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

Randy began his defense with definitions.  I am fine with all of 
his definitions except one.  I would not regard the "New 
Testament church" as being exclusively the church of Christ.  I 
would include denominations too.  Our difference of opinion on 
this definition does not affect the argument, but I wanted to 
point it out for the sake of clarity.

Randy has done an excellent job of presenting his position 
concisely and clearly.  I agree with him on several points, and 
it will be easy to show where I believe Randy is mistaken in his 
position.

Let me begin by summarizing Randy's argument.  Randy believes 
that "qualified silence" is the point of this debate.  He defines 
qualified silence as any teaching in which scripture specifically 
dictates how a practice is to be performed.  When scripture 
dictates the specifics, the unwritten possibilities (silence) are 
restricted (off limits).  He uses many scripture examples to 
substantiate the position then proceeds to apply it to New 
Testament church practices.

The crux of his position stands on two propositions:

1.  The scriptures demonstrate that "qualified silence" binds.
2.  The New Testament church has instructions that involve 
"qualified silence", hence, the silence restricts.

Strangely enough, I have no qualms with Randy's definition or 
application of "qualified silence".  I admit that I expected us 
to differ on the nature of silence.  We do not differ at all.  
Where we differ is in the application.  Randy believes that the 
New Testament silence binds us.  My argument is going to be that 
"qualified silence" is nowhere to be found in the New Testament.  
The teaching would certainly apply if it did.  But the New 
Testament, I will argue, contains no examples whatsoever of 
teachings for the church that qualify as "qualified silence".  
That concept is missing from the New Testament.  I believe I can 
show why that is true.  If I am successful, then Randy's 
proposition is defeated on the grounds that the New Testament 
does not have the form of teaching it would need to restrict the 
church.

My argument will be presented from two points:

1.  Randy must show that "qualified silence" is established in 
the New Testament.
2.  Randy must show that practices for the church are 
"specifically described in detail ad nauseum."

I am going to begin my argument by referring to the second point 
listed.  Randy and readers will recognize the wording in quotes 
from Randy's analogy.  I quoted this line because I believe it 
provides an excellent point and is well worded.  It fully 
establishes the crux of his proposition.  I also provides me with 
the tools I need to fully and completely dismantle his position.

This quote I have referred to comes from Randy's analogy 
concering the purchase of property.  I will let the reader refer 
to Randy's affirmative for the details of that analogy.  Randy 
asks this question:


Did the silence of my closing documents restrict our purchase, or 
grant liberty of additional ownership?
 
My answer is yes, your purchase is restricted.

Randy then says:  
Friends, this is exactly the same issue discussed in this debate.

My response:  This analogy is irrelevant to this debate.  It's 
weaknesses completely dismantle all possible relevance.  Here’s 
why.  First, this contract is a legal agreement between two 
parties for the exchange of money for goods.  The provisions and 
requirements of this contract have nothing in common with the New 
Covenant.  The best Randy can claim for this analogy is that he, 
as the purchaser, represents God, who through Jesus Christ, 
purchased the souls of all men through the redemptive work of the 
cross.  Randy is applying the contract from the opposite 
perspective.  He sees the contract as a form of the New Testament 
telling him what he can have.  But our debate is about practices, 
not property.  For his purposes, the analogy's core theme is the 
opposite of our debate.  We are discussing what God has said we 
may or may not DO, not may or may not HAVE.  Besides that, it is 
WE who are purchased by God, so the contract does not apply.

To answer Randy's last question, the reason it is clear in this 
example and not so clear in the New Testament is because there is 
no relationship between the two.  Apples and oranges.  

Furthermore, Randy states that the papers "specifically describe 
in detail ad nausem the property".  Yes, they do.  But the New 
Testament tells us absolutely nothing about HOW worship is to be 
done in terms of methods.  There are rules on keeping order such 
as I Cor 14 and elements of worship such as singing and prayer.  
But specific ad nauseum steps of HOW to do it?  Doesn't exist in 
the New Testament.  The rules Randy needs in order to support his 
case do not exist anywhere in the 27 books of the New Testament.  
This will further evidenced in the next section of this rebuttal.

