Dodson/Brooks Debate on Scriptural Silence

 
 
 Proposition: 
The silence of the scriptures constitutes liberty for 
the New Testament church in its work, worship and service.

Affirm:  Ray Brooks
Deny:  Randy Dodson

I am once again delighted to come before this forum in defense of 
what I believe to be the truth.  I will do two things in this 
article.  One, establish my position in light of the proposition, 
which will inherently stand in opposition to Mr. Brooks’ 
perception.  Two, I will refute the arguments made by Mr. Brooks 
in his first negative article.

The issue of silence in this debate is an issue of authority.  
Are New Testament Christians at liberty to act where authority 
does not exist?  It is my view that this fundamental question 
strikes at the heart of religious divisions that exist today.  
Religious division occurs when men refuse to acknowledge the 
limits of God’s authority, thus substituting human reasoning for 
the divine.

If Christians are to speak as the oracles of God (I Peter 4:11), 
then going beyond what is written (I Corinthians 4:6) in the 
sacred pages constitutes sin.  Everything the New Testament 
church does must be preceded by a "thus saith the Lord" 
(Colossians 3:17).  When men presumptuously go beyond that which 
is written, they have entered the realm of silence.  It is a sin 
so to do.  I affirm that it is sinful to add to God's word 
(Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, Revelation 22:18-19).  God's 
view of additions to His divine revelation to mankind has always 
been the same – disdain.  

Mr. Brooks view is that it is unnecessary to speak as the oracles 
of God, unnecessary to stay within what is written, unnecessary 
to have God's approval in all we do, and totally acceptable to 
add to God’s word.  Now whom shall we believe?

The Bible is filled with evidence demonstrating Jehovah’s 
contempt for those who ignore the silence of the scriptures:  
Cain and Abel and their offerings (Genesis 4:3-4), Noah's 
construction of the ark (Genesis 6:22), Nadab and Abihu's strange 
fire(Leviticus 10), the false gods of apostasy (Jeremiah7:31), 
will-worship of the Colossians (Colossians 2:22-23), the 
discussion of the Father concerning the Son (Hebrews 1:5), the 
disqualification of Jesus as an earthly priest (Hebrews 7:14), 
and on and on the list goes.

The inspired apostle said:  "9 Whosoever goeth onward and abideth 
not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in 
the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son."  (2 
John9).  There is an objective body of truth designated "the 
teaching of Christ." To step beyond it - either into that which 
is specifically forbidden, or into the unauthorized realm of 
“silence" - is to transgress the will of God.

I would like to make a couple of observations before moving to 
the body of Mr. Brooks' article.  First, my opponents view is 
that anything that (supposedly) facilitates a more meaningful 
worship experience for the worshipper is ok.  Tell us, Brooks, 
does the Bible address pig-racing worship?  If it does not, then 
does it allow it?  Does the Bible address blowing up buildings 
for an awesome worship experience?  If not, then does it allow 
it?  Does the Bible address blood-letting (which can be done in a 
healthy manner) for worship?  Would it be ok to have pet days in 
worship where worshippers bring their pets to worship?  Does the 
Bible address a pet day, or is it a matter of liberty?  Does the 
Bible address Coke and pizza on the Lord's Table?  If the 
Scriptures permit liberty of action as Brooks alleges, then who 
is to say what acts may or may not be utilized.  On what basis is 
one to be accepted and the other excluded?  I doubt seriously 
that our good friend is willing to accept the consequences of his 
own argument.  Friends, if the Bible does not authorize 
something, then the action in question is forbidden.  

Second, quite obviously my esteemed opponent is of the opinion 
that Christians are not under law of any kind.  Of course Brooks 
is in error in his stance here.  The evidence pointing to 
Christians being under law is overwhelming.  We are under a law 
of faith (Romans 3:27), the law of the Spirit (Romans 8:2), law 
to Christ (I Corinthians 9:21), the law of Christ (Galatians 
6:2), the royal law (James 2:8), the New Covenant (my laws, 
Hebrews 8:7-10).  Let me ask you this, Brooks, is the Lord's 
Supper part of the new covenant?  Does law regulate the Lord's 
Supper?

Observe particularly Hebrews 8:7-10.  "7 For if that 
first(covenant) had been faultless, then would no place have been 
sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, 
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, That I will make a new 
covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; 9 
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers In 
the day that I took them by the hand to lead them forth out of 
the land of Egypt; For they continued not in my covenant, And I 
regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant 
that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, saith 
the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, And on their heart 
also will I write them: And I will be to them a God, And they 
shall be to me a people:".  Notice what the Hebrew writer says 
here.  I will put my LAWS in to their mind and write them on 
their hearts.  Just because the laws of God are in the heart does 
not mean we are without law (Psalm 119:11).

Now on to the body of Mr. Brooks article.

I Corinthians 6:11-14

Brooks quotes this passage in support of his position, stating  
“the context of this passage addresses judgment over lifestyle 
issues."  

Mr. Brooks is mistaken.  This passage discusses nothing of the 
kind.  I Corinthians 6 is a treatise in which Paul forbids New 
Testament Christians from settling private matters in courts of 
law.  Paul says the entire opposite of Mr. Brooks' 
interpretation.  The Corinthian brethren were assuming that their 
liberty in Christ freed them to go to law against one another.  
Paul makes the point that if this is true, they might as well 
have continued in their former lifestyles.  This passage has 
nothing whatsoever to say about a Christian's "liberty" in 
Christ, or the silence of the Scriptures.  To the contrary, this 
passage supports my position.

