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

There are two points in Mr. Dodson's Second Affirmative that 
specifically address my rebuttal.  Mr. Dodson has presented a 
great deal of material, but in essence, I believe he has 
presented the core of our debate in the following statement:

Randy:  
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.

Ray:  This statement is the core of the debate.  I believe Randy 
is in error in his conclusion.  However, it is the only thing, as 
far as I am concerned, that he actually has to prove at this 
point.  If the New Testament does indeed operate in exactly the 
same way that the Old Testament did, then Randy's case is 
settled, and he wins.  Now that Randy has explicitly made this 
point, it will be Randy's obligation in his third affirmative to 
prove this proposition.  And as I said, if he is successful in 
defending this single point, the debate is his.

For the reader's and Randy's benefit:  I think that one statement 
is an outstanding summary of this debate.  It presents in brief, 
concise language what the rest of our debate has been about.  
Randy has done, in this regard, a wonderful job in getting to the 
heart of the matter, and I commend him for a job well done.

For the other point, concerning specifics proven from the New 
Testament, Randy once again lists several passages from the New 
Testament, and wraps up with the following comments:

Randy states:   
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?

Ray says:  Apparently, we have different definitions of what 
qualifies as a specific.  Your examples are ELEMENTS, not 
METHODS.  The methods are the subject of this debate, not the 
elements.  You have not addressed the issue at hand with ANY of 
these verses.  Elements are the WHAT of worship.  Methods are the 
HOW of worship.  Singing, praying, teaching, communion are WHAT 
we do. HOW we do those things is not addressed in specifics in 
the New Testament.  You are responsible to prove otherwise.

Those conclude my comments on his Affirmative.  He has presented 
a new thought, which is at the core of the debate, and has one 
affirmative left to prove it.  His other point concerning 
specifics regards elements instead of methods, and methods are 
the topic of this debate.

Now, I need to make an uncomfortable but necessary statement 
here.  Randy, The number of misrepresentations of my position and 
misquotes of my statements in your second affirmative have made 
this debate an unnecessarily complicated affair.  I have no 
desire or intention of correcting the multitude of times you 
attempted to paraphrase my position and greatly misapplied my 
points.  Therefore, my Second Rebuttal contains responses only to 
the two relevant and essential components that directly address 
the topic.  Since much of your affirmative is a rehashing, much 
will go unanswered.  Thankfully, you identified and stated what I 
believe to be the core of this argument right up front, and I 
spent most of my time on that point.

Here, however, is one point that I feel I must address up front.  
These paragraphs conclude my second rebuttal, and I await Randy's 
responses to my points above.

In dealing with my first point, about using only the New 
Testament to prove his position, Randy flatly refused to defend 
his position.  He stated as follows:

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?

Mr. Dodson,  the issue before us is the silence of the scriptures 
regarding the church.  The position of "qualified silence" must 
be both established by and applied from the New Testament in 
order for you to have a case at all.  Your response indicates 
that you have no regard for context. All of scripture is God-
breathed, but not all of it applies to the topic at hand. Since 
you believe that I am acting outside the context of our agreed 
proposition by requiring the New Testament only, let me make 
myself clear:

You are obligated to both establish and apply qualified silence 
using the New Testament ONLY.  IF this requirement, in your 
opinion, violates the terms of our agreed debate, so be it.  I am 
here to hold you accountable to the laws of logic and the text of 
scripture.  In my view, you are violating both logic and context 
with your arguments.

As I see it, Randy has two obligations at this point:

He must prove that the both Testaments operate in the exact same 
way.  This has yet to be attempted simply because it did not come 
up until this affirmative.

He must prove that the New Testament contains METHODS.  He proved 
that it contains ELEMENTS, but not methods.

If he can prove these two things, he wins the debate.

Randy, present your arguments as you see fit.  I will give the 
rebuttal as I see fit. 

Ray