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

The first five paragraphs of Randy's response attempt to 
establish his own position and use that position to counter my 
own.  Randy's job in this half is to give specific counter 
arguments to my position as I presented it.  Therefore, the first 
five paragraphs were ignored.

I noticed that Randy made no reference to my definitions.  I 
assume this means he is ok with all of them.  He made no attempt 
to challenge the meaning of my definitions in the text of his 
rebuttal when he referred to my points.  The definitions stand 
accepted, and I will continue to affirm my position with those 
definitions in mind.

I now begin my responses to Randy's negative:

Randy: 
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.

Ray:
Regarding the questions, here are my thoughts:

1.  Pig-racing worship:  Worship, as I defined in my first 
affirmative, is the practice of declaring God's character and 
actions.  The act of racing pigs does not declare the truth about 
God's character or His works.  Therefore, the act itself is not 
an act of worship.
2.  Blowing up buildings:  IBID.  This act does not declare 
anything about God.
3.  Blood-letting:  IBID.
4.  Pet days:  The pets would make a mess in the building and 
their noise would disrupt the focus.
5.  Coke and Pizza:  The juice and bread are not acts of 
worship.  They are elements in worship.  Therefore, the question 
does not apply to them.  However, the scriptures do tell us to 
use juice and bread.  Not only that, but their use is not based 
on the New Testament, it is based on the Old.  The elements were 
part of the Passover Feast, which the disciples ate with Jesus 
when He instituted communion.  Therefore, the following three 
points apply:  a.  juice and bread may not be replaced because 
they are symbols representing a specific New Covenant element, 
the body and blood of Christ.  B.  they are not actions, and do 
not qualify as part of this debate.  C.  Since the only reference 
you made in your entire negative were the communion elements, and 
they are not actions, you have not provided ANY EVIDENCE at all 
of New Testament works, service or worship that are commanded.

Randy: 
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?

Ray:
Randy's comments are speculation by his own admission.  And he is 
wrong.  I will not repeat my entire argument since Randy has 
chosen not to quote me to prove his point.  Here is my stance:  
Justification is by faith.  Law does not save.  Law can not save. 
Obedience does not give us brownie points with God.  God delivers 
us from sin by the work of His Son, plus or minus NOTHING.  For 
the purpose of salvation, Christians are not under law of any 
kind.  For the purpose of fellowship, service, and worship, there 
is law.  But not for salvation. And what law there is, gives 
liberty, not bondage.

Now for the passages:  Romans 3, Romans 8, I Corinthians, 
Galatians and James all refer to descriptive law.  The law of 
Christ, as many choose to call it, is not a legal document 
prescribing behavior, but a descriptive law explaining how 
relationship with God works.  The "law of faith" is the best 
example.  Faith, as a law, is descriptive.  Faith is the means by 
which we accept and take hold of God.  Therefore, it is not a 
prescription.  It is instrumental.  Faith is the active agent.  
If faith were a LAW, then there would be a specific instruction 
of active obedience to go with it. None exists.  And there can be 
none, for Faith Itself is the instrument of connection.

And now, the question Randy asked:  Does the law regulate the 
Lord's Supper?  Yes, it regulates the Lord's Supper.  It declares 
what the elements are and what they represent.  But that is not 
the act of taking it.  The details of when, where, and how are 
not mentioned in the New Testament. Once again, this is your only 
example used in the entire negative, and communion is regulated 
only with respect to the elements.  No actions.

Randy: 
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).

Ray:
If Randy properly understood this passage, he would know it 
single-handedly undermines his entire position.  Here is my 
answer to his last sentence:  Yes it does.  Randy, the point of 
this passage is that the laws are inscribed on our hearts as a 
RESULT of being in the New Covenant.  Your position that we are 
UNDER law requires that the law be the CAUSE of getting into the 
New Covenant.  Obedience to Christ is a RESULT of being in the 
Covenant, not the Cause.  Case closed.

Technically, this point ends the debate.  The logical outworking 
of the New Covenant results undermines Randy's entire position.  
But I will continue to answer him.

Randy: 
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.

Ray:
This passage mentions settling matters in court, but that is only 
an introduction to a larger issue.  My quote is from 11-14, at 
which point there is complete transition away from the issue of 
the courts.  Paul begins a teaching showing that the nature of 
the Christian life obligates us to think from a godly instead of 
carnal point of view.  He uses the issue of court cases between 
believers to point out that doing such things means the believers 
are "defeated already" because they are choosing behaviors 
consistent with their old natures.  Then he explains that some of 
them use to be devoted to the carnal nature in specific ways.  
After this, he leaves the courts issue behind completely, 
explaining that a person with the new nature lives in an 
"everything is permissible" relationship that is affected by all 
choices.  Therefore, it is up to the believer to determine what 
is beneficial.  Paul further declares that such a decision should 
take into account the fact that living like the world is the 
spiritual equivalent of prostitution.