Now, let's deal with point 1.  Randy builds a case for” qualified 
silence" and does an outstanding job of doing this.  I fully 
agree with his position.  His multitude of scriptures, in my 
view, are kept in context ( for the most part) and he builds a 
solid case for the binding of scripture through "qualified 
silence". Unfortunately, with only two exceptions ( and I will 
show that these exceptions do not qualify or help him at all), 
his case is built entirely from the Old Testament.  It is my 
contention that in order for Randy to substantiate his case, he 
must build the ENTIRE case from the New Testament alone.  His 
point is that "qualified silence” restricts, but he does not 
attempt to establish "qualified silence" from the New Testament.  
He merely applies his established principle to passages from the 
New Testament at the end of his argument.

First, let me address the two New Testament passages that he 
quotes in establishing his principle of "qualified silence". 
Revelation 22: 18 –19 and Hebrews 7:14.

Revelation 22 is on my top 5 list of the most misused and 
misapplied texts in the whole of scripture.  Please note the 
following:  twice in these verses the text says "this book of 
prophecy".  The book of Revelation is the only book of prophecy 
in the New Testament.  The bible was not a BOOK until over 300 
years after it was written.  These verses also say that the one 
who adds or takes away from” this book or prophecy" will have 
curses added or tree of life privilege taken away.  These curses 
are specifically mentioned in Revelation, further supporting my 
view, namely, that this verse applies ONLY to the book of 
Revelation.  It can not be applied to any other book in the 
bible.  The warning applies to adding to or taking away from the 
PROPHECIES of this book, nothing more or less than that.  
Further, since we are talking about adding to or taking away from 
prophecy, we are not talking about adding to or taking away from 
practices of the church.  The argument simply fails the test of 
exegesis and can not be applied.

Hebrews 7:14 is a verse in the New Testament, but it's teaching 
applies to an Old Covenant principle.  Jesus is restricted from 
the priesthood due to the requirements of the Law of Moses.  So 
technically, though this verse is in the New Testament, it is 
referencing an Old Testament teaching, and therefore is not a New 
Testament application.  Jesus is made priest based on God’s 
prophetic decision to make Him one based on Melchesidek instead 
of His lineage as a Jew.

The rest of Randy's defense of "qualified silence" comes 
exclusively from the Old Testament. And I am in full agreement 
with his case.  He builds it beautifully.  There are a few 
examples he gives that I disagree with his exegesis of scripture, 
but nothing that affects his point.  My problem with Randy's 
defense is that he does not refer one time to any example of 
"qualified silence" in the New Testament.  I believe that he must 
use the New Testament to build his case as well as apply it to 
New Testament church instruction.

Here are the reasons I believe Randy does not use the New Testament:

1.  The New Testament contains no examples of "qualified 
silence".  Randy simply has no text he can use to build the 
foundation.  There are no details on worship, ministry, practices 
or anything else related to METHODS to be found in the New 
Testament anywhere.  Randy thinks he can build his case on the 
Old Testament and then use it to apply to a few verses in the New 
Testament which themselves give no details at all.  I disagree 
with Randy on this point.  He must use the New Testament to build 
and apply. He did not because he can not.  Unless he does, his 
point fails.  His position is disproven unless he tries.
2.  Randy believes that Old Covenant law and New Covenant law 
differ only in content. He believes that the law of Moses and the 
"law of Christ" both bind the adherer in the same way. He holds 
to a position prevalent in some Christian groups, which I believe 
is a false teaching:  that the New Testament operates EXACTLY the 
same way that the Old Testament does.  Randy apparently believes 
that he can build his case using the Old Testament because the 
same principle will apply to Christians under the law of Christ.  
I disagree with this principle.  I find it to be a violation of 
the New Covenant.  The New Covenant is based on faith in Christ, 
not obedience to the "law of Christ", which I don't believe 
exists.

