Specifically allowed vs not probibited

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ClayPot

Puritan Board Sophomore
As Christians, are we morally free to do what is not prohibited in the bible or are we only allowed to do what is specifically allowed or commanded by God?

e.g., contraception. It is not specifically forbidden, but it is also not specifically allowed. May I use it while not sinning.

e.g., pesticides. If I am a Christian farmer, may I use pesticides? This is not specifically forbidden or allowed in the Bible.

e.g., insurance. May I obtain auto insurance? Sure, it's commanded by the law (at least in my state), but is it allowed by God? We are not commanded to get insurance. We are not forbidden to get insurance.

Thoughts?
 
The Regulative Principle is usually applied to the sphere of Worship, not every facet of human life. I assume you are asking this based questions from on the Contraceptive thread. It is obvious that every potential modern human device or activity could not be specifically anticipated or addressed by Scripture. So, In my humble opinion, the latter two of your examples above are absurd.

In everything we should seek to honor the Lord. Hence we are to apply biblical principles and godly wisdom in any decision.
 
It depends on what setting you're speaking of:

1.) If you are speaking of worship, then yes, we need a warrant for what we do, since instituted worship is (by nature) a positive thing, and therefore needs a positive command.

2.) When it comes to the rest of life, we are governed normatively by the law of God, the principles of which law were explained clearly to us by Christ, and he confirmed them by his example (and by the examples of his godly servants in scripture). So to use your three examples:
a.) Contraception. The question asked is not necessarily does scripture say anything directly about contraception, but rather what does the law of God teach about sexuality, family, life and responsibility.
b.) Pesticides. If pesticides help me to grow my plants better and so better fulfill my vocation, then I should consider them; I should also consider whether they would do more harm to me and my neighbor, or even to creation in general. If they will help me to do my work better and so provide better for my family, then prudence suggests I should perhaps use them; if they are harmful to me, my family and my community, then the sixth commandment dictates that I should not use them.
c.) Insurance. Proverbs explains the law of God to demonstrate to us that we are to exercise financial prudence. One does not need scripture to say, "Buy insurance," or "Don't buy insurance," but rather one must consider whether it is more in keeping with godly principles given their current financial capabilities. If, however, the government requires it, then the fifth commandment dictates that we must obey.
 
One other way you might look at this is to try and and determine whether something is:

1) Commandment (to do or not do something)
e.g. "Thou shalt not steal."

2) Principle
e.g. "Borrower is servant to the lender."

3) Conviction (based on your understanding of God's call in your particular life circumstances)
e.g. "I abstain from alcohol because it causes others to stumble."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top