Randy thinks Paul is arguing sarcastically for a return to the 
old nature if they insist on taking each other to court.  I 
believe Paul is saying the exact opposite.  The believers are NO 
LONGER like that, therefore, they should live like believers, based on what is beneficial, and not spiritual adultery.

Randy: 
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.

Ray:
I agree. It is certainly a treatment on matters of option.  It's 
implications extend to all issues that are optional.  And ALL 
METHODS are optional, since NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT 
are they dictated.  That is precisely the point. Thank you for 
defending my position Randy.

To answer your question, yes, I'm willing to forego the 
instruments in worship for us to work in harmony.  This passage 
is precisely about cultural freedom in our own day.  The issue of 
food offered to idols IS a cultural issue, and Paul is saying 
believers must do what is best when fellowshipping with others.  
But the implication is obvious:  when your behavior violates no 
one's conscience, then eat.  This may be generalized to all 
matters of option, which includes EVERY METHOD of work, worship 
and service.  Randy is mistaken about the core of the gospel.  
The gospel is grace, and received by faith.  Obedience unto 
salvation is the primary heresy throughout history in the church.

I Corinthians 15:1 – 4 outlines the gospel.  Paul calls it the 
gospel.  NO COMMAND TO OBEDIENCE is to be found in the outline.

Randy: 
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.

Ray:
The third and fourth sentences in this paragraph concerning I Cor 
9 are explicit direct contradictions of each other.  First, Randy 
is arguing for a private practice for Paul, which is an explicit 
contradiction of Randy's position.  Second, whatever Paul does to 
approach men with the gospel, such an act IS the PRIMARY FOCUS in 
the work, worship and service of the New Testament church.  You 
have made a serious logic error here, Randy.  Your point fails.

As for the issue of non-doctrinal optional courses of action, 
this is an excellent summary of the core of our debate. I believe 
ALL ACTIONS are non-doctrinal.  Therefore, a non-doctrinal 
optional course of action is redundant, and anything we could do 
in a service would fall under this category.

Randy: 
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:
My response here is an expansion of my second paragraph on the 
previous passage.  Randy is right about saying that Romans 14 
deals with matter of option or indifference.  That is precisely 
what this debate is about.  However, ALL METHODS are matters of 
option or indifference.  That is my whole point.  I defined 
silence as "having no instruction".  I stated that ALL METHODS 
are undeclared by God.  Once again, Randy uses the ONLY example 
he has used so far in this debate since it's beginning to defend 
his point. And once again, the elements of communion are not 
ACTIONS.  We are debating what we may DO, not the elements of the 
doing. God prescribed the guidelines for communion in the Old 
Testament, not the New.  I'm going to stop there. I've been over 
that already.

The point?  ALL ACTIONS OR METHODS are matters of indifference.  
Therefore, Romans 14 applies to any method at all that we could 
use in our worship, service and work.

A further point needs to be made here:  if Randy believes that 
specific courses of ACTION are required by God in the work, 
worship and service of the church, then he must produce examples 
that INCLUDE specific consequences for non-compliance.  I have 
made this point before.  Randy has not once in his half of the 
debate nor in his first negative produced a SINGLE EXAMPLE IN THE 
NEW TESTAMENT of God requiring a specific course of action and 
declaring the consequences in THAT SAME PASSAGE for rebellion.  
He must do so or my position stands unchallenged.

Randy: 
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…

Ray:
Approaches to work, worship and service are ALL non-doctrinal 
matters.  It is not necessary for me to produce an example of 
cultural alteration of worship.  Such an example would fall under 
Randy's hermeneutic.  I don't hold to that method of 
interpretation.  All I must do is prove that where we have no 
instruction, we have liberty. I must also prove that we have no 
instruction concerning methods.  I have done both.  In order to 
challenge me, Randy must produce an instruction concerning 
METHODS that also mentions the consequences. He has yet to 
provide.  My point is yet unchallenged.

P.S.  You will be waiting a long time.  My burden is to defend my 
position.  Such an example would be a rebuttal to yours.  That's 
not my job this half.

Randy: 
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:"

Ray:
First, John 14:15 has nothing to do with validating law as a 
motive.  My statement says that love and law are mutually 
exclusive "MOTIVES".  A motive is a reason or driving urge for an 
action.  Obedience to God based on love is the point of John 
14:15.  Obedience to God based on love and at the same time based 
on "the law says this, so I must do it" on the simple fact that 
it is commanded is impossible to do.  If you obey out of love, 
you are not motivated by law.  It's that simple. And Jesus said 
so in John 14:15.

