Broking - Maxey Debate

This is my final affirmative in this debate. In this installment I discuss the pattern and how to use it. I have discussed this to a point previously, but more fully develop it here. It could be developed further, but time constraints being what they are, this will have to suffice. The example used in this part of the discussion is the Lord’s Supper. Maxey’s third negative is then discussed and the points that I have made thus far are further developed. In this affirmative I demonstrate that Al Maxey failed to do what he set out to do, that is to refute the point I am pressing in this debate, i.e., the New Testament is the pattern for salvation and fellowship.

It is not my desire at this point in the debate to respond to the most of what Al wrote in the first five pages of his third negative, other than to say that I am sorry for posting my third affirmative after midnight. I also posted debate material to the list, which was supposed to be done by David Brown. I will send future segments to David and allow him to post it. Daniel Denham’s comments that posted on ContendingFTF were intended to go to my personal email address not the list. In regard to what was involved in working up precisely worded propositions, the readers of this debate can read what AL and I have written and that should suffice. I will say that from what Maxey wrote on those pages it is a clear indication that he does not have a clue what “patternists” believe and teach in regard to the good grace of God.

1. Agunda, a member of an uncontacted tribe on the Brazil-Peru border, looks at an awesome waterfall and thereby believes in a creator or creators (he cannot be sure if there are one or more) and begins to search for the creator or creators. Agunda is saved. True or False.
2. As Agunda begins to walk away from the waterfall he slips and falls down the waterfall and is killed. Agunda is saved. True or False.
3. Magui was with Agunda at the waterfall. He too believed in one or more creators and began searching for the creator or creators. After watching Agunda fall, Magui was captured by illegal loggers and subsequently relocated in Valparaíso where he met Wilbur Pickering, who assisted Magui in his search for the creator or creators. Pickering Taught Magui about Christ and shared John 3:16 with him. Magui now believes that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died for his sins. Magui is saved. True or False.
4. After learning about Jesus from Pickering, Magui left Pickering’s place of abode. As Magui approached the street he saw several chickens escaping from a cage which was on top of a bus. Magui was so intent as he watched those chickens that he failed to yield to the bus and was subsequently killed. Magui is saved. True or False.
5. Yulelanda was with Agunda and Magui at the waterfall. She too believed that the beautiful waterfall was evidence that one or more creators exist. Yulelanda was with Magui when he was captured. She too relcoated in Valparaíso and was with Magui when he met Wilbur Pickering, who assisted Magui and Yulelanda in their search for the creator or creators. Pickering also taught Yulelanda about Christ. Yulelanda narrowly escaped the bus that killed Magui. The bus driver feeling remorse about killing Magui, asked Yulelanda what he could do for her. Yulelanda told bus driver that she wanted to live in the United Sates. The bus driver arranged for Yulelanda to move in with his family in America. Yulelanda, still searching for greater light, attended a gospel meeting at which she learned that in addition to believe that she needed to repent and be baptized for the remission of her sins. Yulelanda responded to the invitation and began to walk down the isle. As Yulelanda walked down the isle toward the baptistry she was saved. True or False.
6. On her way to the baptistry, Yulelanda had a heart attack and died. Yulelanda is saved. True or False.

In my second affirmative I referenced matters that were temporary and are permanent. I also discussed distinguishing between what is allowable and obligatory. Now in my final affirmation I want to develop this concept more fully to try to get Maxey and other anti-patternists to try to understand how to use the New Testament pattern. The Lord Jesus Christ must authorize all that is done in spiritual affairs. The participation in any matter not authorized by Jesus is sin. The Bible states, “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him” (Col. 3:17). Thus far Maxey has not adequately dealt with this argument. Maxey, by the nature of his teaching has to deny the teaching of Colossians 3:17. In fact, the person living in the remotest jungle, never possessing the Scriptures, can come to Christ according to Maxey’s pattern. Thus, a person does not really need to listen to the Christ to be saved and in fellowship with the redeemed. When Jesus was transfigured before the inner three, the Father declared, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him” (Matt. 17:5). Again the Bible says that in these last days God has “spoken unto us by his Son” (Heb. 1:2). The Father’s Son can only be heard today through the words recorded in the inspired writings of the New Testament. The theory suggesting that some can be saved without the Word of Christ is completely out of harmony with the Word of God. The Word of God teaches that in Christian work and worship Christians may only do that which is authorized by the New Testament. Additionally, those outside of the church may not participate in Christian works and worship with the approval of God.

Because Christians must have authority for all that they do in Christian work and worship, it necessarily follows that God gave humanity the ability to learn that which is authorized in His Word. Furthermore, it is possible for Christians to conform to the standard of work and worship provided in the New Testament. Paul wrote, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). Corollary to Second Timothy is the fact that those who do not properly handle the Word of God will be unapproved of by God and ashamed before Him.

One of major problems with Maxey’s pattern is that it views matters of obligation as matters of opinion. Romans 14 is used as a pattern to justify the denial of the pattern of the New Testament. In order to properly handle the Word of God, Bible students must learn to distinguish between matters of fact and matters of opinion.

In the account of the woman taken in adultery, John 8:3-11, Jesus stooped down and wrote with His finger in the ground (John 8:6). That Jesus wrote with His finger in the ground is a matter that can be known as fact. What Jesus wrote in the ground is unknowable. One might have an opinion on that matter, but that is all that he has—an opinion. The teaching of Paul in Romans 14 regulates opinions. Men can agree to disagree in regard to opinions about what Jesus wrote on that occasion. I have often wondered if Jesus wrote, “Where is the man?” but that is just an opinion. Christians don’t have to agree with another’s opinion about what Jesus wrote in the ground to remain saved and in fellowship with the family of God.

Denial of factual material in the Bible is sin because the Bible is the Word of God. God said through His Word that Jesus stooped down and wrote in the ground. To say that Jesus did not stoop down and write in the ground is to allege that God lied. Men cannot call God a liar and be saved in that condition. Christians do not have to agree on what Jesus wrote in the ground, but they must agree on the fact that He wrote something in the ground. Romans 14 does not allow one to hold to the position that Jesus did not write in the ground.

It is difficult to know if Maxey will agree with this line of reasoning, but many will. The example of Jesus writing in the ground is a rather simplistic argument. The reasoning is valid and in harmony with God’s Word; therefore, when this reasoning is applied to other matters of Bible teaching the conclusions reached are valid. For example, the only way that one can know that God allows Christians to worship Him with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is by learning it from the Word of God. Every New Testament passage that discusses this act of New Testament worship informs the Bible student that Christians are to “sing” psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs in worship. The type of music specified in every one of these passages is stated as a matter of fact:

1. Matthew 26:30—after the institution of the Lord’s Supper the disciples sang.
2. Romans 15:9—the prophet David saw the day when the Gentiles would acknowledge Christ and sing to his name.
3. First Corinthians 14:15—The church is to sing with the spirit and with the understanding.
4. Ephesians 5:19—the church speaks psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, by singing and making melody to the Lord.
5. Colossians 3:16—while worshipping in song, the church is also teaching one another.
6. Hebrews 2:12—Paul also mentioned the Davidic prophecy and noted that this worship in song is in the midst of the church!
7. Hebrews 13:15—singing is fruit from the church’s lips
8. James 5:13—when brethren are joyful, the Bible says to sing psalms!

It is a matter of fact that God’s Word specifies singing as the type of music he requires and allows in worship. That fact cannot be denied. Additionally, that fact cannot be relegated to the realm of opinion because God has spoken on it. Singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs in worship to God is a matter of Biblical fact. Singing is the only type of worship music about which one will read in the New Testament. If the knowable fact is singing, then playing stringed instruments, beating drums, and the use of any other mechanical instrument cannot be classified as opinion. Instead it is the denial of that which is knowable and factual. Mechanical instruments of music in worship do not parallel that which Jesus wrote in the ground! Singing is not one of many opinions about what is acceptable music in worship, it is the one and only stated fact about what God allows when He is worshipped in song.

Appealing to Romans 14 will not justify the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship, nor does Romans 14 authorize brethren to agree to disagree about the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship. God has spoken on that matter and the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship is as unauthorized as Jesus serving as a priest on earth would have been (cf. Heb. 7:14). Something that Maxey has yet to acknowledge is that the Mosaic Law did not say that the priesthood was for the Levitical tribe only. God’s silence in regard to the other tribes being included in the priesthood implied that their addition would be unauthorized. If all people would agree with the Biblical fact that God said to sing, and simply sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, then there would they would not be divided on this issue. More will be written about this toward the end of this affirmative.

In order to handle God’s Word properly, it is also necessary for men to distinguish between temporary and permanent matters. Not everything that was in place when Christianity began was designed to be a permanent fixture of Christianity. For example, before God’s Word was in written form, it was in earthen vessels (2 Cor. 4:7). Once the need for the temporary was abolished, then it was done away with and replaced the perfect and permanent (1 Cor. 13:10). The gift of the Holy Spirit as described in Acts 10:45 was not designed to be a permanent part of Christianity. As noted by the late Roy Deaver, “If I were to say to an individual: It is your responsibility to ‘desire earnestly spiritual gifts,’ and cite 1 Corinthians 14:1 as proof—I would be acting contrary to Bible teaching, even though this is the wording found in 1 Corinthians 14:1” (Deaver, p. 23).¹  Additionally, the baptism of the Holy Spirit was a temporary matter. By the time Paul wrote the epistle to the Ephesians it is clear that the baptism of the Holy Spirit had fulfilled its temporary design. At that time there was only one baptism (Eph. 4:5), and that baptism was clearly water baptism (Eph. 5:26).

---

¹ I read Deaver’s article and used its framework for this section of my 4th affirmative. Roy Deaver was a great teacher in this regard. I am glad that he did not live long enough to learn of Maxey’s elation over Todd Deaver’s anti-patternism.

