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 want to keep clearly in the mind of the reader the different 
positions espoused by Mr. Brooks and myself.  To that end, I 
restate my position here, and then move to cover other issues as 
broached by Brooks.  We note that he answered none of the 
arguments therein contained, especially the third paragraph.

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 (Leviticus10),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.

Brooks begins his second affirmative chiding me for not 
mentioning his definitions.  I saw no reason to so in my first 
negative.  We have noted in passing in prior articles that Brooks 
and I differ regarding the definition of "church", but I saw no 
reason to pursue that further.  

Mr. Brooks also suggests that he defined the word "worship” in 
his first affirmative.  Friends, I beg to differ.  Mr. Brooks did 
NOT define the word worship in his first affirmative at the time 
he defined his proposition.  He is referring to statements made 
later in his first affirmative, but he did not formally define 
the word in that article as is the responsibility of the first 
affirmative.  The closest we come to any definition of worship in 
the first affirmative article is when Brooks refers to the 
"nature of worship". Whether or not his "nature of worship" 
statements define the word or not is entirely unsettled.

The American Century Dictionary defines worship as follows: "homage or service to deity; acts, rites or ceremonies addressed 
to deity; adoration or devotion addressed to deity; to attend or 
engage in public worship".  I adopt this definition for my 
articles, and will discuss it in more detail when addressing 
arguments under John 4:23-24.  While on the subject of 
definitions, I think it necessary to  define the word "law".  The 
same dictionary defines the term as "a rule enacted in a 
community that commands or forbids certain actions".  I will use 
the following paraphrase of this definition:  "rule of action, 
imposed by a superior who possesses the ability to command 
obedience."

In my first negative article, I re-introduced my position, and 
asked Mr. Brooks a series of questions.  Let me refresh the 
memory of all by restating those questions here.  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 
accepted and the other excluded?

Friends, Ray Brooks did not answer a single one of my questions.  
He answered "at" them, but provided no answer "to" them. The 
answer he did give was in relation to his own "definition" of 
worship. I never asked him that.  That is not the question at 
all.  I asked in each case "Does the Bible address…" – each one a 
“yes, or no" question.  Here is the question Brooks answered: 
"Does your `definition' of worship include…?". Brooks did not 
answer a single question.

Of course there is a reason for this.  These questions present 
him with a dilemma.  If he answers "yes" to a single question, he 
admits that the Bible legislates in its silence where worship is 
concerned, which of course it does, but which he does not 
believe.  If he answers "no", he endorses the outrageous behavior 
herein described.  Having no way out of his dilemma, he dodges my 
questions.

However, notice the last two questions that he did not touch in 
any way shape, or form.  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?  Brooks' answer – the above "worship” activities 
do not fall within his definition of worship.  Mr. Brooks, I want 
to know if the Scriptures teach against such activities.  How do 
you objectively justify including a mechanical instrument in your 
worship services, but excluding pig racing?

Churches of Christ exclude such activities by silence of the 
scriptures.  The Bible endorses five actions in corporate 
worship– singing (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16), praying, 
teaching/preaching, Lord's Supper (Acts 2:42-47, I Corinthians11) 
and a collection (I Corinthians 16:1-2).  The silence of the 
scriptures excludes pig-racing, bloodletting and building 
demolition, etc. in worship.  Friends, I objectively exclude pig-
racing, bloodletting and building demolition through the silence 
of the scriptures.  By what objective means can Brooks exclude 
these outrageous activities I have asked him about?

His (so-called) "definition" of worship includes anything that 
declares God's character and actions.  Well, John Q. Citizen who 
worships at "Denomination X" thinks that pig racing does declare 
God's character and actions.  Now, friends, Citizen's opinion is 
just as good as Brooks'.  Brooks says pig racing, blowing up 
buildings, bloodletting, pet days, etc do not declare God’s 
character and actions; John Q. Citizen says they do.  Now who is 
right?  Brooks, by what objective means do you condemn Citizen's 
opinion?

Give us book, chapter and verse supporting your position.

I was amused at Brooks' comments on the Lord's Supper.  The 
question I asked him was "Does the Bible address Coke and pizza 
on the Lord’s Table?"  His first statement in response here was 
that the question discusses elements, not actions.  What 
difference does that make?  He missed the point completely.  The 
question (which he did not answer) is does the silence of the 
scriptures regulate the Lord's Supper, which is entirely within 
the bounds of this proposition.  

