The above title may not be the official one for the discussion held August 14th-15th in San Antonio. Since brother Conley went on to debate Robert M. Narvaez on August 16th-17th, who knows what the entire procedure will be called? Both opponents are part of a group called Catholic Response, which aggressively defends the Roman Catholic Church. This article will deal only with the first two nights of the debate (since that’s all I was present for).
The focal point in the discussion centered around authority. This issue of authority, how it is properly derived, and how it should be applied is absolutely crucial to correct worship, doctrine, and holy living. There are two main ways to view the subject. Following is a brief description of how it entered the discussion.
The proposition which brother Conley affirmed the first evening was: “The church of which I am a member is the one true church of Christ in which alone is to be found salvation (and which recognizes the Bible as the only authority in faith and practice).” The first overhead chart he used was a quotation from “;Catholic Facts,” Our Sunday Visitor, published in 1927, which read: “If it is not identical in belief, government, and etc. with the primitive church, then it is not the church of Christ.”
Next, he proceeded to show briefly that we are identical with respect to belief (in obeying the gospel) and in government (elders and deacons, autonomy). In his second speech he used a chart showing that the Roman Catholic church is not synonymous with the first century church because they have added a multitude of things, among which were: acolytes, cardinals, popes, nuncios,beads, images, relics, incense, sprinkling, sacraments, the rosary, shrines, crusades, penance, candles, praying to Mary, Lent, ashes, Mass, celibacy, and more. This point is clear to most of us. The Bible does not mention these matters; therefore they are unauthorized (Col. 3:17).
What would Mr. Luther say in defense of having added all those things which were not part of the worship and doctrine of the New Testament? Like his namesake, he said: “THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY that there could not be a pope. The Bible does NOT say that you can not pray to Mary or to dead saints. Who says that infants can not be baptized? THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY IT! Who says the church can not sprinkle as baptism? Who says the church could not be centered in Rome? The Bible does NOT say any of these things. If the Bible does not prohibit it, then we are free to do it.” Are you listening, brethren? This is not a minor point; it is the crux of the matter. Does it remind you of, “The Bible doesn’t say you can’t use mechanical instruments of music”?
In reality, there are only two alternatives: either we need New Testament authorization for what we teach and practice (whether explicit or implicit); or we may feel free to do whatever the New Testament does not specifically forbid. The problem of using mechanical instruments of music has never been the issue ; correctly understanding Biblical authority is the issue. If the demand is made for a specific repudiation of every wild, fanciful idea someone may invent in religion, then everything will be permitted.
“Moses Spoke Nothing”In the first speech of the second evening brother Conley made the point: “What is not taught explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures is implicitly forbidden.” He then illustrated the point with Heb. 7:14–“For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.” The verse applies to the above statement in the following way. God appointed Levites as priests. Implicitly, His appointing members of one tribe excluded men from the other tribes from being priests. Jesus was from the tribe of Judah. He could not be a priest. Why not? Jesus could not be a priest because God had spoken nothing concerning men from Judah being priests. HE DID NOT AUTHORIZE ANYONE FROM ANY OTHER TRIBE TO BE A PRIEST!
But Jesus is a priest, you say. Yes, but for Him to become one, God had to change the law (Heb. 7:12). Jesus could not be a priest under the Law of Moses; it would have violated God’s principles of authority for Him to have made an exception–even for His own beloved Son! Therefore, He changed the law, and Jesus is now a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 7:17). This principle of authority is not something that man dreamed up so that he could amuse himself with entertaining philosophical games, nor was it invented by the restorers of the early nineteenth century: it is God’s own system.
Luther missed the point entirely, saying that David prophesied that Jesus would be after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4); therefore, it was foretold. The reason for citing Heb. 7:14 had nothing to do with whether or not Jesus’ priesthood was foretold (which it was); it was to show how God authorizes. If a doctrine is not taught explicitly (command, direct statement) or implicitly (example, implication), then the practice is implicitly (indirectly, not directly by a “Thou shalt not”) forbidden. In other words, we are responsible for reasoning correctly (drawing the proper conclusions) with the Scriptures.
The question is not, “Where does the Bible say, don’t do it?”; rather, it is, “Where does God authorize it?” The New Testament does not authorize either explicitly or implicitly the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship or any other addition the Catholic Church has incorporated over the centuries. All of the innovations stand or fall together. No one can rightly adopt one out of the group without being stuck with the entire family. The principle taught by Heb. 7:14 is both Divine and (therefore) valid.