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

This is my third and final affirmative.  I will do the following 
three things in this document:

1.  Provide a general disclaimer for this debate.
2.  Reaffirm my position as stated in the first two affirmatives.
3.  Conclude with my respects to the religious debates forum.

I.  The General Disclaimer

Over the years of my Christian pilgrimage, I have had the 
privilege to discuss and debate many religious issues with people 
from different backgrounds.  Occasionally the question of 
"silence" comes up.  This has always been a fascinating and 
tricky topic.  Therefore, I would like to present a few thoughts 
on "silence" and "authority" before I begin my final affirmative.

Randy and I both have been strong and firm in presenting our 
arguments.  I wondered from the beginning what strategy he would 
use.  Now I must make a confession:  neither of us could possibly 
win this discussion. The fact is that "silence" is a lack of 
information.  Logically, it has no authority.  Silence can 
neither grant liberty nor restrict behavior.  I knew this when I 
signed on, but because I am fascinated by the topic, I chose to 
defend the proposition.  In truth, neither Randy nor I have 
defended the proposition that we signed to defend.  Here is why:

Randy used the term "qualified silence" to defend his position.  
He started with what God actually says, then proceeded to explain 
what happens when you do something God doesn't say.  That is not 
silence.  In order to defend the proposition, we must have no 
teaching at all in scripture on the subject.  Randy simply used 
word trickery to get around true silence.  He proved nothing 
about silence at all.

And so did I, by the way.  My use of passages referring to 
Christian liberty do not address silence any more than Randy's 
arguments do.  My burden was to prove that silence constitutes 
liberty.  I proved that when we have no information (silence), we 
must turn to other forms of authority and biblical principles to 
determine what we may do.  I did not prove anything about 
silence, either.

Since neither of us proved the actual propositions, be both threw 
the debate, but it was still good clean fun.  I have enjoyed 
giving the reason for the hope that is within me, and I know 
Randy has as well.

II.  Reaffirming my position

I'll make this short and sweet.  I based my position on the 
following premises:

First, my definitions:

"Silence of the scriptures" means lack of instruction.  For the 
scriptures to be silent, we must have no instruction of any kind 
on a particular point.  I affirm that such is the meaning of 
silence, and will prove that the scriptures provide no 
instruction relevant to the topic at hand.

"constitutes liberty" means within a biblically moral context, 
the lack of instruction means we can do what seems best to us in 
our culture to accomplish the purpose of the church's task.

"New Testament church" is a phrase that means people gathering 
locally to worship Jesus Christ, teach His Word and serve their 
local community in works and service for the purpose of being a 
witness to the gospel.

"work, worship and service" means the practical activities 
involved in worshiping God, His Son Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit 
and ministering to both the lost and the saved in any context 
(the local assembly or daily life).

The question that needs to be answered is this:  do we really 
have the freedom, within a moral context, to employ any form of 
worship, work or service, in ministering to the lost or the 
saved?

The following points establish my position:

1.  Everything is permissible, but we choose those activities, 
based on culture and the Word, that edify the body. (1 Cor 6:11-
14; 1 Cor 10:22-24)
2.  We may use whatever means necessary to minister to the lost 
and preach the gospel, within a moral and cultural context.  (1 
Cor 9:19-23)
3.  Lifestyle issues, outside of explicit word of God morality, 
are none of our business.  Liberty in lifestyle is a KEY to 
understanding the New Covenant.  (Rom 14:1-8)
4.  Freedom in worship.  (Ephesians 3:12; Galatians 5:1)
5.  The books of Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews are based on 
Habakkuk 2:4, which states that we live by faith (as opposed to 
law).  Paul goes to the point of being obnoxious to prove that 
judging others or approaching God based on law receives the 
highest condemnation possible by God.
6.  We live by faith in relationship, not law to gain approval.
7.  Our approval from God is based on being in Christ by faith.

Based on these premises, I conclude that a Christian, in doing 
the work, worship, and service of the church, has liberty to act 
by faith, based on the liberty of the gospel, in performing his 
duties.  I have proven that.  My affirmative burden is 
discharged, and I thank the readers and Randy for their time.  
Randy has offered no further rebuttal as shown below.  Thank you 
for reading.

Now, a bit of unpleasant business is at hand that I must deal 
with before I close.  Randy will note that I only addressed the 
last 8 ½ pages of his 13 page second negative.  Randy chose to 
spend the first 4 ½ pages reaffirming his own position and asking 
me questions about it.  Since my job in this half does not 
include answering his position, I rightly ignored it. Perhaps 
Randy will act with greater wisdom in the future to make these 
discussions more productive.

Concerning the last 8 ½ pages, Randy repeatedly used the 
following paragraph to address every scripture I gave:

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.

You read it for yourself, folks.  Randy states that there is no 
connection between my passages and the topic. But he refuses to 
prove it.  He simply did not give a rebuttal.  And remember, he 
provided this exact same paragraph for all of the passages I 
gave.  Bottom line:  he did not give me a rebuttal.  He has not 
challenged my position AT ALL.

That being the case, my burden is done.  I have affirmed my 
position; Randy has not offered an argument.  Thanks for reading 
my third affirmative.

III.  Conclusion:      
There are many debates lined up in the forum.  If I signed up for 
another right now, it would be many months before I would be 
debating.  I am going to sit back and watch for a while. I have 
enjoyed my year, and three debates.  Thank you for reading.

In Defense of the Faith we hold dear, and the freedom we have in Christ Jesus,

Ray Brooks