I Corinthians 10:22-24

These passages are part of a lengthy treatment by Paul of matters 
of option.  These passages belong in the context of I Corinthians 
chapters 8-10.  The specific passages here refer back to chapter 
8 where Paul discusses eating meat offered to idols.  It is 
permissible so to do since the idol is nothing, and the meat is 
nothing.  If it violates one's conscience, or the conscience of 
another, don’t do it.  That is the end of Paul's teaching here. 
Let me ask you this, Ray.  Your use of a mechanical instrument in 
worship violates my conscience.  Are you wiling to forego it in 
order that we might work, worship and serve in harmony? This 
passage has nothing to say about cultural matters in our own 
day.  Here Brooks asserts that the "core of the gospel is 
freedom".  Once again he is mistaken. The core of the gospel is 
obedience:  Luke 6:46, I John 2:4, John 14:15, John 15:14, 
Matthew 7:21.

I Corinthians 9:19-23

Ray would have Paul discussing in this passage corporate worship 
and the public works of the church.  He is discussing nothing of 
the kind.  Paul discusses his own private practices in 
approaching men with the Gospel.  There is nothing here that Paul 
applies to the work, worship and service of the New Testament 
church.  Paul's directives here allow non-doctrinal optional 
courses of action in evangelizing the lost.  That is the extent 
of the apostle’s teaching here.

Romans 14

Ray applies Romans 14 far outside the boundaries of Paul’s 
original delivery.  Romans 14 discusses matters of option, or 
indifference.  That is, the chapter discusses issues that are 
indifferent to God.  For example, the Bible specifies unleavened 
bread and fruit of the vine on the Lord's Table.  Suppose someone 
thinks that one can acceptably commune with pizza and Coke.  To 
such a person, one who limits communion to unleavened bread and 
grape juice is narrow and weak in faith.  What Ray fails to 
realize is that Romans 14 applies to matters of option to which 
God is indifferent.  Where God prescribes guidelines, all who 
seek His divine approval must conform.  Just as God has specified 
the elements in use on the Lord’s Table, He has been very 
specific with regard to certain actions in worship.  If God were 
indifferent concerning the elements in communion, then Romans 14 
would be one passage to cite in this discussion.  However, God 
has not left such matters unaddressed.  Therefore He is NOT 
indifferent.  Therefore, Romans 14 does not address such matters.

Ray contends here that Jesus and Paul adapted their approach to 
work, worship and service based on the culture.  He is mistaken.  
There is not one single, solitary example of either making 
doctrinal decisions based on cultural matters.  Did they make 
optional non-doctrinal decisions based on cultural matters?  
Yes.  This is Ray's burden of proof and as yet he has not 
introduced a single example of cultural alteration of worship.  
We are waiting, Ray…

Galatians, Romans, Hebrews

Brooks maintains, 
"Love and law are mutually exclusive motives".

Jesus said they were mutually inclusive (John 14:15).  Whom shall 
we believe?  Not one passage of scripture in any of these books 
teaches his position.  However, these books are replete with 
passages requiring obedience, and an acknowledgement of law.  
Galatians 6:2.  "2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil 
the law of Christ."  Romans 3:27.  "27 Where then is the 
glorying? It is excluded. By what manner of law? of works? Nay: 
but by a law of faith."   Hebrews 8:7-10.  "7 For if that 
first(covenant) had been faultless, then would no place have been 
sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, 
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, That I will make a new 
covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; 9 
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers In 
the day that I took them by the hand to lead them forth out of 
the land of Egypt; For they continued not in my covenant, And I 
regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant 
that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, saith 
the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, And on their heart 
also will I write them: And I will be to them a God, And they 
shall be to me a people:"

John 4

"24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship 
inspirit and truth."  This passage contains a comprehensive 
definition of Christian worship.  We have the object (God), the 
manner (in spirit), and the standard (in truth).  "In spirit” 
means with the inward man.  Brooks asserts that this is 
supernatural/miraculous worship directed by the Holy Spirit 
himself.  If he thinks so, that is his burden of proof.  The 
context here does NOT require that meaning.  "In truth" assumes 
direction by and according to the truth.  Brooks claims that 
truth is a touchy-feely better felt than told concept where the 
worshipper declares God's truth.  Jesus said that God's word was 
truth (John17:17).  Whom shall we believe?

Galatians 5:1

"5:1 For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, 
and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage."  Paul’s message 
here is "do not go back to the Old Law".  The Old Covenant, 
absent grace, did represent a yoke of bondage – no question about 
it.  However, that does not mean that the New Covenant is void of 
law.  Galatians 6:2.  "2 Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so 
fulfill the law of Christ."

Friends, in the final analysis, one question remains.  Is Brooks 
willing to accept the consequences of his own argument?  His 
position states that Christians have freedom of action to utilize 
whatever means necessary to convey the Gospel.  Does this include 
rosary beads, Ray?  Does it include burning incense (Revelation 
8:3-4)?  Does it include a golden censer and a golden altar, Ray 
(Revelation 8:3)?  What about the temple and the tabernacle, Ray 
(Revelation 11:1-2, 15:5)?  Now will Brooks take them all or will 
he cherry-pick the ones he desires?  How can any of them be 
excluded using his logic?

The truth of the business is that Mr. Brooks' logic takes us back 
to the Old Covenant, not away from it.  

My thanks to you for your kind attention.