Randy, in some ways I really want to dive in and disprove your 
position based on point 2, but before I chase a rabbit, I will 
let you, in your second affirmative, respond to what I have 
there.  If it turns out that I'm on the right track with your 
thinking, then Will spend most of my time on this point.  It's 
tempting to second-guess you in order to save time, but I want 
you to have the chance to show me where you're coming from first.

Let me address a few more points made in Randy's affirmative, then I will close.

Randy states: 

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.

These two statements come on the heels of his reference to the 
Revelation passage.  I have already presented my thoughts on 
Randy’s use of Revelation 22.  I want to state here that it is 
Randy's assumption that liberty in the "silence" of the New 
Testament would create an addition.  Both points of view beg the 
question.  This is why "silence of the scriptures" is so hotly 
debated.  Good arguments can be made for both sides. I have 
already shown that Revelation 22 only applies to the prophecy of 
Revelation.  Further, Randy's position assumes that there is 
condemnation in the sacred writings for such additions.  Romans 8 
settles that issue forever.  In Christ  there is NO POSSIBILITY 
of condemnation.  Applying silence as a liberty will result, at 
worst, at doing things that some people will disapprove of.

Randy states:   
In the passages cited above, the scriptures claim for themselves 
that silence is restrictive.  (this statement is his conclusion 
after presenting his argument establishing "qualified silence").

The problem:  I fully agree with his statement, but his passages 
only include Old Testament, which, as I have already pointed out, 
are irrelevant to the proposition.  He must use EXCLUSIVELY New 
Testament passages to both establish and apply his position.

Randy gives us the Peter example:

Acts 10 is the only other New Testament passage used to establish 
his point, and this passage deserves a full essay of its own.  No 
passage Randy has used, including Revelation 22, is more 
irrelevant to his point than this one.  First, I answer his 
questions:

Did Peter have other avenues of action open to him after God told 
him to go preach to Cornelius?

My answer:  No

Could Peter have chosen another Gentile to preach to?

My answer:  No.

Ok, If he didn't have other avenues and couldn't chose another 
Gentile, then how does this example give him liberty?  It doesn't 
give him an ounce of liberty.  There is no liberty in the silence 
to be found in this example.  Randy's example is great for 
showing how God can specifically charge a single person to do a 
ministry work for Him.  Peter was specifically charged with going 
to Cornelius for God's purpose, and Peter had no options here. 

BUT………….

The topic of our debate is works of service that apply to the New 
Testament church at all times under all circumstances.  The issue 
that we are debating concerns the practices bound to all 
Christians in all times, and whether silence in the New Testament 
allows us the freedom to go outside of "specifics".  The example 
Randy gives applied to only one Christian in the history of the 
world (Peter) for one occasion and one purpose.  There is no 
relevance of using this example.

God has often given people throughout history specific 
instructions in ministry, in both Testaments, and in an ongoing 
sense.  I believe God still calls specific people to do specific 
acts of ministry at various times.  I myself have been told 
specifically by God on many occasions to do things.  But in every 
case it is something FOR ME ALONE to do, and in scripture these 
specific charges apply only to the person God gave them to.  This 
is not the subject of our debate.  We are concerned only with the 
general practices of the church, and when God dictates what our 
practices are to be in the New Testament, does his complete 
silence on ALL methods ( I contend that God is 100% silent on 
methods in the New Testament) give us liberty to choose the 
methods we want?  I say yes.  But this is not my affirmative.  
The point is that Randy has built a case on faulty grounds.

My conclusion is that Randy has two obligations to substantiate 
his position:

1.  He must build the "qualified silence" principle from the New 
Testament for both the principle and its application.     
2.  He must show that the New Testament contains "qualified 
silence" for matters of practice in the New Testament church.

I contend that in spite of Randy's efforts, neither of the above 
two things have been accomplished.  If he can do these two 
things, he has a case.  If he can not, his position falls.

Ray Brooks