---

Jesus washed the feet of His disciples before eating the Passover with them and said, “For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you” (John 13:15). Washing feet in Jesus’ day was important because people walked in sandals through dusty, muddy and manure-filled streets. Dirty, stinky feet were commonplace. The washing of feet was one of the degrading tasks of slaves. It must be remembered that on that occasion the disciples once again took up their argument about who would be greatest in the kingdom. It would be the low-life of the group who would stoop down and wash the feet of the others. So Jesus washed the feet of the disciples to try once again to teach them that the way up is down. By undertaking this degrading task of a slave Jesus demonstrated the fact that great leaders humbly serve others. The circumstance of this event was dirty feet and the condition was service. How does the Bible student know this? Notice that when Peter said, “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head,” Jesus replied, “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet” (John 13:9-10). From this it is obvious that Jesus was not instituting feet washing as Christian duty or as an adjunct to the Lord’s Supper. Many modern cultures do not have the problem of dealing with dirty stinky feet under their noses at mealtime, and clean decent smelling feet don’t need to be washed! Thus, dirty feet were the circumstance and the act of service was the condition of being a true disciple of Christ. Thus, humble service is the example Jesus imparted to His disciples on that occasion. The lesson was and is, “The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him” (John 13:16).

Failure to understand this important facet of Biblical hermeneutics leads some to make unwarranted conclusions. For example, Maxey suggested, “Of course, foot washing, which was commanded at the very same event where our Lord instituted the Lord’s Supper, doesn’t count. We can ignore that ... or ‘spiritualize’ it.” (Maxey, #330). Maxey either does not understand how to study the Bible or he assumes that his readers do not know the difference between circumstance and condition. He further stated, “Well, you begin to see the problem. Consistency is not one of the strong points of this method of interpretation” (ibid.). The problem is definitely one of consistency. Maxey consistency uses the Bible as a pattern to deny that the Bible is a pattern. Thus, according to Maxey the day and frequency of the Lord’s Supper is just as non-essential as washing stinky feet. Circumstances may allow various actions but they do not make those actions obligatory. However, conditions that are permanent are binding upon the church today.

There are matters in Scripture that are essential and matters that are incidental. Please don’t misunderstand the point that I am making here. I am not saying that there are parts of the Bible that are incidental. I am not using the word incidental, as an adjective to suggest that there are parts of the Bible that are in the Bible without intention. Unlike some, I believe that to live spiritually, man must live by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, and I mean every Word! I am using the term as a noun to mean items that are not particularized. For example, the church is commanded by the Christ to teach or make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:18-20). The essential in this passage is teaching. Christians are to make disciples by teaching people to observe all things commanded by the Christ, and by baptizing them for the remission of sins. While the anti-patternist does not like to acknowledge the concept of keeping commandments, remember that these are the Words of the Christ. Teaching is essential while the method of teaching is not. One might teach by sending the message out over the internet or by satellite television and still conform to the essential. How we get the commandments of Christ out to the world is incidental to the essential matter of getting that message out.

What is an example? Merriam-Webster’s On-Line Dictionary gives the following definition for example: “One that serves as a pattern to be imitated or not to be imitated <a good example> <a bad example>“ (“example”). Examples are binding. They reveal that which God has authorized in His Word, and they reveal that which God has not authorized. The late Thomas B. Warren Ph. D. wrote the book, When Is An Example Binding, among other reasons to make the case that if it is an example it is binding. As the Bible is studied it is essential to examine accounts of action to determine when they are examples. Examples authorize behavior in which Christians may engage with God’s approval and they can authorize behavior that must be done to have God’s approval. Some examples are given to prohibit behavior (1 Cor. 10:6). In order to determine when an example details conditions and essentials the totality of what the Word of God teaches on that matter must be examined.

Examples can be determined through the process of inference. Regardless of what some men teach about inferring authority from the Bible, inference is absolutely necessary to properly studying the Word of God. For instance, in my 2nd affirmative I wrote:

Notice Matthew 22:31-32: “But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” This reference goes back to the burning bush (Exod. 3:6, 15) and was originally given years after the deaths of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. From the use of the present tense the Sadducees, fallible men, should have inferred from God’s silence that at death men are not annihilated and cease to exist.

If Maxey addressed this statement I am not aware of it. It is one of many Scriptures that make a powerful case for the need to make inferences from the Bible. If I denied the Bible doctrine of life after physical death and the Bible doctrine of eternal punishment in the lake of fire, then I too would ignore the inference noted by Jesus. One writer suggested that in the intermediate state between death and judgment that men cease to exist: “When we die we are DEAD. The whole man, not just the so-called ‘physical part’ of him while some immortal spirit being trapped within him flies off to even greater life than before” (Maxey, #44). In regard to eternal damnation Maxey wrote:

For the record, I will declare that, based on years of extensive, intensive study of the Scriptures on this matter, I believe the biblical view is that the second death is a termination of life itself. It is not only an everlasting separation from the Giver of life; it is also, and thereby, an everlasting separation from the gift of life itself. In the lake of fire the raised unredeemed will be ultimately and completely destroyed, deprived of life, and will cease to be (#79).

Furthermore he suggests:

The figure of “fire and brimstone” is used repeatedly in the OT Scriptures to represent utter destruction. It is never used to convey perpetual torture. Yes, those being destroyed utterly will experience torment as they are being consumed by the wrath of God. Suffering is a natural part of the process of destruction. However, there is nothing in these figures that suggests God preserves the wicked for the purpose of endlessly heaping upon them unimaginable tortures and torments. Yes, there is pain associated with death & destruction, but it is the latter that is the true punishment, not the former. “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Paul did not say the wages of sin is everlasting LIFE in perpetual torture (#45).

Inference is necessary and important, and God expects people to make inferences from the Biblical text. Inference is not the same as assumption. Assumption does not provide Biblical authority, but inferences do. Maxey confuses the two and when inferences oppose his doctrine he classifies them in the category that he should call assumption.

While these hermeneutical categories could be further developed, what has been written will suffice to discuss the matter of handling aright the Word of God. In regard to the Lord’s Supper, what does the pattern teach? Is the day and frequency determined by the New Testament pattern? This question presupposes that one believes that it is essential to even observe the Lord’s Supper. By the very nature of Maxey’s anti-pattern -pattern one cannot relegate the Lord’s Supper to an essential. Why that would make a law. Maxey assumed the following from my 3rd affirmative:

By responding “False” to my fourth statement, Darrell has demonstrated that he correctly understands our Lord’s comment (“as often as”) not to be regulatory with respect to frequency of observance of the Lord’s Supper. He and I agree that this command of the Son of God does not mean “Sunday only,” nor does it mean “every Sunday.” Whenever we observe it ... as often as we observe it ... we are to do so in memory of Him. I also appreciate Darrell’s “False” response to my fifth statement, by which he further agreed with me that no inference drawn by fallible men from biblical examples may be given greater bearing in the determination of “the pattern” than a command uttered by Jesus Himself.

Maxey is indeed the master of the kind of inference he detests, which is actually assumption. He did a lot of assuming when he wrote the aforementioned statement. I thought the question was, “When Jesus used the phrase “as often as” in connection with the observance of the Lord’s Supper, He really meant “Sunday only” and “every Sunday.” True or False?” This question has to be answered in the negative to be correct. Jesus meant exactly what He said, “As often as” means “as often as.” It does not mean “upon the first day of the week,” nor does not mean, “when ever you want”!

Maxey has a no pattern-pattern for the frequency of the Supper:

“As often as” is the Greek relative adverb “hosakis,” and it “is only used with the notion of indefinite repetition” (Dr. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 973). Other than the 1 Corinthians 11:25-26 passage, this word is used only one other time in the NT writings. This is in Revelation 11:6 where the “two witnesses” are said to have the power to perform certain actions “as often as they desire.” The passage in Revelation not only leaves the action in the realm of that which is indefinite with regard to frequency, but actually leaves the matter of determination of specific practice in the hands of those performing the action -- “as often as they desire.” Thus, neither Jesus, nor any of the NT writers, directly regulate or restrict the observance of the Lord’s Supper with respect to time or frequency. It is left completely in the realm of “whenever” (#30).

Take a look at Maxey’s eisegesis, i.e., the process of interpreting a text by introducing one’s own ideas into the text. First of all he quotes A. T. Robertson. Concerning the usage of this phrase in First Corinthians 11:25-26 Robertson correctly observed that hosakis an pinete is the “usual construction for general temporal clause of repetition” (1 Cor. 11:25). This clause is just that, a temporal clause of repetition. It does not mean, as alleged by Maxey, that the action is “left completely in the realm of ‘whenever.’” Zodhiates observed, “There is no implication of urgency or frequency. It rather means that each and every time you do so, no matter whether frequently or otherwise, the Lord’s table must be a reminder of Christ’s death until He comes back.” This is exactly what Paul meant when he used the phrase. Instead of implying that the action is completely left in the realm of whenever, there is no implication of frequency. Thus, the clause denotes repetition that is undefined in regard to frequency, which Maxey wrestles and twists to try to define the frequency as whenever you wish to observe it.

What about the Revelation passage? It needs to be observed that the Greek construction of the phrase in question in Revelation 11:6 is not identical to that of First Corinthians 11:25-26. In the Revelation passage the construction is that of an “indefinite temporal clause with hosakis and modal ean (= an) and the first aorist active subjunctive of thelo, “as often as they will” (Robertson, Rev. 11:6). The verb thelo actually means to will, which is why the Revelation passage means “as often as they will.”’ What all of this means is that the Revelation passage is not a commentary on the First Corinthians passage. The two witnesses in the Revelation passage have the authority to smite the earth with plagues whenever they will. According to the First Corinthians passage, worshippers are to remember the Lord and proclaim His death as often as they observe the Lord’s Supper. The passage does not even hint at, or may I say imply, the idea that worshippers are to remember the Lord and proclaim His death whenever they want to observe the Lord Supper, whether it be on a Monday or on a fun day at Silver Dollar City. Maxey then says, ‘“As often as’ still ‘trumps’ on the first day of the week.’” Maxey butchered and twisted First Corinthians 11:25-26!

