The COC argument of silence for anything is bizarre to say the least, and graceless Pharicaism at the worst.

I took out the argument about the use of instruments in the temple, because a reader pointed out 2 Chr. 29:25 to me, which says the prophets has authorized the use of instruments in the temple. Oh, well. It was really outside of the Nadab and Abihu discussion anyway.

I also expanded the discussion on their drunkenness by adding the full text of the scripture.

Col 2:22-23 uses ethelothrekeia. Strong's defines it as "voluntary (arbitrary and unwarranted) piety, i.e., sanctimony:–will worship. The context is helpful —

(Col 2:20-23) Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

Notice that Paul is criticizing improper prohibitions — men forbidding that which God hasn't forbidden. Hence, if one were to forbid, for example, the use of instruments when God has not done so, he would be guilty of ethelothrekeia.

Regarding Nadab and Abihu, I just posted an extensive discussion of them, which is, in fact, on this very page. Please consider it carefully. I'm sure you no more want to be guilty of ethelothrekeia than I do.

Regarding Cain, Heb 11:4 distinguishes Abel from Cain based on their faith. Some have used "faith" to mean following commands, but this is the same faith that is described in the immediately preceding verse this way–

(Heb 11:3) By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

If someone were to sing a cappella without faith, his singing would be no more pleasing to God than the sacrifice offered by Cain. Right? This is the same author who writes,

(Heb 10:4) [I]t is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

The writer is NOT saying Abel was approved because he sacrificed an animal or even the right animal. That would be exactly contrary to the theme of the entire book. The writer's argument is that Abel was approved because of his faith, just as we will be.

Just 2 verses later he says,

(Heb 11:6) And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

This is what made the sacrifice acceptable — not the Regulative Principle. FAITH!

Now, notice that I've carefully responded to each of your arguments and yet you've made no response to mine. In fact, you continue to insist on building a New Testament theology based on Nadab and Abihu while completely ignoring the evidence I've presented.

You question whether I have an open mind, and yet I've actually considered what you say and responded. Twice. I ask that you show the same openness by explaining why what I say is wrong, if you are not yet persuaded by me.

And while you are studying your Old Testament, consider 2 Chron 30. It's one of my favorite chapters in the whole Bible. What does it tell us about how God decides whether worship is acceptable?

This is not to say that I won't respond to new arguments — only that this is very serious to me, not a game. And I think it's important that when Christians talk about the Bible that they both genuinely consider the other's arguments. I mean, I can hardly ask you to be open to my arguments if not willing to be open to yours.

Please allow me to expand on what Alan said above. It's entirely possible for some things on which the Bible is silent to be permitted and for some things to be not permitted. It's not necessarily either-or.

Do you seriously believe that the only reason hashish is wrong is because it's not authorized? If so, then why do all Christian denominations consider it wrong? My old church (a Church of Christ very much in the mainstream) had a cross over the baptistry. Are they damned? Is the objection to bingo founded on lack of authority? Or a larger objection to gambling? I mean, nearly every Protestant denomination considers bingo wrong — even many denominations that reject the Regulative Principle (all that is not expressly authorized is prohibited).

Shelly's argument fails because he picks items that we ALREADY know are wrong before he even gets to the Regulative Principle. Try the same argument with morally neutral examples and it falls on its face.

The test isn't authorized vs. unauthorized but loving/unloving, consistent with the gospel/contrary to the gospel, etc. Such tests have the great advantage of actually being in scripture. The Regulative Principle is not.

You see, the Regulative Principle ultimately fails because it's self-contradictory. It is, itself, not expressly authorized.

I understand the historical basis of this tendency, but faithful study of the Text clearly points to these foundational principles — yet, we seem to keep seeking rules and regulations for everything. It's disconcerting — and a "battle" I fight each Sunday morning in my class.

"If it were the case that anything not expressly forbidden in the New Testament is permissible in the Christian religion, then we could not only use pianos to accompany our singing but beads to aid our prayers, crucifixes to focus our devotion, and hashish to enhance our sensitivity. We could also initiate an organizational network similar to that which has been protested so strongly in Catholicism or begin financing church projects with bingo games (where legal) on Tuesday evenings. Not one of these things is explicitly forbidden in the New Testament, and no one who denies the legitimacy of the authority principle as outlined above can consistently argue against any of them."

Rubel Shelly

(Shelly, Rubel. 1987. Sing His Praise—A Case for A Capella Music as Worship Today. Nashville, TN: 20th Century Christian)