Dodson/Brooks Debate on Scriptural Silence

 
 
 Proposition: 
 The silence of the scriptures restricts the New Testament church 
in its work, worship and service.

Affirm:  Randy Dodson
Deny:  Ray Brooks

I am indeed delighted that in the good providence of God, Mr. 
Brooks and I have been enabled to discuss this issue on this 
forum.  If I know my own heart, I have no other purpose in 
entering this discussion than simply to contend for the truth 
(Jude 3) as I believe it to be set out in the New Testament.

It is common practice to define the terms of the proposition in 
the first affirmative, and it is my intention to conform to that 
practice at this time.  "Scriptures" – referring to the 66 books 
of the Bible.  "Silence" – as used in reference to the Bible, the 
absence of revelation.  "New Testament church" – the church 
established on Pentecost as recorded by the inspired and beloved 
physician, Luke in Acts 2, i.e. the church of which I am a 
member, the church which belongs to our Lord, the church of 
Christ.  "Restrict" – to confine or limit.  "Work, worship and 
service" – the totality of those responsibilities delegated to 
the New Testament church in the scriptures either in aggregate at 
the congregational level, or at the individual level.

Actually, I believe that the meaning of the proposition is 
conveyed by the ordinary import of the words.  In my view, it is 
much more important to discuss meaning of the proposition in its 
aggregate form.  Silence in the scriptures presents it self in 
two ways.  First, on occasion the Bible may be entirely silent on 
a given question.  In such instances, Christians are indeed at 
liberty to use their best judgment to make sound decisions 
(Colossians 3:17).  A simplistic example of this occurs in II 
Thessalonians 3:10.  Having abandoned their earthly occupations 
in anticipation of the second coming, Paul tells the Thessalonian 
brethren to either work, or starve.  Paul's inspired injunction 
was to work, that is be gainfully employed.  However, the 
specific employment to be engaged in is not detailed.  Therefore, 
the Thessalonian brethren were at liberty to use their own 
judgment in selecting their individual professions.  Such 
instances when the Bible is entirely silent are not at issue in 
this debate.  The scriptures provide no direction with regard to 
our chosen professions.  We are therefore at liberty to support 
our families as our talents and consciences direct.

Second, silence in the scriptures is sometimes presented in a 
qualified way.  That is, sometimes the sacred pages present to us 
an injunctive prescribing a certain course of action.  In such 
instances, the Bible is silent as to other options.  The question 
of this debate is "In those instances where the Bible presents 
qualified silence to the New Testament church, does such silence 
bind or present liberty of action?"  I affirm in this debate that 
the silence of the scriptures is just as binding as those 
instances where they speak specifically.

Please understand the importance of the question.  If the silence 
of the scriptures is restrictive, then issues such as mechanical 
instruments, choirs, solos, drama troupes, praise teams, and 
missionary societies are instantly resolved, and those who 
practice such are in error.

In opening my affirmation of these matters, I would like to make 
the following observation.  We acknowledge the silence of written 
documents in our every day lives.  We do it unconsciously all the 
time.  A year after my wife and I married, we bought a house in 
Stockbridge, Georgia.  The papers we signed at closing 
specifically described in detail ad nauseum the property we were 
buying.  However, I noticed that our settlement papers did not 
specifically state that we WERE NOT buying our new neighbor's 
property, or another property down the street.  Did the silence 
of my closing documents restrict our purchase, or grant liberty 
of additional ownership?  Friends, this is exactly the same issue 
discussed in this debate.  I ask you, why is the issue so clear 
in one instance (as noted above), yet so bitterly contested where 
the authority of the Bible is concerned?

I will affirm my proposition by asking and answering three 
questions.  One, do the scriptures specifically educate us 
concerning their own silence?  Two, do the scriptures claim for 
themselves to be authoritative in their silence?  Three, do the 
scriptures provide examples where silence opposite a direct 
command bound individuals to a prescribed course of action?  I 
affirm that the answer to all three questions is "yes".  As I 
answer these questions, I sincerely believe my affirmative burden 
of proof will be discharged.

First, do the scriptures specifically educate us concerning their 
own silence?  I affirm that they do.  We turn over to near the 
beginning of the sacred pages and note that in Deuteronomy 4:2 
that Moses records God's feeling concerning His commandments.  "2 
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall 
ye diminish from it," We turn over to near the middle of the 
Bible, and Solomon continues with this theme.  Proverbs 30:6.  "6 
Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be 
found a liar."  Finally we turn to the last chapter of the last 
book of the Bible, where John leaves us with a final stern 
warning concerning grave importance of taking God at His word:  
Revelation 22:18-19.  "18 I testify unto every man that heareth 
the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto 
them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in 
this book: 19 and if any man shall take away from the words of 
the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the 
tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this 
book."  Thus, it is clear from the first part of the Old 
Testament to the last chapter of the New Testament, which God 
intends that His people take Him at His word, and no further.  
The assumption that silence constitutes liberty creates an 
addition to what God has revealed to us.  I affirm that such is 
condemned in the sacred writings.