Bill Jackson provided the following Biblical exegesis, i.e., bringing the meaning out of the text, which is of tremendous benefit when it comes to actually defining the frequency question:

The Lord, in instituting the supper, stated that it would be observed in the kingdom (Matt. 26:29). He had in mind some frequency of observance, as seen in the statement ‘as oft as ye eat and drink’ (1 Cor. 11:25-26). In Acts 20:7 we have the answer to the natural question that comes, ‘How often?’ ‘Upon the first day of the week’ is the answer! (193).

I agree with Maxey that Acts 20:7 is an example. As an example it is binding. Where we disagree is that Maxey claims, while he may not use the same wording, that Acts 20:7 is binding in that it may be done. I disagree and acknowledge that it is binding in that it specifies and defines the general temporal clauses of repetition of First Corinthians 11. How do we know this to be the case? How is it that we know that the reference to the first day of the week in Acts 20:7 is not circumstantial, incidental, or temporary for that matter? First of all, the circumstantial and incidental categories are ruled out because the Bible informs us that the church had a regular assembly in which the Lord’s Supper was observed. The assembly denoted in Acts 20:7 was primarily to “break bread,” which is a reference to the observance of the Lord’s Supper. The church at Corinth also observed this pattern. When Paul corrected their abuse of the manner in which they observed the Supper, he noted that they violated this purpose when he wrote, “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper” (1 Cor. 11:20). The inference, not the assumption, is that they were to assemble for this purpose but they violated the pattern. Now then, when were the Corinthians assembling? It is obvious, unless you want to deny the pattern, that they were assembling as the church on the first day of the week? Troas, the churches of Galatia, and the church at Corinth were all meeting on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1-2). If we limit Paul to what he wrote, then we can understand that Paul taught this same doctrine to all of the churches (1 Cor. 4:17; 14:37; 2 Tim. 1:13). Furthermore, the scope of the First Corinthians epistle was not to the Corinthians alone but “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:2).

It is of particular interest to note that the passive participle of the Greek word sunago “gathered together” is used in Acts 20:7 and again in verse 8. In the passive voice this word means to “be gathered or brought together” (Bauer, 782). The passive is used in Matthew 2:4 where king Herod gathered together the chief priests and scribes of the people. It was king Jesus through apostolic teaching who gathered the disciples together on the first day of the week. The disciples did not determine this first day of the week assembly it was predetermined by the Christ (cf. Matt. 18:18). This is why it is sinful to forsake the assembling of ourselves together (Heb. 10:25). The Christ also determined that this was the place in which His Table was to be observed. Remember that what Paul and Timothy taught was, as noted by Fee, “in keeping with what is taught in the church universal, at least in the Pauline churches” (189), which would not differ from a church not established by Paul (1 Cor. 14:37). Notice the following chart:

Therefore, it is a matter of fact, not an opinion that the church met on the first day of the week and in that assembly they observed the Lord’s Supper. This day of frequency was not incidental or circumstantial inasmuch as no other day is even alluded to in regard to the observance of the Lord’s Supper. The first day of the week is essential to observing the Lord’s Supper. Christians are to live by faith (Gal. 2:20), which comes by hearing God’s Word (Rom. 10:17). By faith the Lord’s Supper can be observed on the first day of the week in the assembly of the saints. By faith the Lord’s Supper cannot be observed on any other day or in any other setting, such as Silver Dollar City, the hunter’s convention, et al. The example of the frequency of the Lord’s Supper is not temporary inasmuch as the Lord’s Supper is to be observed “till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26). There is no authority in Scripture to observe the Lord’s Supper on any other day of the week.

In regard to the contribution on the first day of the week Fee observed:

(1) The fact that Paul makes such a reference at all implies that there is some significance to their setting money aside on this day rather than, for example, “once a week.” (2) Although that significance may have been only a matter of when people were paid, it seems far more likely that it is a week reckoning with religious significance, especially since it reflects the Jewish tradition of counting days with reference to the Sabbath. (3) This language is well remembered in the Gospel traditions in relationship to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The fixed place of the terminology in those narratives implies that it had more than simply historical interest in the early church. This is verified further by Acts 20:7, which implies most strongly that Paul and the others waited in Troas until the “first day of the week” precisely because that is when the Christians gathered for the breaking of bread, that is, their meal in honor of the Lord.

All of this together, therefore, implies that this is the day when believers from a very early time gathered for their specifically Christian celebration of worship, which included the Lord’s Table (813-814).

The Greek phrase in First Corinthians 16:2, kata mian sabbatou, literally means “upon one of [the] sabbath” This is an Hebrew idiom meaning, “on the first day of every week” (Bauer, 406). The frequency of this gathering is Scripturally understood to be on the first day of each week. The Jews of old were to “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exod. 20:8). How many Sabbaths were the Jews to remember and keep holy? Every Sabbath was to be holy, just as the every first day of the week is to be set aside for the corporate worship of the church in which the Lord’s Supper is to be observed.

Some who deny the aforementioned Biblically sound exegesis suggest that if such a pattern is to be followed, then the Lord’s Supper must be taken in a third story room because this is where the disciples in Troas were meeting. Meeting in a third story room is circumstantial. The conditional place of the Lord’s Supper, as noted in the table above, is the assembly of the saints. The physical place of the worship assembly is incidental to the command to worship as clearly demonstrated in the discussion between Jesus and the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well. Jesus told the woman, “Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father” (John 4:21); which implies physical location as required under the Mosaic Law was not going to be part of the New Testament pattern.

Additional evidence to this point in fact is found in Acts 2. The apostles began teaching the New Testament pattern for worship from the beginning of the church’s existence. Luke noted that the early church “continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). I am going to assume from Maxey’s writings that he will agree with me that Acts 2:42 discusses the worship of the church including the Lord’s Supper:

From the very beginning of the church’s formation, this memorial feast was considered to be one of the key elements of their spiritual life and worship. Nevertheless, Acts 2:42 itself really does not speak to the particulars of frequency. It merely points out that the observance was regular, steadfast, or continual. Dr Thomas B. Warren observed, “The ‘breaking of bread’ in this passage no doubt refers to the Lord’s Supper. But what does that prove? It doesn’t tell you when (or how often) they did it. One can do a thing ‘steadfastly’ and do it every ten years!” (The Spiritual Sword, July, 1982, p. 4). Or, one could also do it daily. The verse simply does not specify. (#30).

Maxey and I differ here on the point of frequency, which he suggests from the Acts passage can be daily. “A possible reference to frequency and methodology might be found in Acts 2:46. ‘And day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart’” (#30). Maxey’s argument is that the bread noted in verse 46 can refer to the Lord’s Supper. However, as demonstrated in the table above and the aforementioned argument, the designated place for observing the Lord’s Supper is in the assembly of the saints. The Bible says that the church came together in one place, which was distinguished from the house-to-house practice of eating meals together (1 Cor. 11:22). An additional key in Acts 2:46 is the phrase “did eat their meat,” which is conjoined with the bread in this verse. Barnes observed:

“Did eat their meat - Did partake of their food. The word “meat” with us is applied to “flesh.” In the Bible, and in Old English authors, it is applied to “provisions” of any kind. Here it means all kinds of sustenance; what nourished them - trophes - and the use of this word proves that it does not refer to the Lord’s Supper; for that ordinance is nowhere represented as designed for an ordinary meal, or to nourish the body. Compare 1Cor. 11:33-34 (Acts 2:46).

The bread reference in verse 46 is not identical to that of verse 42, which is a reference to the Lord’s Supper. The Lord designated the Supper to the kingdom, which came on the Lord’s Day noted in Acts 2. This would be the first day on which the church began to worship. There were at least 3,000 souls in the church at Jerusalem on that day. Where did those brethren meet to worship? From the context of Scripture it is inferred that they met in one place, which obviously would not have been a third story loft somewhere. Therefore, the physical place whereat the brethren in Troas worshipped was circumstantial and incidental to the example, not an essential element of it. Understanding this about the first day of worship in the church’s history completely eliminates any validity to the one-cup argument of the anti-multiple-cuppers, just as it eliminates any validity to the third loft argument of distraction of the anti-patternists.

Now if we had an example of brethren meeting in multiple assemblies on the Lord’s Day and observing the Lord’s Supper in those assemblies, then we could do that too by faith. But we do not have any example to direct us in that regard; therefore, that practice is not in the name of Jesus and thereby it is unauthorized and sin. I too worked in a prison ministry for several years. We took the emblems to inmates and made sure that they could observe the Lord’s Supper in their assembly. On one occasion some of the inmates asked why we did not observe the Lord’s Supper with them. They assumed that we did not want to interact with them. I told them exactly what I just wrote about the frequency of the Lord’s Supper and they understood it clearly.

The second serving arguments used by my opponent in this debate are red herring arguments of distraction. He takes the path of a side issue, which is completely irrelevant to the real subject. If these issues can distract the readers of this debate, then the main argument may thus never be completed to a logical conclusion. In regard to offering the Supper on Sunday evenings to those unable to meet on Sunday morning, there is no difference in that and in taking the emblems to one who may have been overlooked in the initial serving, which I have seen happen on more than one occasion. The entire assembly did not retake the emblems on those occasions, only the person or persons overlooked. Is there really a difference between a few minutes and a few hours if we are still observing the pattern for the frequency of observing the Lord’s Supper? No there is not.

