Dodson/Brooks Debate on Scriptural Silence

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

Affirm:  Randy Dodson
Deny:  Ray Brooks

I want to share something with Randy and the readers before I 
begin my third rebuttal.  This is my third debate on this 
message board, and I am learning each time some of the 
differences between written and oral debate.  One of them is that 
it is impossible, in written debate, for either side to hold the 
other accountable for their words.  In a moderated oral debate, 
Randy would have been required to provide answers for the faulty 
logic and undefended statements that he has presented.  I can not 
enforce that in a written format, but I did decide in this last 
rebuttal to provide a detailed, paragraph for paragraph 
response.  This was done to show the lack of evidence and 
consistent violation of logic Randy uses in attempting to prove 
his position.  Randy can not respond, so I answered each 
paragraph with that in mind.  I hope both Randy and the readers 
can profit from this rebuttal.  Randy's original comments are in 
quotes.  

Randy: 
”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."

Ray: This paragraph contains several assertions with no evidence 
to support them.  My rebuttals stand with all of their evidence. 
Also, I want to make special note of one statement here:

Randy: 
"Mr. Brooks has failed entirely in presenting a negative case 
under the proposition he agreed to debate"

Ray: Really, Randy?  Then I don't know why you presented a third 
affirmative.  Your job is to answer me.  You say I haven't 
presented a negative.  You have no reason to give an answer. If I 
have entirely failed to present a negative, why have you used 
your third affirmative?  What exactly are you defending against?  
Several pages of text to answer an irrelevant document?  Oh well, 
it's your time.  

"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."

First, Randy believes that my failure to quote scripture is his 
trump card against my rebuttal.  This modern, highly abused claim 
fails to address the basics of logical argument.  Randy is not 
alone in his guilt.  Many people in debate use this empty 
argument.  The laws of logic and scripture both have authority in 
this debate.  Randy's argumentation in all three affirmatives 
failed the laws of logic, and I showed this in my former 
rebuttals.  It is not necessary to present scripture if the logic 
of an argument fails before the details of authoritative appeal 
to scripture are examined.

"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."

Clever Ad Hominem.

"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."

Randy's logic fails again.  The New Testament is part of 
scripture, and my insistence on his using only the New Testament 
did not violate the definition.  Had I claimed that his use of 
the Old Testament was invalid  ON THE GROUNDS that it was NOT 
SCRIPTURE, I would have been in violation of the agreed 
definition.  My requirement was that he use ONLY New Testament 
because the topic of our debate regards the church's practices.  
Randy has built a strawman here.  I have exposed it.  Let us 
continue.

"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?"

In Randy's opinion, the "identical operation of the testaments" 
comment is irrelevant.  He offers no evidence that it is 
irrelevant. The fact that he did not emphasize that point in his 
affirmative changes nothing.  I identified, as the opposition, 
that this comment is, in fact, the core of the debate.  His 
obligation was to either defend the "identical operation"  
statement or prove its irrelevance.  He did not do so.  My 
objection stands.

I want to note here, in the middle of my third rebuttal, that 
this objection formed the core of my rebuttal and was the only 
thing standing in Randy's way.  Since he chose not to defend it, 
he has not defended his case.  My obligation to provide a 
negative is officially terminated because Randy refused to defend 
his position or prove that the point was irrelevant.  The 
remainder of my comments, like my former comments in this third 
rebuttal, are intended to show the repeated failure of Randy to 
provide a logically consistent, evidentially supported argument 
in defense of his proposition.  Let Randy and the readers decide 
if Randy has actually presented an argument that goes deep enough 
to address the relevant issues.

"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."

There are several assertions made in this paragraph:

Ray forfeited the debate.  
this is given with no evidence. 
Operation of the testaments.  

already addressed in my third. 
Silence of scriptures is eternal truth. 

I have not addressed the point.  Randy is quite accurate here.  I 
did not address it for two reasons.  1.  The core of the debate 
is the operation of the testaments.  2.  The "eternal truth" 
point is too general.  Even if proven, it is irrelevant to the 
proposition Randy signed to defend.  We need a connection between 
"some doctrines are eternally true" and the "silence of the 
scriptures restricts the church".  Randy did not go far enough 
with his evidence.   A connection is never established between 
the two.  I believe Randy intended to make a connection with 
these statements:

"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." 

This is not sufficient.  He gives only two New Testament 
references, and to sustain his case, he must build the case from 
the New Testament.  Randy apparently does not understand the 
centrality of the New Testament establishing his point.  He did 
not defend his point here.  It is dismissed.  Furthermore, a 
respect for the silence of the scriptures is too vague to support 
a position concerning the practices of the church.  We need a lot 
more detail before his point can be sustained.