Second, do the scriptures claim for themselves to be 
authoritative in their silence?  I affirm that they do.  The 
passages which affirm this point are numerous.  The prophet 
Jeremiah delivers a blistering message to Judah.  As he 
prophesies concerning the apostasy which has engulfed God's 
people, he records these words of God in Jeremiah 7:31.  "31 And 
they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the 
valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their 
daughters in the fire; which I commanded not, neither came it 
into my mind."  Here, God through the prophet specifically 
affirms that His direct commands in matters of Jewish worship, 
and His silence regarding other options bound His people to a 
specific course of action, and no other.

God makes the same point through Moses concerning the capital 
punishment inflicted upon Nadab and Abihu as recorded in 
Leviticus 10.  "10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took 
each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid incense 
thereon, and offered strange fire before Jehovah, which he had 
not commanded them."  "Which he had NOT command them…"  God 
Himself, through Moses affirms that His silence bound Nadab and 
Abihu to a specific course of action.  Their failure to follow that prescribed course led to their condemnation.

As the children of Israel began to return from Babylonian 
captivity, Haggai and Zechariah prophesied to the people, 
encouraging them to complete the rebuilding of the temple (Ezra 
5:1-2).  At one point during the ministry of Zechariah, 
messengers from Bethel inquire of God through Zechariah 
concerning fast days (Zechariah 7).  Since the invasion of Judah 
by Babylon in 606 BC, the Jews had been observing two fast days.  
One in the fifth month commemorating the destruction of the 
temple by Babylon (II Kings 25:8-9, Jeremiah 52:12-13), and 
another in the seventh month commemorating the assassination of 
Gedaliah (II Kings 25:25, Jeremiah 1:1-3).

The problem with this arrangement is obvious.  God authorized a 
single fast day on the Day of Atonement in the seventh month 
(Leviticus 23:27).  Did God's specific command to fast at a 
certain time and His corresponding silence concerning other fasts 
days liberate His people to fast when they chose?  If so, why 
does God here condemn the practice in no uncertain terms through 
Zechariah?

The Hebrew writer also makes the point in question here with a 
reference to the Levitical priesthood in Hebrews 7:14.  "14 For 
it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which 
tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests."  The direct 
reference here is a discussion of our Lord's lineage out of the 
tribe of Judah.  However, in passing the Hebrew writer also 
delivers inspired commentary concerning the silence of the 
scriptures.  God through Moses spake nothing concerning priests 
from the tribe of Judah.  Why?  God directed the priesthood under 
the Old Covenant should come through the tribe of Levi.  God was 
silent regarding the ordination of priests from other tribes.  
Were God's people restricted given the injunction of selecting 
priests from the tribe of Levi?  Could priests from other tribes 
have been appointed with God's approbation?  In I Kings 12:31, 
Jeroboam tries it.  The results were disastrous.

In all the passages cited above, the scriptures claim for 
themselves that silence is restrictive.

Third, do the scriptures provide examples where silence opposite 
a direct command bound individuals to a prescribed course of 
action?  The scriptures are replete with such examples.   Did 
Adam and Eve have other options once the tree in the midst of the 
garden was affirmatively withheld from them (Genesis 2:17)?  Did 
Naaman (I Kings 5:1-15) have the option of selecting another 
place to cleanse after the Jordan was presented as his only 
choice?  Naaman even inquires about this in verse 12, and the 
answer to his question is obvious.  Did Noah (Genesis 6:14-16) 
have other options concerning the construction of the ark after 
God presented him affirmatively with His requirements?  Did Saul 
have other choices available to him after God through Samuel 
instructs him in how to deal with the Amalekites (I Samuel 15)?  
Obviously he did not since God subsequently condemns him for his 
actions and takes the throne of Israel away from him.  Did Peter 
have other avenues of action open to him after God told him to go 
preach to Cornelius (Acts 10)?  Peter was specifically instructed 
by God to facilitate the inclusion of the Gentiles by preaching 
to Cornelius (Acts 10:22).  Could Peter have chosen another 
Gentile to preach to?

I affirm the answer to each of these questions to be yes.  I 
affirm that the scriptures educate us concerning their own 
silence, telling us to regard God's word as complete in every way 
without addition, subtraction or modification.  I further affirm 
that the scriptures specifically claim to be authoritative and 
binding in their silence.  I also affirm that God in His infinite 
wisdom has preserved for us a multiplicity of examples in the 
sacred pages demonstrating His displeasure when His people assume 
liberty in silence.

I affirm that scriptural silence opposite the command to sing 
binds New Testament Christians to singing only (Ephesians 5:19, 
Colossians 3:16).  I affirm that Christians are restricted by the 
example of communing on Sundays (Acts 20:7) due to the silence of 
the scriptures concerning other days.  I affirm that the command 
given to the New Testament church to go and teach (Matthew 28:18-
20) precludes by silence other organizational arrangements such 
as missionary societies.  On and on the list goes……..

My thanks to you for your kind consideration of these matters.

Randy Dodson