Brooks goes on to tell us that "...the scriptures do tell us to 
use juice and bread."  I would like book, chapter and verse for 
that, too, Ray.  Friends, the institution of the Lord's Supper is 
recorded four times in the New Testament:  Matthew 26, Mark 14, 
Luke 22, and I Corinthians 11.  He got the representation of the 
emblems right (body and blood).  However, there is not one single 
solitary passage of scripture in all the New Testament that 
explicitly requires the use of unleavened bread and grape juice 
on the Lord's Table.  The approved example of Jesus Christ and 
the apostles of the first century bind that practice.  There is 
no direct command for it.  Thus, according to Brooks' own logic, 
he faces another dilemma.  Either Romans 14 applies, and Brooks 
cannot objectively exclude Coke and pizza on the Lord's Table, or 
the Scriptures bind in their silence (which he does not 
believe).  Now which leg of this dilemma will he try to stand on?

I charged Brooks in my first negative with believing that 
Christians are under no law.  He denied this, but his first 
affirmative contains the following statement:  "There are no 
legal requirements for how worship is done."  He went on to 
assert that Christians are not under law where salvation is 
concerned.  Well, let us see.  Brooks denies any laws governing 
worship, and any laws concerning salvation.  Yet he denies my 
charge in believing that Christians are under no law.  Hmmmmmm…

Notice in this regard that Brooks did not answer my questions.  I 
repeat them here.  "Let me ask you this, Brooks, is the Lord’s 
Supper part of the new covenant? Does law regulate the Lord's 
Supper?"  Brooks partially responded to the first question by 
saying that the Lord's Supper is based on the Old Covenant.  So 
what?  I never asked him that.  That is not the question at all.  
Brooks, is the Lord’s Supper part of the New Covenant?  Yes or 
no?  Does law regulate the Lord's Supper?  Yes or no?

Regarding salvation, he makes the following statement:  
"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." 

Mr. Brooks, must an alien sinner repent of a sinful lifestyle 
prior to becoming a child of God?  Can an alien sinner continue 
in a sinful lifestyle, while entering a covenant relationship 
with God?  If your answer is yes, does the alien sinner repent 
before or after salvation?  If your answer is before, how do you 
know?  Book, chapter and verse requiring repentance prior to 
salvation?  Is repentance a "rule of action, imposed by a 
superior possessing the ability to command obedience"?  Yes or 
no.  Brooks asserts that faith is not prescriptive, rather 
instrumental.  Hebrews 11:6 sounds awfully prescriptive to me.  
"6 And without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing (unto 
him); for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and 
(that) he is a rewarder of them that seek after him."

Of course Brooks is just as wrong about salvation as he is about 
anything else.  God through the inspired writers requires a 
penitent sinner to (1) hear the word (Romans 10:17), (2) 
belief/faith (Hebrews 11:6), (3) repent (Luke 13:1-5, Acts 2:38), 
(4) confess the deity of Christ (Romans 10:8-11), (5) be immersed 
in water (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, I Peter 3:12).  Each of these 
individually is a requirement (a law if you will) preceding the 
point where an alien sinner enters the New Covenant.  Each of 
these is a "rule of action, imposed by a superior possessing the 
ability to command obedience". Christians are most certainly 
under law where salvation is concerned.

Brooks' continued rejoinder on the Lord's Supper is once again 
amusing.  He admits that the scriptures regulate the Lord’s 
Supper.  He admits further that the scriptures "declare what the 
elements are and what they represent."  Friends, at this point, 
he has forfeited the debate.  The proposition requires Brooks to 
prove that silence constitutes liberty.  Here he has admitted 
that silence restricts.  My case is sustained.  He continues 
stating that the elements are "not the act of taking it. The 
details of when, where, anyhow are not mentioned in the New 
Testament."  So what?  Does silence restrict, or not?  If so, the 
negative position is sustained.   Brooks ends this section by 
asserting, "this is your only example used in the entire 
negative".  So what?  How many times must the sacred pages state 
a thing as being true for it to be true?

Hebrews 8:7-10

Brooks continues to assume here that because the Old Covenant has 
passed away that Christians are no longer under law of any kind.  
I pointed out that just because the laws of God are in the heart 
does not mean we are without law (Psalm 119:11).  Brooks must 
right himself from another dilemma here.  Paul affirmed that 
where there is no law, there is no sin (Romans 4:15).  Therefore, 
Brooks' must affirm one of two positions.  Either Christians do 
indeed operate under law, or they are without law and incapable 
of sin.  I would remind the reader of the direct statements of 
the Hebrew writer in quoting from the prophet:  "10 For this is 
the covenant that 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:".  Brooks says the New Covenant 
contains no law, the prophet declared otherwise.  Whom shall we 
believe?