I found it of interest to note that in Maxey’s reflective piece, “The Lord’s Supper Focusing on Frequency,” that he actually used D. R. Dungan to try to bolster his nonessential pattern for the day and frequency of the Lord’s Supper. Maxey wrote:

Dr. D. R. Dungan characterized this “conservative methodology” as one “bent upon retaining the opinions of the past, and preventing any further search for truth. It is pinning our faith to the sleeves of the fathers” (Hermeneutics: The Science of Interpreting the Scriptures, p. 65). When one is ready to stop all search for Truth, and to bind the world to the perceptions, preferences, and practices of one’s religious forefathers, this approach to Scripture will find a place in biblical interpretation. (#30).

Dungan was not discussing “conservative methodology” in the manner in which Maxey discusses it. Dungan was discussing the hierarchal method that is used in Catholicism. He was discussing a “conservatism to retain the opinions of the past, and prevent any further search for truth” (Dungan, 65). This surprised me because Maxey is found of quoting the opinions of the past when they suit his cause. Maxey used the uninspired writings of men who lived years beyond the days of the apostles and who are known for their departures from the faith, in an attempt to justify his whenever you wish argument. Just a few sentences beyond Dungan’s quote, which was used by Maxey are the following words:

Hence, in the use of this method, the Scriptures are not the guide of the faith and lives of the people, but rather, the priest, the bishop, the archbishop, the Pope, the Council. The question is not, What say the Scriptures? but, What saith the church? While, then, we would retain a proper respect for the opinions of good and great men, we can not assent to this method of interpretation, as it sets the word of God at naught to make room for the traditions of men (65).

That is what I try to do in my studies, learn exactly what the Scriptures say and follow them. If Christians would unite on what the Bible says and stay away from practices not found in the Bible, then we would not be having this debate.

My first question to Maxey had to do with Jesus being the pattern. In Maxey’s first negative he wrote:

When I examine the Scriptures, I do not search for a pattern to impose, but rather for a Person to imitate. HE is my pattern. We sing a marvelous hymn (I wonder if Darrell sings this same hymn) written in 1885 by William A. Ogden titled “Where He Leads I’ll Follow.” There is a line in this hymn that sums it up for me: “HE the great example is, and pattern for me.”

Maxey wrote, “HE is my pattern,” therefore, I sought through this question to qualify a statement, “HE is my pattern,” which has the appearance of an absolute. I am glad that Jesus is a pattern for us to follow (1 Pet. 2:21; 1 Cor. 11:1). As noted in my third affirmative, Jesus respected the commandments of the Father and walked in them in obedience, as we should do today.

My second question to Al seemed to be straightforward and easy enough to answer from the Bible. “To be saved one must be in Christ. True or False?” In fact, Maxey used this Scriptural phrase to try to counter my argument that salvation is in the church. In his second negative Maxey wrote, “Salvation is not in a place; it is in a Person. … Thank God for grace, and for the fact that our salvation depends on being IN HIM.” Later in his negative he wrote, “Nevertheless, I stand firmly behind my conviction that salvation is in Christ, not the church of Christ.” When I asked this question Maxey would not answer it with as true or false. He revisited his discussion about available light and suggested that those who do not know God, but seek him through the creation itself are in Christ in some sense. He wrote, “Well, if His blood covers them, then in that sense one can say that they ARE, although clearly they are lacking in so many of the wondrous blessings that are associated with that greater understanding of what God has done for them through His Son, and the joys of association with His people here on earth.”

Question 3, “Baptism is the only way specified in the Bible to get into Christ,” was designed to help clarify exactly the point at which one is saved. Maxey did not like the question. He believes that it is legalistic to try to specify a point at which one is saved. Al said that baptism is not the only way specified in the Bible to get into Christ, which is false and damning error. Maxey did not tell us what other ways are mentioned in the Bible to get into Christ other than to say it is a process. The fact of the matter is that Maxey cannot use the Bible to specify any other way to get into Christ than through baptism. By faith we can say that baptism is the way into Christ (Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27). By faith no other way into Christ can be specified. Maxey’s alleged light exposure theory of accountability cannot be attested to by faith.

Maxey discussed a process, but he never defined that process. A process is a series of actions or operations conducing to an end. A process conducts to an end rather than each point in the process being an end point. A simplistic illustration of a process is that of baking a cake. A woman takes a cake mix and places the mix in a mixing bowl as directed. She then reads that she needs to add two eggs and a cup of milk as part of the cake baking process. After mixing all of the ingredients and placing them in a baking pan, she bakes them in an oven for 45 minutes at 350 degrees. At the end point of the process she has a cake. Each step in the process contributed to the cake, but the cake did not exist until it came out of the oven.

Maxey is suggesting that each step in the salvation process takes one into Christ, which simply cannot be the case. Salvation is a process that has a beginning and an end point. One begins outside of Christ and then moves into Christ. What should concern us is what does the pattern teach? Exactly what does the pattern say about getting into Christ? In my third affirmative I made the following argument:

That makes as much sense as saying that salvation existed before Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Jesus said that his blood was shed for the remission of sins (Mat. 26:28). Through Peter Jesus said that baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). There was either salvation before Jesus shed His blood, or there is no salvation before the point of baptism for the remission of sins, period.

Maxey made no effort to try to counter the force of this timeless truth from God’s Word. Maxey completely ignored the argument based on the grammatical connection between Acts 2:38 and Matthew 26:30. I hope that Maxey will actually attempt to answer this in his next negative post. He attempted to counter the argument by writing:

Hmmm. Darrell, was Elijah saved? Was Moses saved? When they both appeared with Jesus at the transfiguration, were they at that time lost? When God poured forth His Holy Spirit upon Cornelius prior to his baptism, and he was speaking with tongues and exalting God, was he lost at that moment in time? When Priscilla and Aquila pulled Apollos aside in Ephesus, was he at that moment in time lost?

Maxey, are you saying that at the Mount of Transfiguration Jesus’ blood had already cleansed the sins of Moses and Elijah? How did that happen because Jesus had not at that time died for the sins of Moses and Elijah? Maxey, are you saying that Jesus’ blood is not necessary for salvation? This has to be your position. If you have Moses and Elijah forgiven at the Mount of Transfiguration, then Jesus did not need to die. The Bible says of the faithful who died before the church was established that “they without us should not be made perfect” (Heb. 11:40). This verse clearly demonstrates the fact that those who lived before the New Testament dispensation were not made perfect without us. Why? The answer is because their sins, just as our sins, are forgiven together by the same vicarious sacrifice of Jesus Christ. If the saints who lived before the death of Christ were saved before the blood was applied, then Jesus did not need to die for the sins of the world. He did not need to taste of “death for every man” (Heb. 2:9). The argument is, “There was either salvation before Jesus shed His blood, or there is no salvation before the point of baptism for the remission of sins, period.” Maxey, to be true to his teaching had to answer as he did and thereby declare that there was salvation before Jesus shed his blood.

When God instructed Adam and Eve about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, He said, “thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:17). This is the reason that Jesus had to be the substitutionary sacrifice for all of humanity. Why didn’t God execute Adam and Eve at the moment that they ate the forbidden fruit? Before they ate the forbidden fruit, God the Word had already made the decision to die for the sins of the world (cf. Rev. 13:8). The Greek word translated with the word “winked” in Acts 17:30 (KJV) is the participle huperidon which comes from compounding huper (over) and eidon (to see). Depending on the context the word can communicate different ideas. The word can mean “to see beyond, not to see, to overlook, et al.” Acts 17:30 explains why God did not kill Adam and Eve on the day that they sinned. God the Word made the decision to substitute His life for theirs, and all who sin; therefore, God was able to look beyond the times of ignorance or the time between creation and the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus and wait for Jesus’ blood to be shed. That was a great act of mercy and grace, but at the end of the day the truth remains, until the blood was shed there was no forgiveness of sins. Elijah and Moses had salvation in promise but it was not realized before Jesus substituted His life for theirs.

Maxey’s Cornelius argument does not solve his dilemma either. Maxey’s argument is predicated on the a priori assumption that the Holy Spirit was only given to men who were in a covenant relationship with God as their Father. If I am wrong on this point then I am sure that Maxey will set the record straight for us. Balaam’s ass also spoke in tongues, was Balaam’s ass saved (Num. 22:28)? Caiaphas, while conspiring to execute the sinless Son of God, prophesied (John 11:47-53). Was Caiaphas saved because he too spoke by the Holy Spirit? Cornelius and his house spoke in tongues because tongues were a sign to unbelievers (1 Cor. 14:22), and Peter and the other Jews with him did not believe that salvation was for the Gentiles. Yes, Cornelius was still in his sins while he spoke in tongues. The reason that Peter was sent to Cornelius was to preach words to him whereby he and all his house could be saved (Acts 11:15). Cornelius was taught about baptism and only when he accepted the terms of pardon by being baptized was he forgiven.

Does Maxey have a valid point about Apollos? Apollos only knew about the baptism of John; therefore, Maxey inferred that Apollos was not baptized in the name of Jesus. If this is Maxey’s inference, then I agree with him. That being said, what does the Bible teach about the baptism of John? The Bible teaches that John’s baptism was commanded by God and that it was for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4). As already noted, remission of sins was only possible after Jesus shed his blood and purchased the church. After Jesus purchased his church baptism and remission of sins were to be preached in His name (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:47; et al.); therefore, when the church was established John’s baptism was no longer valid (cf. Acts 19:4-5). What about those people who were baptized with John’s baptism while it was still valid? When the remission of sins was realized, their sins were remitted. This is why the 3,000 baptized for the remission of sins at the beginning of the church age were “added unto them” (Acts 2:41). They were added to the group already baptized by John and forgiven when the church began. There is nothing in regard to Apollos that even remotely suggests that people living this side of the cross can be saved without being baptized for the remission of their sins!

