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 open my third and final article for consideration under this 
resolution with a couple of observations.  One, Mr. Brooks has 
failed entirely in presenting a negative case under the 
proposition he agreed to debate.  He has not discharged the 
responsibility that is incumbent upon him as the negative 
representative in this debate.  It is the duty of the affirmative 
to present a case for the proposition.  It is then the duty of 
the negative disputant to analyze and evaluate the arguments 
presented by the affirmative.  My opponent has not done this.  
The truth of the business is that Mr. Brooks has no case of his 
own at all.  His lone futile endeavor at building a negative case 
has been the attempt to instruct me in how my affirmative case 
must be built.  In so doing, he has ignored my affirmative case 
(by his own admission in his second article), and failed to 
construct a negative case of his own.

Second, as I peruse the two articles Mr. Brooks has submitted 
thus far, I notice that he has not quoted a single passage of 
scripture in support of his position.  Not one time has Ray 
Brooks gone to the Scriptures to support a single thing he has 
said.  He replied to some (nowhere near all) of the Scriptures I 
presented in my first article, but quoted none directly.  He made 
a passing reference to Romans 8 in the same article.  However, 
Brooks has not referenced a single passage of scripture in 
support of his position.  Unfortunately he cannot now do so in 
his third article, since I would have no opportunity to respond.  
Mr. Brooks signed on the dotted line to debate a proposition 
concerning what the Scriptures tech, and has utterly failed to 
engage the topic in that manner.

Of course there is a very good reason for this.  Mr. Brooks is in 
error in his position, and there are no passages of scripture 
that sustain it.  It is not his fault.  Mr. Brooks has done the 
best he can do in building his case.  However, at the end of the 
day his position stands in opposition to the truth.  This is made 
abundantly clear from his lack of scriptural reference.

I pointed out in my first article that Brooks' position here 
constitutes a contradiction on his part.  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.  He then turned right around and has 
insisted repeatedly 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 
accepted my definitions, if I prove my case in light of the 
Scriptures (the 66 books of the canon), my affirmative burden is 
discharged, period.  Mr. Brooks accepted my definitions, and 
agreed to deny a proposition concerning what the Scriptures 
teach, but evidently had absolutely no intention of actually 
denying the proposition at all.

Mr. Brooks in his second negative article maintains that in order 
to sustain my position, I must prove that the two testaments 
operate in the same fashion.  Once again, he is mistaken.  Note 
first that I made no point of this issue in my second article.  
This statement he assigns to me was made in passing, and I 
attached no emphasis to it.  I specifically noted in my second 
article that this matter is a topic for another debate.  Now, Mr. 
Brooks, you've made a big issue in this debate surrounding taking 
writers out of context, why did you take my statement out of 
context here?

Friends, at this juncture Brooks has forfeited the debate, so 
there is really no need to argue further.  However, I want to be 
as thorough as possible in answering the few arguments he has 
made.  Notice how Mr. Brooks' problems continue to build.  I made 
no issue out of the operation of the testaments.  In addressing 
this, Brooks has made a phantom point that is no point at all.  I 
have proved conclusively without rebuttal from Brooks that the 
silence of the Scriptures is an eternal truth.  That is, 
scriptural silence was respected in Eden (Genesis 2:17), it was 
respected at Sinai (Deuteronomy 4:2), it was respected in 
Solomon's time (Proverbs 30:6), it was respected in Paul's time 
(I Corinthians 4:6), it was respected in John's time (Revelation 
22:18-19), and Maintain therefore that it must be respected 
today.  That is, respect for silence has applied to everyone who 
has ever drawn breath from the beginning of time to date.  
Naturally, that includes New Testament Christians, who comprise 
the New Testament church.  That fact brings this argument 
squarely in line with the proposition, and my affirmative burden 
of proof is entirely discharged.

I went over this point concerning the eternal nature of respect 
for the Scriptures in great detail, citing parallel examples of 
murder (Genesis 4), marriage (Matthew 19:8), nature (Proverbs 
6:6) and salvation (Ephesians 3:11) to which Brooks made 
absolutely no reply.  Friends, the Scriptures teach that their 
silence must be respected, and this debate flows affirmative in 
the absence of argumentation from Brooks.