Mr. Brooks makes the statement here that "obedience to Christ is 
RESULT of being in the Covenant, not the Cause."  Tell us then, 
Ray how does one get into the New Covenant?  Must an alien sinner 
repent?  If your answer is "yes", who says so?

Note here that Brooks has made no effort to relate Hebrews to his 
topic.  The topic specifically requires him to prove that silence 
grants liberty.  Nothing whatsoever in this passage addresses 
what the Scriptures do NOT say.  Thus, I could hypothetically 
admit all his arguments are true, but that would not sustain his 
case. Ray's position is that where the Bible does not speak, 
absolute liberty exists.  He has not produced the first scripture 
in proof of that.  Not I Hebrews 8, not any other.

I Corinthians 6:11-14

I have stated my view on this passage.  Brooks believes that Paul 
changes topics here.  I do not agree.  I believe the entirety of 
I Corinthians 6 is a treatise in which Paul forbids New Testament 
Christians from settling private matters in courts of law.  This 
is entirely in keeping with our Lord's directives of Matthew 18.  
I teach that 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.

It really does not matter.  Any way Brooks wants to slice and 
dice this passage is fine with me.  It simply does not teach his 
doctrine.  Note in verse 11 that Paul says "but ye were washed, 
but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the 
Lord Jesus Christ".  As Paul uses them here, washed, sanctified 
and justified have synonymous meanings.  How were the Corinthians 
washed, sanctified, or justified?  They were washed, sanctified, 
or justified through baptism.  (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, I Peter 
3:21)  Why?  Baptism is commanded.  The requirement of baptism is 
a law, if you will.

In what manner were they baptized?  They were baptized "in the 
name of the Lord Jesus Christ".  What does it mean to do 
something in the name of Jesus?  It means to act with His divine 
authority (Colossians 3:17), a concept Brooks denies where New 
Testament Christianity is concerned.

"12 All things are lawful for me; but not all things are 
expedient."  In I Corinthians 5, Paul chastises a particular 
brother for having his father's wife, and the balance of the 
brethren there for tolerating it.  The act of fornication may 
have been legal in Paul’s day, however, though such a thing be 
lawful, yet the case of fornication, mentioned I Corinthians 5:1, 
is not expedient, that is it is not agreeable to propriety, 
decency, order, and purity. It is contrary to the established 
usages of the best and most enlightened nations, and should not 
be tolerated in the New Testament church.  So even though 
fornication may be legal, it is illegal in the New Testament 
economy.  Illegal – a violation of law.  Brooks meets the law of 
Christ at every turn.

Let me ask you this where expediency is concerned here, Brooks.  
Would you give up your mechanical instrument of music, so that we 
could worship together peacefully without stultifying my 
conscience?  Brooks would never do this.  If he were sincere in 
saying he would, he would have already given the instrument up.

Friends, I could go on.  I embrace everything taught by Paul in I 
Corinthians 6.  The point is there is not one word in these 
passages that teaches Brooks' position.

Note here that Brooks has made no effort to relate I Corinthians 
6 to his topic.  The topic specifically requires him to prove 
that silence grants liberty.  Nothing whatsoever in this passage 
addresses what the Scriptures do NOT say.  Thus, I could 
hypothetically admit all his arguments are true, but that would 
not sustain his case. Ray's position is that where the Bible does 
not speak, absolute liberty exists.  He has not produced the 
first scripture in proof of that.  Not I Corinthians 6, not any 
other.

I Corinthians 10:22-24
I am glad to know that Brooks and I agree to a point on these 
passages.  The passage discusses matters that are of indifference 
to God, just like Romans 14.  Note Ray's comment here "But the 
implication is obvious: when your behavior violates no one's 
conscience, then eat (meat sacrificed to idols)."  I am further 
delighted to note that Ray realizes that the Bible teaches by 
implication (logic), since most of my denominational friends deny 
such a concept.  The constraint here (by Ray's own admission) 
concerns a violation of the conscience.  Is that a law, Ray?  Is 
it lawful under New Testament Christianity for me to do something 
that violates the conscience of another?  Yes or no.  Once again, 
friends, there is not one word of these passages that teach his 
position.