Before discussing the steps that conduct one to the end point of being in Christ, consider the Greek preposition eis. This is the preposition used in Acts 2:38 and is translated with the word “for” in Acts 2:38 (KJV). Eis is not used in a causal sense in the New Testament. Baptism is not “because” of the remission of sins, it is for the purpose of the remission of sins. Eis, when used spatially indicates a directional transition toward, unto, or to, a thing. Sometimes when the spatial transition is directionally into a place is can be translated with the word “in” (Wallace, 369). The spatial use of eis can be diagramed as follows:

The Bible process, which is currently in force, conducting to the end point of salvation is as follows. First of all, one must hear God’s Word. The doctrine of available light has as much Biblical support as does the evolutionary doctrine of from the goo to the zoo. Faith comes by hearing God’s Word (Heb. 10:17), and without faith it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6). It is of further interest to point out the fact that Hebrews 11:6 goes on to say, “For he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” Thus, this process of coming to God begins with the Word entering the heart of one who is lost. Paul was discussing this process when he wrote, “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:10). In this verse the word “unto” translates the Greek preposition eis. When answering my third true/false question, Maxey quoted the second part of this verse from what looks like the New American Standard Bible. “For with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.” (Rom. 10:10 NASV). The translators of the NASV translated “eis” with the word “resulting,” which cannot be correct in this verse. Does belief with the heart result in righteousness, or does confession with the mouth result in salvation? Both statements cannot be true, so which is it? However, the King James Version correct translated eis with the word “unto.” Belief is “unto” or toward righteousness and confession is also “unto” or toward salvation. Believe and confession move one toward righteousness and salvation they are not end points resulting in salvation. Repentance is also “unto” the remission of sins as is baptism. The difference between belief, repentance, confession, and baptism, is that baptism is the step at which one moves from outside of Christ into Christ. This can be illustrated as follows:

From the beginning of the church, no one has entered Christ without following this plan. In fact, I wonder if a greater example of sincerity can be found than that of Saul of Tarsus, when he was in Damascus waiting to be told what to do (Acts 9:6). Saul was in deep remorse because he had become a believer in Jesus and knew that he was guilty of fighting against Him. After learning of Jesus’ true identity Saul confessed Him as Lord (Acts 9:6). Saul was a sincere, repentant believer in Jesus, but he was still in his sins. He was still lost. Saul was lost in his sins until he arose and was baptized for the purpose of washing away his sins (Acts 22:16), which is, by the way, how one begins to call on the name of the Lord. “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Saul of Tarsus was still in his sins until the end point in the process at which time he washed away his sins in the watery grave of baptism.

Another way to demonstrate that it is impossible to be forgiven of sins before being baptized for the remission of sins is by noting this fact that if the blood of bulls and goats could have taken away sins, then the worshippers under the Old Law would have been purged from their sins (Heb. 10:2). Even though those worshippers were able to approach God in view of the coming sacrifice of Christ, they were still in their sins. They were still conscience of that fact. If they had been purged then they should have had “no more conscience of sins” (Heb. 10:2). Those worshippers could not have a clean conscience in regard to sins because the blood of bulls and of goats did not take care of their sins. Now then, where Peter tells us what Maxey will not accept, that is that “baptism doth also now save us” he explained that baptism is “the answer of a good conscience toward God” (1 Pet. 3:21). The conscience problem that existed before the shedding of Christ’s blood is answered when one responds to the gospel, in the waters of baptism, as an obedient believer. Furthermore, in the same sense that salvation from the Genesis flood was in the ark, salvation from sin today is in the church!

Consider the following chart dealing with the major cases of conversion recorded in the book of Acts.

Every single Biblical example salvation after the church was established points to baptism. If one is determined to speak and live after the manner of the Scriptures, then he will not be so negligent as to leave baptism out of the plan. Baptism, according to the Word of God, is the only way to get into Christ. Maxey give us Bible for your teaching please.

The New Testament pattern declares that sin is transgression of the law, i.e., violation of the law. In order to violate the law, there must be a law in place. When a person violates God’s law that person enters sin and at that moment is in need of salvation. (This must be strange to people who believe that we are not under law today.) Naturally then, the New Testament pattern declares that salvation is from sin (Matt. 1:21; 1 Tim. 1:15). The New Testament pattern teaches that the blood of Christ is the agent that cleanses sinners from their sins (Rev. 1:5). How is it that sinners contact the blood of Christ? Maxey cannot tell us the answer to that question. He says that there really is no specific point at which one can say that he is in Christ. I am glad that God’s Word is much more specific than Maxey’s teaching. The pattern teaches that one is freed from sin when he “obeys that form of doctrine” (Rom. 6:17). What exactly was it that the obedient noted in Romans 6:17 did to obey that form of doctrine? They were baptized into Christ (Rom. 6:3), which was the point at which the old man of sin was put to death and the forgiven sinner could begin serving Christ (Rom. 6:6). In this context the Bible says, “For he that is dead is freed from sin” (Rom. 6:7). Maxey’s theology suggests that people who are still servants of sin are actually free from sin. Who can believe it? I was first exposed to the teaching advocated by Maxey and others back in the 1980s. At that time it was popular among that group to discuss something that many of us referred to the umbrella of grace theory. The way this was presented was that all who were baptized into Christ were under the umbrella of God’s grace and love, and not under law. The natural growth process of this no law teaching was for it to develop to somehow get all seekers under that umbrella of grace. Maxey’s teaching does that very thing. Maxey will not agree with God that baptism is the point in the salvation process at which one enters God’s saving grace and the church purchased by the blood of Christ.

Maxey says that baptism is “an evidence/demonstration of faith.” Notice the following statements that were compiled by William Brackeny for the Baptist History and Heritage Society:

Baptists believe that baptism is a rich symbol. By this we mean that baptism in itself does not convey salvation or transformation … Baptists also believe that baptism is an important way of professing one’s faith in Christ. Theologically, as salvation is a gift of God, not through human achievement (Eph. 2:5, 8), and faith itself is a gift (Rom. 12:3), baptism is God’s gift to the Church to allow the faithful a means of expressing their faith and gratitude for God’s redemptive work.

Al Maxey’s teaching is patterned after that of the Baptist denomination not the New Testament of Jesus Christ.

When asked refute to what the Bible teaches in regard to Colossians 3:17, Maxey suggested that those interested read an article in his Reflections archive. Why not just try to offer a rebuttal? Instead of attempting to answer my argument from God’s Word, Maxey just took the opportunity to mock those who believe in Bible authority as using Colossians 3:17 as a proof-text. One thing that is absolutely clear to many of the readers of this debate is that Maxey’s main use for the Bible is to find proof-texts to try to prove that those who seek Bible authority for what they do are the legalistic descendants of the Pharisees. I do not know how many readers of this debate went to Maxey’s reflective article. I went to his article of reference and read all of the verbiage contained therein and found nothing that even addresses the argument that has been presented in my affirmative arguments. In case you did not read all of that verbiage, allow me to make Maxey’s argument for him. Maxey agrees that the phrase “in the name of the Lord” can be a statement of authority, but he does not believe that it is used thusly by Paul in Colossians 3:17. It is Maxey’s position that doing all things in the name of the Lord (Col. 3:17) means that what ever you do, do it to the glory of the Lord with an attitude of thankfulness.

The Bible in fact teaches that all that we do is to be to the glory of God. Those who are outside of Christ fall short of God’s glory because of sin (Rom. 3:23). One cannot sin to the glory of God, and as has been proven in this debate to be absolute truth, sin is violation of God’s law. Contrary to anti-patternism, one cannot glorify God in Jesus’ name without following Jesus’ teaching. Paul also presented the truth of the matter when he declared that the fruit of righteousness is unto the glory of God (Phil. 1:11). The fruit of righteousness is the result of practicing righteousness. Notice the phrase “fruits of righteousness” as it is used in Second Corinthians 9:10, where it refers to giving. Included in the fruit of righteousness is the fellowship of giving enjoyed by the brethren in Philippi. That which was begun in the Philippian brethren (1:6) produced fruit unto the praise and glory of God. Notice that the fruit mentioned in Philippians 1:11 is “by Jesus Christ.” The fruits of righteousness are by or provided by Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:11). How does Jesus provide his people with the fruits of righteousness? This righteousness is the righteousness that proceeds from God as is its source through Jesus Christ (Phil. 3:9). Men learn about this righteousness from the gospel (Rom. 1:16-17) and God declares them righteous when they obey His righteous standard. Righteousness is something we do (1 John 2:9; 3:7, 10). In this context John calls not doing righteousness sin, which is falling short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).

Paul also willed for God to establish the brethren in Thessalonica in “every good word and work” (2 Thess. 2:17). One should not be surprised at the fact that just prior to this statement Paul wrote, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). The inspired traditions of the gospel, which were taught by word of mouth, i.e., inspiration in earthen vessels, or by inspired letter, i.e., the New Testament are equals in regard to gospel truth! How is it that Christians give glory to the Lord with an attitude of gratitude? The only way to do this is to see to it that we follow the inspired traditions of the gospel and work its righteousness. The fruit of doing right also results in love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance (Gal. 5:22-23), all of which are not possible without glorifying the Lord as directed by His Word:

Maxey ridiculed and mocked the way I respond to his questions and statements about all of the New Testament being the pattern. Maxey pressed his point by using Galatians 6:11 and Second Timothy 4:13 as examples of matters that are not integral to the Divine pattern of salvation and fellowship. First of all, the word integral means essential to completeness. Why is Galatians 6:11 essential to the completeness of the Divine pattern? For at least the following reasons: (1) It is part of God’s inspired Word, which in one way or another is beneficial to mankind (2 Tim. 3:16-17). God gave the passage to us for a reason. (2) The passage is one of the manners in which Bible students can ascertain the authenticity of Paul’s letter to the churches of Christ in Galatia. (3) Galatians 6:11 is an example of service, love, and compassion, without which no one can be saved, and as an example it is binding. It is evidence of the love and service that a faithful man of God had for his brethren, a man who is a pattern for others to follow (1 Cor. 11:1). (4) Those who take a “Jehoiakim penknife” to Galatians 6:11 and tell God that the verse is not essential to the New Testament are not worthy of fellowship (cf. Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18-19). (5) There may be other reasons (Deut. 29:29), which belong to God. I am not smarter than God; therefore, I will do what I can to learn from the passage and be His faithful follower.

