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 would like to make this observation before delivering the body 
of my second article.  If this were an oral debate, our body 
language, vocal inflections, expressions and so on would properly 
convey the thought intended on any given point.  Sometimes the 
printed page does not allow this.  Thus, printed intentions are 
not always clear.  Mr. Brooks, I intend that my articles point 
out the sharp differences between us.  However, I do not intend 
that anything I draft be considered of an impersonal, derogatory 
or mean-spirited nature in any way.  I hope my material does not 
present itself in that light.

In my view, the issue before us is the fundamental issue 
separating the New Testament church from the denominational 
world.  The prevailing view of most who profess any belief in 
Jesus Christ today whatsoever is that where the Bible is silent, 
absolute liberty prevails.  I deny this and affirm that the 
sacred pages bind where they do not speak specifically as I 
outlined in my first affirmative constructive article.

Now we come to Mr. Brooks' rebuttal and to my responses.  Mr. 
Brooks has made two arguments, only two arguments which remotely 
touch the issues at hand.

First Mr. Brooks maintains that my position must be substantiated 
in light of the New Testament only.  Second, Mr. Brooks states 
that the New Testament passages I did use are misapplied, and 
thus have no bearing on this debate.  Of course I believe him to 
be incorrect in both points as I shall abundantly show.  I shall 
deal with his two arguments shortly.

Mr. Brooks opened his first negative constructive article by 
denying the applicability of my opening analogy concerning the 
purchase of a house.  Mr. Brooks asserts that there is no 
parallel between that analogy and the silence of the Scriptures.  
I deny that, but he missed the point completely.  The question is 
"Does the silence of any written document bind?"  Ray admits that 
the silence of written documents bind except in the case of the 
written document we call the Bible.  Now why is that, Ray?  Why 
is it that every written document binds in its silence except the 
Scriptures?  Ray's empty assertion that there is no parallel in 
the analogy does not answer the question.

Mr. Brooks alleges that the New Testament contains no specifics 
concerning the elements of the church's work, worship and 
service.  Of course on this point, he is in error.  The Bible 
requires singing in worship (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16).  I 
affirm that silence here is restrictive to the New Testament 
church regarding other options (playing, choirs, solos, etc).  
Christians are required to pray (I Thessalonians 5:17), and 
further that prayer is extended to the Father through the Son 
(John 14:6).  Silence here is restrictive again.  Paul said that 
elders must be the husband of one wife (I Timothy 3:2).  Silence 
is restrictive again.  God commands alien sinners to be immersed 
(Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16).  Silence as to other options 
(sprinkling, pouring) is prohibitive.  Church government consists 
of elders and deacons (I Timothy 3, Titus 1).  Silence concerning 
other organizational/governmental approaches is restrictive.  The 
New Testament church partook of the Lord's Supper on the first 
day of the week (Acts 20:7).  I affirm that silence is 
restrictive again, and I could go on.  Yet Mr. Brooks maintains 
that the New Testament contains no specifics concerning the work, 
worship and service of the church.  How much more specific can it 
get, Mr. Brooks?

Mr. Brooks approach to his two arguments is interesting.  First 
Mr. Brooks maintains that my position must be substantiated in 
light of the New Testament only.  Now in taking this position he 
has contradicted himself.  He opened his first article accepting 
the definitions I presented regarding the proposition, including 
my definition of "the Scriptures" as the 66 books of the Bible. 
Brooks then turned right around and insisted that I prove my 
proposition in light of the New Testament only.  Brooks cannot 
accept my definitions on the one hand, and then redefine them on 
the other.  Since Brooks has accepted my definitions, if I prove 
my case in light of the Scriptures (the 66 books of the canon), 
my affirmative burden is discharged.  Now, Mr. Brooks, you 
accepted my definitions, and you signed on the dotted line to 
deny a proposition that reads "The Scriptures teach…"  Do you 
intend to deny that proposition or not?

Let us develop this point a bit further.  I agree with Mr. Brooks 
that the Mosaic Law passed away at the cross.  I affirm that the 
Old Covenant law and New Covenant law differ in doctrine and 
purpose.  I further contend that the New Testament alone binds 
Christians in our day where doctrine and the work of the church 
are concerned.  Yes, Mr. Brooks while I affirm the separation of 
the Old Covenant from New by virtue of the cross, I also believe 
that the New Testament does indeed operate in exactly the same 
way that the Old Testament once did.  (That is to say, I affirm 
that grace and law have coexisted at all times, but that is a 
topic for another debate.)