Brooks applies this passage far outside Paul's intended bounds. 
In fact, Brooks' view is that Paul placed no bounds at all on 
matters of expediency.  So it is his view that worship on Sunday 
is optional, Tuesday or Thursday would be just as good.  Using a 
mechanical instrument of music is ok, even though it causes 
division.  An alien sinner does not have to repent, it is 
optional.  Paul makes the identical point here he does in chapter 
6, in fact I Corinthians 10:23 and I Corinthians 6:12 are 
identical in every respect.  They simply do not teach his 
doctrine.

Note here that Brooks has made no effort to relate I Corinthians 
10 to his topic.  The topic specifically requires him to prove 
that silence grants liberty.  Nothing whatsoever in this passage 
addresses what the Scriptures do NOT say.  Thus, I could 
hypothetically admit all his arguments are true, but that would 
not sustain his case.  Ray's position is that where the Bible 
does not speak, absolute liberty exists.  He has not produced the 
first scripture in proof of that.  Not I Corinthians 10, not any 
other.

I Corinthians 15:1 – 4

Brooks states here that this passage "outlines the gospel." I 
concur in that statement.  However he goes on to say in his 
second affirmative "NO COMMAND TO OBEDIENCE is to be found in the 
outline."  He is mistaken.  Note what Paul says here.  The 
Corinthians were saved by "the gospel which I preached unto 
you".  Thus being taught of the gospel is a prerequisite to 
entering the kingdom (Romans 10:17).  Ray, is "hearing" a 
prerequisite to becoming a Christian?  Yes or no.  If your answer 
is yes, is hearing commanded?  Is hearing a law?  If your answer 
is no, then why become a Christian?  Once again, friends, I 
embrace the entirety of I Corinthians 15:1-4, it simply does not 
teach Brooks' position.

Note here that Brooks has made no effort to relate I Corinthians 
15 to his topic.  The topic specifically requires him to prove 
that silence grants liberty.  Nothing whatsoever in this passage 
addresses what the Scriptures do NOT say.  Thus, I could 
hypothetically admit all his arguments are true, but that would 
not sustain his case.  Ray's position is that where the Bible 
does not speak, absolute liberty exists.  He has not produced the 
first scripture in proof of that.  Not I Corinthians 15, not any 
other.

I Corinthians 9:19-23

Brooks charges me with an error in logic where these passages are 
concerned, which I deny.  However, since he completely missed my 
point, there is really no reason to review that.  Paul introduces 
these passages by submitting that he is under law to no man in 
verse 19.  This point is key.  Paul admits that he is under law 
to no man.  I accept this.  However, never in this passage (or 
anywhere else) does Paul assert that he is not under law to God.  
The very fact that Paul describes his efforts at evangelism here 
means that he accepts God's divine precept to preach and teach 
the lost (Matthew 28:18-20).  Is that a law, Brooks?  Paul will 
later specify that he is under law to Christ.  Did he say this, 
Ray?  Yes or no.  The apostle then addresses three groups of 
people:  Jews in verse 20, Gentiles in verse 21, and those with 
tender or weak consciences in verse 22.  Now in verse 23, the 
apostle delineates his reason for becoming all things to all 
men:  "And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be 
partaker thereof with you."  So Paul did these things that the 
unconverted Jew, Gentile and weak might partake of the Gospel.  
The implication is that prior to conversion these three groups 
did not partake of the Gospel.  When do we partake of the 
Gospel?  After conversion.  How are we converted?  Through the 
Gospel.  How do I obey the Gospel (II Thessalonians 1:8)?  By (1) 
hearing the word (Romans 10:17), (2) having belief/faith (Hebrews 
11:6), (3) repentance (Luke 13:1-5, Acts 2:38), (4) confession of 
the deity of Christ (Romans 10:8-11), (5) being immersed in water 
(Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, I Peter 3:12).  

Mr. Brooks further claims, "ALL ACTIONS are non-doctrinal". This 
statement is what it is – an assertion.  Even if the assertion is 
true (it isn't), this passage does not teach it.  Could Proclaim 
the Gospel while drunk, and maintain God's approval while 
doings?  If not, does doing so violate New Testament law?

Friends, the passage simply doesn't teach his doctrine –never 
has, never did, never will.  Brooks meets the law of Christ 
coming and going in this passage.