What about Second Timothy 4:13? This verse is an integral part of the New Testament for at least the following reasons. (1) It is part of God’s inspired Word, which in one way or another is beneficial to mankind (2 Tim. 3:16-17). God gave the passage to us for a reason. (2) It is an example and as such it is binding in some manner. The first part of the verse demonstrates how not to treat a brother. In addition to that, it is additional material teaching brethren about the degree of love and service that brethren should have for each other as Paul willingly suffered as he did for the cause of Christ. Second Timothy 4:13 implies that studying written material was important to Paul. Paul is indeed an example of one who learned as much as he could in his service to the Master. Additionally, some people like Robertson, Jammieson, Fausset, Brown, Gill, Barns, and many others believe that Paul’s reference may have been to Old and New Testament writings. What an example. An inspired man wanting his Bible to study! (3) Those who take a “Jehoiakim penknife” to Second Timothy 4:13 and tell God that the verse is not essential to the New Testament are not worthy of fellowship (cf. Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18-19). (4) There may be other reasons (Deut. 29:29), which belong to God. I am not smarter than God; therefore, I will do what I can to learn from the passage and be His faithful follower.

The other points pressed by Maxey as he reviewed my answers to his questions were addressed in the section dealing with how to use the pattern.

According to Maxey:

“Darrell reads Jude 3-4 and somehow extrapolates “the Bible” from this passage. I suppose he equates these 27 NT documents (which, by the way, had not at that time been completed) with “the faith” which had been delivered (aorist tense) to the saints” (3rd Negative). “When Heb. 13:20 speaks of the “blood of the eternal covenant” which was shed by our Lord Jesus, was the author speaking of these 27 books (several of which had yet to be written)?” (1st Negative). “The principles and precepts of our new relationship with the Lord are written in the heart, not on tablets of stone. And when Jesus, at the last Passover celebration with His apostles, said, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” [Luke 22:20; cf. 1 Cor. 11:25], I think He had far more in mind than the precise wording of 27 as yet unwritten documents.” (2nd Negative).

From reading Maxey’s remarks here and elsewhere, it is easy to see that Maxey does not regard the New Testament as something that is essential for men. In Maxey’s view the faith and the New Covenant were given before the writing of the New Testament; therefore, what is written is not essential to fellowship and salvation. Maxey is correct inasmuch as the faith and the New Covenant were delivered before the New Testament was written. This is not the point of contention. The point of contention is the place, purpose, and contents of the New Testament. As noted earlier, Second Thessalonians 2:15 equates the words spoken by inspired men with the words that they penned later. On the day of Pentecost men had the Old Testament writings and the inspired apostles; therefore, they had all of the Word of Truth. We have that Word of truth, i.e., the faith, in our Bibles (cf. 2 Thess. 2:15).

There is an attitude inherent in Maxey’s writings that belittles the place and importance of God’s Word. This is a strange affair because Maxey’s view is that mankind does not even need the Word of God to be saved, but he has to use multiple proof-texts from Gods’ Word to try to prove his case. Every item that Maxey mocks, ridicules, and so vehemently attacks in those who teach the New Testament pattern is accompanied by proof-texts from God’s Word. Is it the case that God’s Word is designed to attack the idea that God’s Word is to be obeyed? “Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Prov. 29:18), even today this is true. By the way, the word “vision” in Proverbs 29:18 refers to the inspired Word!

Something occurred me to as I worked on this material. Is the aforementioned attitude about God’s Word the reason why so many so-called Christians now embrace the source theories used to theorize how the Bible was compiled? Notice Maxey’s words again:

This, of course, leads one to speculate as to the identity of that “divine pattern” prior to the penning and collection of these 27 books. The very first book of the 27 to be penned was not produced until almost two decades after Pentecost, for example. IF these 27 books ARE the divine pattern, then what constituted the pattern for the first two decades of the existence of the church? In fact, the 27 books were not completed until near the end of the first century, so we’re looking at several generations of disciples who did not possess “the divine pattern,” or who only had bits and pieces of it ... that is, IF these 27 books truly constitute “the whole” and “the totality” of that divine pattern, as Darrell claims. Just something to think about!! (1st Negative).

If it is the case that because faith and the New Covenant came before the compilation of the New Testament, and because the church existed for years without the New Testament, that the New Testament is then somehow diluted or at best additional filler material, then looking at the New Testament as the work of editors of the writings of others is really complementary of those theories. Source theories are attempts to explain how the Scriptures evolved without having to accept the fact that the Holy Spirit was their source.

D. C. Parker suggests that the early church shaped the gospels. “Rather than looking for right and wrong readings, and with them for right or wrong beliefs and practices, the way is open for the possibility that the church is the community of the Spirit even in its multiplicities of texts. . . . Indeed, we may suggest that it is not in spite of the verity but because of them that the church is that community” (212). Mark Maston of Milligan College wrote an article for Leaven in which he suggested, “The importance of the collection of four Gospels as part of the ‘inspirational’ process also suggests that efforts to reduce the Gospels to a simple narrative of events, as the Diatesseron did, are antithetical to the very nature of Scripture” (25). After reading the Maston’s article I asked him about his view of the inspiration process. He responded by saying:

I think the church shaped the gospels, and that is part of the inspirational process. But what is the church? It is the “body of Christ.” It is the “temple of the holy spirit.” The holy spirit lives in the midst of the church. So, when Luke says that he compared other written accounts and wrote that which was more accurate, this is the assessment of a churchman who has read other gospels in the church, listened to oral reports, and interpreted these events in light of his own understanding of the Jesus experience. Does this mean he was not inspired in reading and evaluating? No. Does this mean he was not inspired in “correcting.” No. It means that inspiration is dynamic, dialogical, and involves some actions that just might surprise us. Since the Holy Spirit is there in the midst of the church, it was guiding the process in a variety of ways, all of which is part of the inspirational process. (Re: Leaven).

I am not suggesting that Maxey is as deep into this source error as are Maston and Parker. He really has not revealed all that he believes on the subject. What he did reveal is that he believes that the source theories belong in the realm of probability, which is a strong statement from a postmodernist. He did tell us that the church had the faith before they had the Scriptures. By this he means that the Scriptures are not to be the focal point. His position then is hand in glove to the aforementioned theories of Maston and Parker. Maxey further alleges, “The apostle Paul spoke of being a ‘servant of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit’ [2 Cor. 3:6]. Life is never found in a written code, but in the Holy Spirit who indwells and empowers us” (2nd Negative). If Maxey is not where Maston and Parker are, he is in their vicinity. This problem is actually the source for all that we are addressing in this debate. This is a battle for the place and position of the Word of God! Is it the case that the Holy Spirit used the church to collect, shape, and edit oral sayings and written sources into the Scriptures as a subsequent to delivering the faith? Is it the case that the New Testament is subordinate to the empowering of the Spirit?

The proof-text that Maxey and other source theorists most often use to support their teaching is Luke 1:1-3. Why they feel the need to have Bible to teach that the Bible is not regulatory is beyond me, but they do. Did Luke actually say that he was a compiler and editor of source materials? In Luke 1:3 we have, “It pleased me also [parekolouthekoti from parakoluthesei meaning, to follow or accompany closely; to accompany, attend, characterize, to follow with the thoughts, trace, to confirm. It is translated by the words “fully known” in 2 Tim. 3:10], after having fully known [anwthen, an adv. meaning “From the beginning” BDAG, 76, or “from the source” Perschbacher, 13. Note John 3:31 where the this adverb denoted him who was “from above”] from the source all things [akribos, an adverb meaning accurate, exact, precise. Note Acts 18:26 where it is rendered “more perfectly.”] exactly, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus. Why, so that Theophilus would have [epignos, “full knowledge, “to know exactly”] (Luke 1:4). Hence, Luke 1:3 can be translated “It pleased me also, after fully knowing from the source all things exactly, to write to you in order, Most Excellent Theophilus.” In this section we have Luke identifying human source material as fallible, incomplete, and wanting (vs. 1-2). But Luke’s account is perfect and provides its readers with the full knowledge that God only can supply because he was able to acquire what he wrote directly from the source, the Holy Spirit.

Inspiration imparted the faith until the New Testament took its place. What we have in the New Testament is not new and subsequent to what brethren had before the New Testament was written. The application of the faith was different in Corinth, where the Lord’s Supper was abused, than on Pentecost where it was observed correctly for the first time in the Kingdom. However, the truth about the Lord’s Supper is constant and absolute and by learning how to use the pattern we too can have absolute, perfect knowledge about the Lord’s Supper and any other matter that is essential to fellowship and salvation. I will leave this section now by encouraging you to give heed to the words of Paul: “And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified” (Acts 20:32).

Maxey did not like my evaluation of his assessment of the infallibility of the Scriptures. However, when the Bible discusses a matter that is discussed in scientific circles, the Bible is correct. The Darwinian Dawkins wrote, “Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants” (450-451). Many theistic evolutionists see no difference between the Genesis record of chapters 1-11 and Assyrian or Babylonian myths. Likewise, Maxey seems to place matters that are deep to fathom without full confidence and belief in God and His Word into the realm of allegory and catalogues them as shrouded in figurative language, e.g., the doctrines of creation or hell. He is closer to Dawkins on these matters than he is to the faithful followers of Christ. In Maxey’s view, looking at a literal six-day creation week and a literal place called hell is bad eisegesis at best. I believe that I will stand with Jesus on both of those issues.