This issue concerning the operation of the testaments is 
essentially an issue of grace versus law.  I have two unsigned 
propositions on the forum on this topic.  I will be only too 
happy to have Ray sign to defend his positions, but that is 
another debate, and is of no relevance here.

The only other point that Ray covers in his second negative 
article concerns specifics from the New Testament concerning 
silence.  Brooks contends that the passages and examples I cited 
in my second affirmative were examples of elements, not methods.  
Once again, Mr. Brooks is in error.  I have two responses.

First, it should be noted that Mr. Brooks has no point here at 
all.  His attempt at separating elements and methods is nothing 
more than a semantic subterfuge.  Consider singing (Colossians 
3:16, Ephesians 5:19), for example.  If Mr. Brooks incorporates 
"playing" as a part of the "how," then he misses the point 
entirely.  Singing and playing are not the equivalents of simply 
singing; the combined actions do not involve the "how," they 
constitute the addition or another element.  On the other hand, 
in simply singing, it may be fast or slow, loud or soft.  Those 
matters are flexible "hows" that do not corrupt the basic 
instruction.

Second, consider this argument further.  His argument incorrectly 
assumes that methods and elements cannot, or do not coexist.  The 
truth of the business is that methods and elements NEVER exist 
separate and apart from one another.  

Note once again the examples I cited in my second affirmative.  
The Bible requires singing in worship (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 
3:16).  (Method:  singing; element:  voice)  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), (method praying; 
element:  prayerful heart) 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) (method:  appointing elders; element:  
married man).  Silence is restrictive again.  God commands alien 
sinners to be immersed (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16) (method:  
immersion; element:  water).  Silence as to other options 
(sprinkling, pouring) is prohibitive.  Church government consists 
of elders and deacons (I Timothy 3, Titus 1) (method:  
establishing proper church governance; element:  elders and 
deacons).  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) 
(method:  communing; elements: day of the week, fruit of the 
vine, unleavened bread).  These few examples represent nowhere 
near the entirety of the list.  Mr. Brooks attempt to separate 
methods and elements is absurd.  Methods and elements always 
coexist.

Note further that the logical force of Brooks' position is to 
deny all the above.  Thus, Brooks believes mechanical instruments 
of music, addressing prayer to someone other than God, female 
elders, sprinkling, church government consisting of other than 
elders and deacons, and pizza with cola on the Lord's Table are 
all acceptable.  In making these statements it is not my 
intention to put words in Ray's mouth.  This is simply the 
logical extension of his line of reasoning.  It is the negative 
position that the silence of the Scriptures need not be 
respected.  Therefore, Brooks can deny none of the above, whether 
he personally affirms them, or not.

Ray charges me with misrepresenting his position in this debate.  
He is mistaken.  I misrepresented nothing.  I have merely 
demonstrated the logical progression of his position that he 
cannot deny.  It is Brooks' position that I Corinthians 4:6, 
Hebrews 7:14 and Revelation 22:18-19 apply solely, only and 
exclusively to the context of original delivery.  Friends, as I 
pointed out, the problem with this line of reasoning is that it 
implies that nothing in the Scriptures applies to us today.  
Those 66 books were written long, long ago, far, far away to 
people long dead and gone.  If Brooks' reasoning is taken to its 
logical conclusion, the foregoing inference follows.

Friends, the inherent implication of the negative position under 
this proposition is amazingly unscriptural.  The negative 
position maintains that there is no need to respect the silence 
of the Scriptures.  According to Brooks, silence in the 
Scriptures allows the freedom to interpret as necessary.  Thus, 
where there is silence, anything goes.  I charge that the logical 
extension of this line of reasoning allows one to add to God's 
word, and still maintain his approval and approbation.  The 
negative position here 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.

I have affirmed 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", and I 
have demonstrated the truth of these statements across the 
Scriptures, thus fully engaging the proposition.  Many of these 
arguments pass with absolutely no reply from Mr. Brooks.  
Nevertheless, my affirmative burden of proof under the topic is 
discharged.

I extend my thanks to all for your kind attention to my 
articles.  I have thoroughly enjoyed the thought, study and 
reflection required in this effort.

Randy Dodson