Note here that Brooks has made no effort to relate I Corinthians 
9 to his topic.  The topic specifically requires him to prove 
that silence grants liberty.  Nothing whatsoever in this passage 
addresses what the Scriptures do NOT say.  Thus, I could 
hypothetically admit all his arguments are true, but that would 
not sustain his case. Ray's position is that where the Bible does 
not speak, absolute liberty exists.  He has not produced the 
first scripture in proof of that.  Not I Corinthians 9, not any 
other.

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.  I use those three sentences to begin my 
argumentation here in my first negative.  Really friends, Brooks 
never replied.  He said, "Randy’s right about saying that Romans 
14 deals with matter of option or indifference."  He is 
mistaken.  I never said that.  I said the chapter discusses 
issues that are indifferent TO GOD.  Huge difference.  Could we 
participate in Sunday morning worship naked?  Now Brooks alleges, 
"ALL ACTIONS OR METHODS are matters of indifference."  Thus 
Brooks is forced to take the position that New Testament 
Christians may worship God publicly while naked, and maintain his 
approval.  Now friends, that utter absurdity is where Brooks' 
logic leads.

He continues to make a distinction between methods, actions and 
elements.  Friends, I said in a prior article that this is 
nothing more than a semantic subterfuge. There is not point to be 
made here.  First, methods and elements cannot and do not exist 
separate and apart from one another. Second, if silence grants 
liberty, one may substitute coke and pizza on the Lord's Table.  
If not, why not?

Brooks then makes the observation that I have not provided 
scripture that state consequences for rebellion.  We'll just add 
this absurdity to the list.  Brooks admits that pig racing in 
worship is wrong, thus constituting vain worship (Matthew 15:9; 
Colossians 2:23).  Does vain worship constitute sin, Ray?  Yes or 
no.  Is the wages of sin death (Romans 6:23), Ray?  Yes or no.  
How much more consequential could it be, friends?

Note here that Brooks has made no effort to relate Romans 14 to 
his topic.  The topic specifically requires him to prove that 
silence grants liberty.  Nothing whatsoever in this passage 
addresses what the Scriptures do NOT say.  Thus, I could 
hypothetically admit all his arguments are true, but that would 
not sustain his case. Ray's position is that where the Bible does 
not speak, absolute liberty exists.  He has not produced the 
first scripture in proof of that.  Not Romans 14, not any other.

Ray contended in his first affirmative that Jesus and Paul 
adapted their approach to work, worship and service based on the 
culture. I said he was mistaken, and he is. There is not one 
single, solitary example of either making doctrinal decisions 
based on cultural matters. Brooks' response – I don't have to 
provide an example.  Well, of what value is the point, Ray?  I'm 
not interested in your opinion.  You said that Jesus and Paul 
altered their approach to people based on culture.  If that's 
true, prove it.  I deny it. You are in the affirmative here.  
Prove your statement.  The presumption is that the negative 
position is correct until the affirmative proves otherwise which 
you refuse to do.  This point flows negative.

Galatians, Romans, Hebrews

Brooks maintained in the first affirmative that these books teach 
his doctrine.  I said in the first negative that they do nothing 
of the kind.  Brooks response?  There was no response.  The books 
simply do not teach his doctrine.  Galatians 6:2. "2 Bear ye one 
another's burdens, and so fulfill 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:"

The only response Brooks made here was in reference to John 
14:15, saying, "My statement says that love and law are mutually 
exclusive "MOTIVES".  A motive is reason or driving urge for an 
action."  He assumes here that one cannot obey out of love and 
fear of law.  Yet we do it all the time.  I love my country.  For 
that reason I keep the speed limit.  I also fear the fine that 
goes with speeding.  Thus both motivate me.  The two co-exist.  I 
love God.  For that reason, I keep His commandments (John 
14:15).  I also fear God.  For that reason, I keep his 
commandments.  Thus both motivate me.  The two co-exist.

Note here that Brooks has made no effort to relate Galatians, 
Romans, and Hebrews to his topic.  The topic specifically 
requires him to prove that silence grants liberty.  Nothing 
whatsoever in this passage addresses what the Scriptures do NOT 
say.  Thus, I could hypothetically admit all his arguments are 
true, but that would not sustain his case.  Ray's position is 
that where the Bible doesn’t speak, absolute liberty exists.  He 
has not produced the first scripture in proof of that.  Not 
Galatians, Romans, or Hebrews, not any other.