The Bible, every word of it, is inspired of God. It is His Word not the word of men. The Scriptures are God’s truth dispenser. Reading theistic evolution into the Biblical record is subversive to the authoritative Word of God as attested to by the Creator Himself. Jesus referred to the facts of creation and placed man at the beginning of the creation (Matt. 19:4-5). Jesus walked on the earth he created some 4,000 to 6,000 years prior to His virgin birth. Relative to that frame of reference, day five of the creation week was the beginning of the creation. According to evolutionary scenarios, theistic or otherwise, man is a newcomer to the earth, contrary to the plain and easy to understand Words of Christ. Theistic evolution presents numerous problems to fundamental doctrines of the Bible, including but not limited to the fall and redemption of man, as Adam the first man is linked to the Christ (Rom. 5:16-18).

Giving to support the work of the church is definitely part of the plan. Anti-patternists find it difficult to distinguish between the temporary and circumstantial. The church has needs and is expected to go forth with the gospel of Christ. The Lord expects His people to support Scripturally authorized works (cf. 3 John 1:7). When the church in Jerusalem had a need and Paul requested other congregations to help with that need, he instructed the brethren to bring their funds to the Lord’s Day assembly and place it in the treasury. The dearth at Jerusalem was circumstantial and incidental to the essential element of giving. Giving is worship and worship is properly offered to God in spirit and in truth (John 2:24). The truth, which is God’s Word (John 17:17), teaches a comprehensive plan which includes the true meaning of collection, how to do it, and the regulations for its success (Rom. 15:25-27; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8, 9). Giving according to the pattern is regular, every first day of the week, systematic, lay by him in store, and an individual responsibility, each one of you (1 Cor. 16:1-2). The type of giving that pleases God is liberal (2 Cor. 8:1-4), purposeful, i.e., according to a plan (2 Cor. 8:12-15), cheerfully done (2 Cor. 9:7), and readily (2 Cor. 8:12). What happens when a congregation has a need that is greater than the ability of the church treasury? The pattern allows Christians to go beyond what purpose for the first day of the week collection (Gal. 6:10).

In First Corinthians 10:19 and 23 Paul points out that there is nothing intrinsically sinful in meat that has been offered to idols. Some apparently misunderstood either the injunction of James (Acts 15:20, 29) and/or the teaching of Paul in this regard. Therefore, commanding to abstain from meats is actually the doctrine of demons and a violation of the pattern (1 Tim. 4:1-5). No sin was involved in eating meats sacrificed to idols so long as it did not violate the conscience of the one eating it (Rom. 14:23; 1 Cor. 8:7), and so long as it did not cause a brother to stumble (1 Cor. 8:9; 10:23ff).

The example is given in Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8 where Paul deals with Christian liberty. Eating meats sacrificed to idols created a problem. God had given no command about eating meat sacrificed to idols. The use of liberty in eating this meat sacrificed to idols were offending the consciences of some brethren. Paul taught: “Let not him that eateth set at naught him that eateth not am let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth” (Rom. 14:3). Paul’s statement reveals the principle which governs all matters of opinion, expediency and Christian liberty. The apostle Paul stated, “All things are lawful: but not all things are expedient” (I Cor. 6:12: 10:23). Disagreement on matters of opinion, expediency and Christian liberty allowed. However, opinions must be harmonized by the group (Kearle, 19).

Maxey, Romans 14 is in a passage suggesting that God wants His people to agree to disagree in regard to following His teaching, i.e., the pattern. In a non-religious setting Christians could eat meat which had been formerly offered in a pagan worship. To do the same thing in a religious setting is what James explicitly prohibited. While discussing Acts 15:20 Robertson observed, “The word refers to idolatrous practices (pollutions) and things sacrificed to idols (eidoluthon) Acts 15:29, not to sacrificial meat sold in the market (1 Cor. 10:27), a matter not referred to here.” First Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 are not inspired commentaries on the prohibition of Acts 15:20 and 29. First Corinthians 10:14-21 is a passage contextually connected to Acts 15:20 and 29, as is also Revelation 2:20 where the condemnation is directed at a woman who taught brethren to involve themselves in pagan idol worship with its sexual rituals. Maxey, if I enjoyed my mediumrare stake in a pagan temple then you would have a point. Unless the Golden Corral is such a place, keep my steak medium and dripping! Maxey, I pray that you will learn how to use the pattern and use your intelligence and ability to help people truly find salvation in Christ.

This heading is a misnomer because Maxey really does not have an argument for the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship. Maxey does not believe that Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 treat the subject of corporate worship nor do they restrict the type of music to be used in the worship of the church. Many readers of this debate are aware of the fact that Maxey has avoided the argument I made about music in the church. In Maxey’s third negative he tried to disconnect the singing aspect of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 from the speaking and teaching aspect of these verses. These verses are twin verses; thus, to understand one is to understand the other. Notice that in Colossians 3:16 we have, “Let Christ’s word (subj. gen. i.e., the doctrine of Christ) dwell in you richly in all wisdom, [by] teaching (adverbially used as a participle of means) and [by] admonishing (adverbially used as a participle of means) yourselves (reflexive pronoun indicating the subject as the object of the verbal action) in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, [by] singing (adverbially as a participle of means) with grace in your hearts to the Lord. Notice that the means by which the essential is to be accomplished is by teaching, and admonishing, and by singing. The speaking of Ephesians 5:19 is the teaching and admonishing of Colossians 3:16. Thus worship in song is to be verbalized with words that teach and admonish which are sung. Singing is the type of music specified by God.

Maxey is too intelligent not to understand the argument against mechanical instrumental music in worship. He avoids it completely when he suggests that mechanical instrumental music is an aid to singing in worship. Maxey knows that mechanical music is to psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs what Judah is to priesthood in Hebrews 7. God had spoken in old times and specified a Levitical priesthood thereby excluding Judah or any other tribe from the priesthood. In this dispensation God has spoken about worshipping him with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. God said to worship in this regard by words of verbal communicating with words that teach and admonish—by means of singing them. Singing is the type of music that is specified; therefore God has spoken. By faith all worshippers can agree on what the Bible says and sing these worship songs. The addition of mechanical instrumental music is accomplished without God’s Word. This cannot be done by faith and it causes division. The division is over what God did not say. Why not stay with what God said and be united by faith? Additionally, the reflexive pronoun denotes that the subject (those worshipping in song) is the object of the verbal action (teaching, admonishing, singing). What setting is in the scope of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16? The setting is corporate, i.e., when the church is together, thus together in worship. When this is the worshippers are to sing. If the passage were authorizing mechanical instruments of music in worship, the all of the worshippers in that setting are to “play” an instrument.

1. After the Holy Spirit was poured out upon Cornelius, during the time he was “exalting God,” yet before he was baptized in water, this man was unsaved, separate from a relationship with God, and “doing evil” in the Lord’s sight. True or False? True. I elaborated on this in my 4th affirmative. Cornelius was no more saved when he spoke in tongues than was Balaam’s ass.
2. If a penitent believer, having confessed Jesus as Lord, dies of a massive brain aneurysm as he is standing in the waters of the baptistery, and just two seconds prior to being immersed, he dies in a LOST condition. True or False? True.
3. Since every single example within the NT writings depicts the disciples observing the Lord’s Supper in the evening, and since even Jesus Himself instituted the Lord’s Supper in the evening, a morning observance is a violation of the NT pattern and is thus a sin. True or False? False. The first day of the week is the essential, that worshippers worshipped in the evening on the first day of the week is incidental and a red herring!
4. In 1 Cor. 16:2 Paul mentions to the Corinthian brethren that when he arrives there he expects “no collections to be made.” This is a binding pattern upon the church for all time, and it directly impacts both our fellowship in One Body and our eternal salvation. True or False? True inasmuch as it was binding on the early church. While the specific dearth was temporary, the principal to be as ready as we can be for specific needs today is essential and permanent.
5. If a disciple of Christ believes the “days of creation” to be figurative rather than literal, he has embraced false teaching and is eternally lost. True or False? That depends on what he does with what he believes. Had the young prophet of First Kings 13 believed the words of the old prophet but still obeyed what he was told, he would not have been killed by a lion on his way home. He was killed because he disobeyed what God said. Believing a subject and growing in knowledge is different than teaching that subject (James 3:1). If that disciple teaches that false subject and will not repent of teaching it, then he is a false teacher and is to be marked and avoided not fellowshipped (Rom. 16:17).
6. Darrell Broking has correctly interpreted every single word, phrase, sentence and passage in the entire Bible. True or False? False. I have missed it on matters before and will do so again. I feel that I am in good company because both Peter and Paul missed it at times too. I am so thankful that matters of obligation are communicated to men by their Creator, Who used language that He knows His creation can understand. I am so thankful that He gave men a Bible that offers man a simple plan that is easy to understand and at the same time is so deep that in one’s life he cannot master it all! That is what inspiration did for us. We can and must master the obligatory matters and at same time we can agree to disagree on matters of opinion. Men sin, but that does not mean that men must live in sin. Men make mistakes in interpretation, but that does not mean that the Bible cannot be interpreted. Maxey would have us to believe that misinterpreting a passage means that the Scriptures cannot be interpreted; therefore, the New Testament is not a pattern. When Maxey presents his mini-pattern in his affirmative posts, I will remind him of this question and see if he wants it applied equally to what he teaches. If it is fodder for the steed it will also feed the nag.

The Bible teaches that Christians are to glorify God in the church through King Jesus (Eph. 3:21). The New Testament church of Christ is a distinct and wonderful institution. It has been said that imitation is the best form of flattery. The Lord is not flattered over the fact that there are numerous counterfeit churches. The church purchased by the blood of Jesus is one of order and design. The church of Christ has certain identifiable marks that make it possible for men today to recognize and reproduce it. Failing to conform to the pattern God left for men to follow is sin. It is therefore of the utmost importance for men to recognize the New Testament pattern and learn how to use it properly.