While I affirm the separation of the two testaments via the 
cross, I firmly believe that the Old Testament contains lessons 
for us today, which God through the inspired writers intended to 
be eternally true.  There are many simplistic examples of this.  
The injunction to commit murder is an example of this.  It is 
clear from the beginning how God viewed murder (Genesis 4), it is 
clear at Sinai (Exodus 20:13), it is just as clear in the New 
Testament (Romans 1:28, 29).  I believe God's law concerning 
murder was intended to be eternally true and transcends the 
passing of the covenants.  Jesus makes this same point concerning 
marriage, divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19:8.  "8 He saith 
unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put 
away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so."  
God's plan for marriage extends from creation and has never 
changed from the beginning of time to date.  Solomon in Proverbs 
6:6, advises us to go to nature to see good examples of 
industriousness.  God's eternal purpose of salvation through 
grace (Ephesians 3:11) was true before creation, and true today.  
Did such lessons pass away at the cross?  I believe the command 
to refrain from adding to God's word fits this same pattern 
(Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, I Corinthians 4:6, Revelation 
22:18-19).  I believe these lessons (and others like them) were 
intended to be eternally true.

I believe the issue at hand concerning the silence of the 
Scriptures was intended to be everlastingly true, as I 
demonstrated in my first article.  If I am correct, and I firmly 
believe that I am, my affirmative burden of proof is discharged.  
I made three points in this regard in my first article.  The 
Scriptures specifically educate us concerning their own silence 
(Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, I Corinthians 4:6, Revelation 
22:18-19).  The Scriptures claim for themselves to be 
authoritative in their silence.  I cited example after example in 
support of this point.  The Scriptures provide examples where 
silence opposite a direct command bound individuals to a 
prescribed course of action.  Once again I cited example after 
example in support of my position.  The silence of the Scriptures 
binds us today just as much as it ever has since creation.  
Except for Brooks' material on Hebrews 7, Acts 10 and Revelation 
22, my first affirmative article remains largely untouched.

The inspired writings of Paul affirm my position.  Romans 15:4. 
"4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for 
our learning, that through patience and through comfort of the 
Scriptures we might have hope."  Galatians 3:24.  "24 So that the 
law is become our tutor (to bring us) unto Christ, that we might 
be justified by faith."  II Timothy 3:16.  "16 All scripture is 
given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for 
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"  
Clearly, the Old Testament contains lessons applicable for us 
today.  I affirm that our attitude toward the sacred pages and 
our respect for their silence is one of those lessons.

Second, Mr. Brooks states that the New Testament passages I used 
are misapplied.  He employs this argument regarding Hebrews 7:14, 
Acts 10 and Revelation 22:18-19.  More specifics follow, but let 
us first deal with Mr. Brooks' argument at a macro level. 

Mr. Brooks' argument goes something like this.  The Scriptures 
Dodson used are applicable only in the specific context in which 
they were originally delivered.  Therefore, since that original 
specific context no longer exists, the passages do not apply 
here.  I am familiar with this false, aberrant, post-modern 
approach to the Scriptures.  Tell us, Mr. Brooks, are you 
prepared for the logical consequence of your argument?  Taking 
your argument to its logical conclusion, there is not one word in 
the sacred pages that applies to us today.  Those 66 books were 
written long, long ago, far, far away to people long dead and 
gone.  Thus, in Brook's view, not one word of Scripture applies 
to anyone living today.

Now, on a more specific level, I do not believe that Brooks has 
met the issue on any passage he addressed.  He takes the position 
concerning Revelation 22:18-19 that the passage refers only to 
the book of Revelation.  Ray, does the book of Revelation say 
anything that applies to us today?  If it does, why is Revelation 
22:18-19 excluded?  Are you taking the position that one can add 
to God's word, and still maintain God's approval and 
approbation?  If not, why do you challenge the general principle 
of addition to God's word taught in this passage?