John 4

"24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in 
spirit 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 avows that this is 
supernatural/miraculous worship directed by the Holy Spirit 
himself.  I discussed this argument in my first negative and it 
is unanswered.  His view is that he does not have to prove that 
the Holy Spirit is referred to here.  I thought we had signed to 
debate this proposition.  As I recall Brooks is in the 
affirmative.  His topic reads, "The Scriptures teach..." thus it 
is his burden (whether he accepts it or not) to prove his views 
true in light of scripture.  Why Brooks prefers to dodge that 
burden as he does once again here is beyond me.  

Brooks asserts that the supernatural/miraculous work of the Holy 
Spirit is referenced here by the phrase "in spirit".  This 
statement is what it is, an unverified contention.  Ray Brooks 
has not, and cannot prove this.  He further declared that it is 
not natural for the phrase "in truth" to equal law.  He has not, 
and cannot prove this.  His argument is full of unproven 
assertions, insisting rather that the burden of proof is mine.  I 
choose to accept that burden, but as the affirmative disputant; 
his argument fails here due to his own lack of proof.

The article "the" does not appear in the phrase "inspirit" (en 
pneumati) in either Greek or English.  The phrase does not read 
“in the Spirit".  Neither does the proper appellation of the 
third person of the Godhead appear here "Holy Spirit" (agiou 
pneumatoV). The passage simply contains no reference whatsoever 
to the third person of the Godhead.  The word "spirit," here, 
stands opposed to rites and ceremonies, and to the pomp of 
external worship. It refers to the "mind," the "soul," the 
"heart." Barnes summarizes perfectly what the passage teaches:  
"They shall worship God with a sincere” mind;" with the simple 
offering of gratitude and prayer; with a desire to glorify him, 
and without external pomp and splendor. Spiritual worship is that 
where the heart is offered to God, and where we do not depend on 
external forms for acceptance."  Friends, Brooks is fully 
entitled to his opinion, and can believe what he likes.  Proving 
his view true, as is his obligation in the affirmative, is an 
entirely different matter.

Where the phrase "in truth" is concerned it is interesting that 
Brooks admits that the phrase has multiple meanings.  "Truth can 
mean several things here, I believe, but is not natural for truth 
to equal law."  This last statement is unproven.  Is it true that 
the speed limit is 55 mph?  Is it true that pizza and Coke on the 
Lord’s Table would constitute vain worship?  Does truth then 
equal law? Brooks' allegation here is unproven.  This is his 
primary problem where this passage is concerned.  He has stated 
his opinion, but provided no proof.  His affirmative burden 
stands unfulfilled.

Note here that Brooks has made no effort to relate John 4 to his 
topic.  The topic specifically requires him to prove that silence 
grants liberty.  Nothing whatsoever in this passage addresses 
what the Scriptures do NOT say.  Thus, I could hypothetically 
admit all his arguments are true, but that would not sustain his 
case. Ray's position is that where the Bible does not speak, 
absolute liberty exists.  He has not produced the first scripture 
in proof of that.  Not John 4, not any other.

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."

I frankly did a double take concerning Brooks' response to this 
passage. "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."

Galatians 6:2 is irrelevant?  In a discussion of law, Galatians 
6:2 which puts us under the Law of Christ is irrelevant.  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).  Are these passages irrelevant, too, 
Brooks?

Jesus condemned vain worship (Matthew 15:9), so He must require 
that we worship properly.  Jesus required repentance (Luke 13:1-
5), making repentance a requirement of law.  Jesus required love 
(John 13:34), making love a requirement of law.  On and on the 
list goes, but Brooks says the "law of Christ" in Galatians 6:2 
is irrelevant.

Brooks ends his second affirmative charging me with desiring to 
bind the Old  Covenant.  Of course that statement is yet another 
absurdity.  I realize the reason he makes such charges is that he 
does not have the support of Scripture in sustaining his own 
position.  He has done the best he can, but he is battling the 
truth, not me.  The weakness of his position lies in that fact 
and no other.  I have acknowledged numerous times in this debate 
that the Old Covenant has passed.  I accept that, and see no 
point in going back over it.  Brooks' assumption is that because 
the Old Law has passed, that the New Covenant contains no law of 
any kind.  That view is wholly without proof in this debate, and 
totally outside scriptural substantiation.

Friends, Mr. Brooks has decided to turn this debate on the 
silence of the scriptures into a debate on the Law of Christ, 
generally.  Since he is in error, I am only too happy to oblige 
him.  At the end of the day, his proposition concerning the 
silence of the Scriptures remains unproven.

My thanks to you for your kind attention.

Randy Dodson