Randy: 
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?

Ray:
We will believe the one faithful to the context.  Randy, the 
meaning of the words themselves requires my position.  Spiritual 
worship is supernatural by nature.  There is no other kind.  It 
is not a matter of context, but correct worldview.  I believe 
your interpretation of this passage, and rejection of the 
supernatural interpretation, points to a weakness in your own 
Christian worldview concerning the nature of spiritual things.  
If you do not believe the passage requires supernaturalism, then 
you take a secular view of worship.  We are on different pages in 
that respect.  I believe in the spirit world and communicating 
with God by supernatural means.  This passage does not defend 
such a teaching, it assumes it is true. Only through the false 
doctrine of Gnosticism and the overdependence on natural reason 
do we find the removal of the supernatural that you endorse.  The 
burden of proof here is entirely on you.

Also, "in truth" assumes nothing of the sort.  Your position is a 
law-based view of truth.  Truth can mean several things here, I 
believe, but is not natural for truth to equal law.  Again, the 
burden of proof is on you.

Jesus indeed said that God's word was truth.  But that does not 
defend your point.  God's word gives instruction, commands, 
teaches who God is, gives historical information, declares oaths 
about a priesthood, and proclaims liberty to captives.  Your over 
generalized approach leaves the issue clouded.  Your point falls.

Your final statement about my position is a misrepresentation.  I 
did not call truth a touch feely experience.  I called it the 
truth about who God is and what He has done.  Please present my 
position accurately.  Thank you.

Randy: 
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."

Ray:
Galatians 6:2 is the only passage in the whole of scripture that 
uses the phrase Law of Christ, and it is not defined, explained, 
nor are any specific rules laid out.  This point can be dismissed 
as irrelevant to any discussion, especially this one.

Randy: 
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?

Ray:
Ok, time to answer more questions here:

His position states that Christians have freedom of action to 
utilize whatever means necessary to convey the Gospel.

Does this include rosary beads, Ray? 
No. Rosary beads are a form of worship, not conveying the 
gospel.  Does not apply.

Does it include burning incense (Revelation 8:3-4)?    
Another example of worship, not evangelism.  And I'm not against 
burning incense in worship.

Does it include a golden censer and a golden altar, Ray (Revelation 8:3)?            
Again, your point being evangelism, this won't do that job. It's 
an act of worship. I see no need for it, but I'm not against it.

What about the temple and the tabernacle, Ray (Revelation 11:1-2, 
15:5)?              
They come closer to evangelism, but again, I have no objections 
to them.  But no need either.

Now will Brooks take them all or will he cherry-pick the ones he 
desires? 

I like this question.  It draws directly on the fallacy in 
Randy's position.  He assumes that it must be take all or none.  
That is the presumption of the law-based position.  He forgets 
that I don't believe Christians are under law FOR SALVATION. 
Therefore, Randy, the answer is yes:  I will gladly cherry-pick 
the ones I desire that will promote worship for the context I am 
in and lead others into worship as well. Absolutely.  That's the 
whole point of New Covenant living.

How can any of them be excluded?  They can all be excluded for 
any number of reasons, but not because they are inherently a 
violation of law.  They can be excluded because the culture 
doesn't relate to them.  They can be excluded if they aren't in 
themselves acts that declare the truth about God and His works.  
They can be excluded on the grounds that they are not 
beneficial.  But they can't be excluded on the grounds that God 
said "don't do that." Such a principle is anti-New Testament. And 
anti-gospel.  Randy, keep that statement in context.  "don't do 
that" refers to actions of worship, not inherently immoral 
actions.

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

Ray:
Here are several statements from Randy's first negative that 
support the Old Covenant:

Friends, if the Bible does not authorize something, then the 
action in question is forbidden.

Does law regulate the Lord's Supper?

Just because the laws of God are in the heart does not mean we 
are without law (Psalm 119:11).

The core of the gospel is obedience

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. 

(Please note that Randy has not produced A SINGLE PASSAGE in the 
New Testament to support the second half of this sentence.)

However, these books are replete with passages requiring 
obedience, and an acknowledgement of law. 

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."      
(Randy, are you aware that a Law of Faith is descriptive, not 
prescriptive?)  Your efforts to use this passage make an old 
testament principle out of it.

However, that does not mean that the New Covenant is void of 
law.  (Randy, law and faith are diametrically opposed. Your 
comment explicitly makes the New Covenant into a source of 
bondage exactly like the Old Covenant.)

Randy has addressed some of my points, but he still assumes the 
New Covenant contains prescriptive law, and that a violation of 
such is disobedience with specific consequences noted in the same 
passage.  He must do so to give me a true rebuttal.  He has not 
done this once.  Until he does, he has no case at all.

Ray Brooks