As he continues later in his article, Brooks makes this amazing 
statement concerning addition to God's word.  Quoting from his 
first negative constructive article:  "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."

I read and re-read Mr. Brooks' statement here dozens of times in 
utter disbelief.  Brooks takes the position that a Christian may 
add to God's word and still maintain His divine approval.  I was 
absolutely astounded when I read this statement.  In his 
position, Brooks is clearly in violation of each passage I cited 
(Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, I Corinthians 4:6, Revelation 
22:18-19).  It is not now, nor has it ever been acceptable to add 
to God's word. God's word is available to us only, solely and 
exclusively without addition, subtraction or modification.  
Brooks states that "Applying silence as a liberty will result, at 
worst, at (sic) doing things that some people will disapprove 
of."  No, no, Mr. Brooks. Applying silence as a liberty will 
result in doing things that God will disapprove of.

Now, he spends some time on Hebrews 7:14.  Hebrews 7:14 is part 
of a lengthy and detailed discussion (Hebrews 7:1-17) of the 
parallel relationship between Christ and Melchizedek.  In his 
treatment of this passage, Brooks makes a damaging admission.  
Brooks admits here that Hebrews 7:14 references an Old Testament 
teaching.  Why is that, Mr. Brooks?  Why would a New Testament 
writer cite an Old Testament principle in a New Testament book?  
Perhaps because the Hebrew writer recognized the principle as 
being just as binding in his day as it was when originally 
penned.  Perhaps because it was intended to be eternally true?

I wonder if Brooks would dare apply his logic to the Hebrew 
writer here.  It would be Brooks' view that the Hebrew writer's 
citation of the Old Testament here is out of context.  Why?  
Because the context in which this Old Testament passage was 
delivered no longer exists.  Therefore, using Brooks' own logic, 
the divinely inspired writer of the Hebrew writer erred in 
quoting an Old Testament principle here.  I affirm that the 
Hebrew writer cites the principle of silence here because the 
principle was true when God originally said it (Numbers 3:6 ff); 
it was true when the Hebrew writer quoted the principle, and it 
is just as true today.

Hebrews 7:14 is an argument from the silence of the Scriptures, 
what Moses did not say.  Jesus cannot be a priest after the order 
of Levi, as the Old Testament priests were.  Why?  Jesus is not a 
Levite.  He cannot be a part of the Levitical priesthood.  Why?  
Jesus is of the tribe of Judah.  In support of that argument, the 
Hebrew writer says that Moses spoke nothing about priesthood from 
Judah.  The Hebrew writer is arguing from the silence of the 
Scriptures – what wasn’t said.

Brooks closes his first negative with remarks on Acts 10, and the 
requirement that Peter preach to Cornelius.  In his treatment of 
this passage, he has once again contradicted himself.  Earlier in 
his article, Brooks states that "The New Testament contains no 
examples of `qualified silence'."  Then he turned right around 
and admitted that the case of Peter in Acts 10 was a case of 
qualified silence.  Now, which is it, Mr. Brooks?  Does the New 
Testament contain cases of qualified silence or not?

As he continues, Brooks once again uses the tired logic that the 
case of Peter in Acts 10 applies only in the context in which it 
was delivered.  We cannot learn anything from Peter's example 
here, Ray?  According to Brooks, there is no principle in Peter's 
behavior here that is applicable today.  God told Peter to preach 
to Cornelius, and Peter properly interpreted God's silence 
regarding other options as being restrictive.  I affirm that 
Peter's interpretation of God's directive here does indeed 
provide an example for New Testament Christians to follow in our 
work, worship and service.

What about the example of Paul in Acts 23:11, Mr. Brooks?  Paul 
confirms that God directed him to preach the gospel in Rome.  
Once God affirmatively made His desires known to Paul, did Paul 
have other options?  Could Paul have gone to Spain at that 
point?  I deny that he could have.  Can we learn anything from 
that example, Mr. Brooks?  God directed Paul to preach in Rome, 
and was silent as to other options.  Paul correctly interpreted 
God's silence as restrictive.  Like Peter, I affirm that Paul's 
interpretation of God's directive here does indeed provide an 
example for New Testament Christians to follow in our work, 
worship and service.

My thanks to all for your kind attention to this article.

Randy Dodson