14-17). Their appearances have been rare, not frequent, and they do not seem ever to have appeared as women or been referred to as “she” or “her.” Poetic descriptions should be taken figuratively, not literally. &

Imputed Righteousness

By Bob Myhan

Does God impute righteousness? If so, what does this mean? Does He transfer the personal righteousness of Christ to an individual who is not righteous?

The idea of the imputation Christ’s personal righteousness to a sinner is part and parcel with Penal Substitution (that theory of the atonement that says the penalty for sin must be paid by a substitute for God to remain just while justifying man). In other words, God cannot justifiably forgive man, we are told, unless the punishment for sin is suffered by a sinless substitute. According to the theory, Jesus is that substitute; our sins were transferred (imputed) to Him and His righteousness was transferred (or imputed) to us. What does the Bible say, if anything, about imputed righteousness?

In Romans 4:1-3, Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 and says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” That is, Abraham was not righteous by virtue of not having sinned but by virtue of believing God. Paul continues by pointing out that David “describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works.”

"Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin." (Rom. 4:7-8; Ps. 32:1-2)

This quotation from the Psalms shows that forgiving lawless deeds, covering sins, and imputing righteousness are equivalent expressions. Thus, imputing righteousness is forgiveness, which is the opposite of imputing sin. Now, the sin God does not impute is the sin the sinner committed. Likewise, the righteousness God does impute is the righteousness that results from the sinner meeting conditions of forgiveness. (1 John 3:7)

When Jesus came to earth, God did not impute men’s trespasses to them (2 Cor. 5:19). However, righteousness is not imputed until one is “reconciled to God” by meeting the conditions of forgiveness (2 Cor. 5:20). &