"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."

Respect for the scriptures is not the topic of this debate.  
Silence is the topic.  This point is a bunny trail.

"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 issue of the operation of the testaments is FAITH vs. LAW, 
not grace vs. law, and it is the core of the debate at hand. 
Randy's declaration that it is irrelevant, without evidence, 
means he has chosen not to defend the proposition at its 
foundation.  His proposition is considered undefended and my 
duties to provide a denial are no longer needed.

"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."

Ok, let's see his responses below.

"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."

We have different definitions of elements and methods.  See my 
detailed response below.

"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."

My arguments assumes nothing of the sort.  My argument was that 
the New Testament specifically gives us elements, but leaves out 
any references to methods.  It is the methods that fall under the 
topic "silence of the scriptures".  Methods and elements always 
operate together, but the New Testament never attempts to provide 
the methods, only the elements.  We are left on our own to 
determine the methods. On the methods, the scriptures are 
silent.  Again, see my detailed response below.

"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."

Another outstanding detailed paragraph.  Randy provides excellent 
descriptions for his concepts of methods and elements.  Randy and 
readers, indulge me.  To provide a good comparison for you, I'm 
going to repeat Randy's paragraph, substituting my view of the 
elements and methods in each statement.  You will see how 
differently we approach this issue.  This point was, of course, 
secondary to the debate.  Primary was the operation of the 
testaments.  Since Randy has given details, I will do so here 
using his passage as my base:

The Bible requires singing in worship (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 
3:16).  (Method:  none; element:  singing)  Singing is WHAT we 
do.  How we practice it, and what procedures we use are not 
dictated.  Christians are required to pray (I Thessalonians 
5:17), (method none; element:  praying) and further that prayer 
is extended to the Father through the Son (John 14:6).  Critical 
note:  Prayer through the Son to the Father is a doctrinal 
teaching on the authority by which we pray.  It is not a method 
or element.  Silence does not apply because methods are not being 
addressed.  We, of course, must pray to the Father through the 
Son, but that is an authority issue.  For the debate topic to 
apply, we would need to deal with posture, language, acceptable 
issues for praying about, and so on.  Paul said that elders must 
be the husband of one wife (I Timothy 3:2) (method:  none; 
element:  elders).  This is not silence.  God gave the 
qualifications for elders.  This is also not a practice or 
activity in work, worship and service.  This is not the topic of 
our debate.  God commands alien sinners to be immersed (Acts 
2:38, Acts 22:16) (method:  none; element:  baptism).  By 
definition, baptism means immersion.  Silence does not apply.  
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.  I can 
agree with Randy here, but again, PRACTICES of the church are the 
question, not establishing authority IN THE CHURCH.  The New 
Testament church partook of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of 
the week (Acts 20:7) (method:  none; elements: communion).  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.

The last two statements were answered earlier.

"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."

It is not the logical extension of my reasoning to apply 
specifics.  Some of these might be acceptable to me, some might 
not.  It is true to say that I believe we have liberty.  How that 
liberty operates is not the subject of this first half, and Randy 
is presumptuous to suggest specific applications.

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE:  Concerning  "the silence of the scriptures 
need not be respected".  This is both a strawman and a 
presumption.  It is a strawman because Randy falsely represents 
his opponents position.  I do not agree with this statement.  It 
is presumptuous because here Randy assumes that silence has 
authority.  My contention is that silence has very little if any 
authority in the New Testament concerning the specifics of our 
debate topic.  Randy, you should have waited for my affirmatives 
before making these statements.  You simply don't know my 
position.

"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."

The simplest answer I can give here is that you need to study the 
topic of cultural context.  This argument violates more laws of 
logic than I have time to address.  And this is my final 
rebuttal, so you can't answer anyway.  It's enough to say that 
you took my comments out of context to make your application.

"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."

Thus, where there is silence, anything goes? This is a strawman. 
I am not defending my position in this half.  Randy can charge 
all he likes on a strawman.

"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."

The answers to these questions are a good start to the position, 
but we are left with general principles that are still too vague 
for a direct application.  It was essential to this debate that 
Randy provide either exclusive New Testament support for his 
position, or prove that both Testaments work the same way. He 
refused to do either.  His position is not sustained.  My 
obligation does not need to be fulfilled.

This was a good work out.  I will present my first affirmative on 
"silence of the scriptures giving liberty" in one week.

Ray Brooks