In the dispensation of Judaism God commanded that the Tabernacle, which was a type of the church, was to be constructed after the pattern shown to Moses (Acts 7:44; Heb. 8:5). Likewise, God commands that the church of Christ is to be constructed after the pattern given by Jesus Christ, through His apostles, which is also found in His Word (cf. 2 Thess. 2:15). Maxey failed to offer any valid teaching to negate the truth that God’s plan for the salvation of our souls is realized in the church for which Jesus died. The significance of the church of Christ is noted in the fact that it is rooted in the eternal purpose of God (Eph. 3:10-11). Maxey’s faith-heritage concept of Christianity is an abomination to the eternal purpose of God!

Jesus gave the apostles His Word (Matt. 18:18; John 17:8), through which we are sanctified and made believers in Christ (John17:17, 20). The early church continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine (Acts 2:42), which is the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). The basis for salvation and fellowship is apostolic doctrine, which is the doctrine or commands of Christ (Acts 2:42; 2 Thess. 2:15; 2 John 1:9-11). Remember that King Jesus based unity on the words of the apostles (John 17:20), which are His (cf. John 12:48). From First Corinthians 1:10 comes a command that all Christians speak the same thing and also the Lord’s condemnation of religious division. Maxey on the other hand glorifies religious division as healthy and condemns those who seek unity based on the truth of God’s Word.

The apostles taught the same pattern to all of the churches of Christ (1 Cor. 4:17; 7:17; 1 Cor. 14:33-34; et. al.). Paul charged Timothy to see to it that the brethren where he labored taught no other doctrine (2 Tim. 1:3). Unless brethren can measure teaching by some standard it would be impossible to determine a different doctrine. Alas, there is a standard, it is called “form of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13). It is also called the “faith,” which is so distinct that it can be heard and obeyed without absolute certainty (Gal. 1:23; Acts 24:24; 6:7). This is the faith for which we are to contend (Jude 1:3). This is the faith in which Christians are to stand united (Eph. 4:13). If this system of salvation is in a state of flux as Maxey’s doctrine demands, then it would be impossible to continue in it, or contend for it (Acts 14:22; Jude 1:3). Furthermore, Jesus’ disciples are people who continue in His Word (John 8:31). It is only after we conform to that Word that one can be saved from sin and enjoy fellowship with Jesus Christ.

Al Maxey failed to do anything he set out to do so far in this debate. The one exception to this may be to declare victory regardless of the outcome of the debate! In my judgment, one of the biggest disappointments in this debate is Maxey’s pride and unscholarly approach in these exchanges. Any one can say anything, but proving it is another matter. I had hoped for some good Bible study, but sadly, Maxey fails miserably in that regard, unless of course he needs a text to prove that we do not need the Word of God. Maxey is the master of the proof-text system of eisegesis. On Sunday, August 25, 2008 Al Maxey released the following statement in his Reflections:

The enslaved are finding freedom; the walls are beginning to crumble, and are being breached. I think you will also find this happening very dramatically as a result of the current debate I am having with Darrell Broking. Through an unprecedented move, some of the key leaders of the legalistic patternists have opened the gates of their walled enclosures and allowed me a platform from which to speak. I have no doubt that this is a miscalculation on their part, and these doors will be slammed shut (and all trace of my words quickly obliterated) as soon as they realize what they have done, but until that happens I intend to take advantage of this God-given opportunity to reach their captives with the Truth of God’s grace and His proffered freedom in Jesus. For some, it will be the first time they have ever heard it, and certainly the first time they have seen the tenets of their traditional teaching being seriously challenged. There are going to be some eyes opened, Lord willing, and some will flee to freedom (#361).

Unsubstantiated claims like the aforementioned are the fruit of arrogance and laughable in any academic circle. I am sorry that those of you who are antipatternists do not have a more humble and disciplined person to voice your cause. I am thankful for Maxey inasmuch as he is willing to discuss these matters, at least in a written format. One does wonder why Maxey repeatedly refuses to meet his opponents in an oral public debate. That door slammed shut long ago! Maxey, the day that you choose to open that door call me!

Sources Cited

Barns, A., Albert Barn’s notes on the Bible. N. D. [CD-ROM]. E-Sword.

Bauer, W., Gringrich, F. W., Danker, F., & Arndt, W.F. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Brackney, William H. “Doing Baptism Baptist Style: Documents for faith and Witness.” Baptist History and Heritage Society. 2001. 18 August 2008 <http://www.baptisthistory.org/pamphlets/baptism.htm>.

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: Penguin Books, 1986.

Deaver, Roy. “Ascertaining Bible Authority.” Back To The Bible. Pensacola: Bellview Church of Christ Publication, 1976.

Dungan, D. R. (N. D.). Hermeneutics. Delight: Gospel Light Publishing Company. http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/ddungan/hatb/HATB04.HTM.

“Example.” Merriam-Webster On-Line. <http://www.merriam-webster.com>

Jackson, Bill. “Paul’s Third Preaching Trip.” Studies in Acts. Ed. Dub McClish. Denton: Valid Publications, 1985.

Kearle, Edwin W. “Faith Verses Opinion.” Defender, 14:3,19. March 1985.

Maston, Mark. “The Four Gospels in Canonical Perspective.” Leaven, 12:1 (2004): 20-28.

---. “Re: Leaven Article.” E-mail to the author. 29 July 2004.

Maxey, Al. The Consuming Fire: Examining the Final Fate of the Wicked in Light of Biblical Language. Reflections, 46, june 6 2003 <http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx46.htm>

---. The One Cup Fellowship:Reflection on a Conviction. Reflections, 330, January 3, 2008. <http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx330.htm>

---. The Lord’s Supper Focusing on Frequency, Reflections, 30, April 15, 2003. <http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx30.htm.>

---. Reflecting on Hades: Truth or Tradition. Reflections, 44. 30 May 2003. <http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx44.htm>

---. A Study of Revelation 14:9-11 Torture or Termination? Reflections, 45. 1 June 2003. <http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx45.htm>

---. The Bondage of Silence: Human Hermeneutic Gone Astray. Reflections, 361. 25 August 2008. <http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx361.htm>

Parker, D. C. The Living Text of the Gospels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Perschbacher, Wesley J. Ed. The New Analytical Greek Lexicon. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers,1990.

Robinson, A. T. Word pictures in the New Testament. N.D. [CD-ROM]. E-Sword.

Wallace, Daniel. B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Zodhiates, S. (Ed.). (1992). The complete word study dictionary. [CD-ROM]. Chattanooga: AMG International Inc.

You can send your comments to Darrell.broking@gmail.com.

From Tidewater VA:
Brother Darrell,
It’s fascinating to watch Al try to use the New Testament Scriptures as a pattern to prove that there is no pattern by which to prove anything! Also, his self-proclaimed “scholarship” is simply stunning as he sets aside all of the “scholars,” something he does repeatedly in his MDR material as well, in order to promote his wacky views. And his die-hard supporters seem oblivious to the utter self-contradiction of his entire approach. They are reminiscent of many of the characters out of ALICE IN WONDERLAND. A lot of folks do not realize that Lewis Carroll was a master logician whose fictional works were designed to skewer the kind of absurd and inane “reasoning” that Al and his supporters, including our new “anti-patternist” Ray Hawk, throw around with reckless abandon. It is the very epitome of what Carroll was satirizing in ALICE! The irrationality of his day which was but precursor to postmodernism! Yep, and there sits Al as the feckless king of hearts ruling over his domain of irrationality or even as the Mad-Hatter himself, while Ray, John Arnold, and the Tri-Cities gang sit around and converse like the participants of the Mad-Hatters Tea Party.
***

Brother Broking:

The old covenant contained hand written ordinances. Two thousand years ago the writer of Hebrews stated that it was waxing old and becoming obsolete and was soon to be replaced by a new covenant and he quoted from Jeremiah 31 exactly what that new covenant would contain. In it’s fullness the new covenant contains the following words: “After these days, sayeth the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: For they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, sayeth the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

God said He would make this new covenant different from the one He made with the fathers of old because they did not keep that covenant, indicating that this new covenant would be kept by true Israel. It will be kept precisely because there is no stipulations contained in it that they can break. It is unilateral, containing only promises that God would keep (is keeping now).

Now you are searching every jot and title of writings about that new covenant, and it’s early followers, trying to find hand written ordinances (which are against you) that you can obligate yourself to keep and thus justify yourself legally. The outcome of such effort is the same as was the outcome with the first covenant; you break it. Further, you are trying to bind these assumed laws upon every other believer, making them breakers of the covenant also. Please discard the old covenant (which never applied to you any way) and accept the new and stop trying to put laws into other’s minds and in their inward parts. That’s God’s domain.

I note you criticize Al for not posting all responses to this debate on his web site and state that you will “try” to post my response on yours. I hope your effort is successful.

In love,
***
My question to this writer of this note is simply this, if there are no stipulations in the New Covenant that can be broken, then please tell me how it is that we can be guilty of sin? The Bible says that sin is transgression of God’s law (1 John 3:4).

Another note from cyber space:

Dear brother in Jesus, I pray for the eyes and ears of your heart to open and for there to be a glorious explosion of truth inside you for the joy of freedom in Christ.
***
My response: Yes, may we always put God’s Word in our hearts to experience the freedom from sin that is found through gospel obedience (John 8:32; Rom. 6:17-18; et al.).

Another writer said,

Darrell,

While I am “enjoying” the debate between you and Al, I am saddened that you both seem to be sophomoric and unChristlike in your jabs at each other. Nevertheless, I was wondering if you could address this which has puzzled me for years. You say:

Come on Al, the Bible says to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.

What is the difference between psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs? Are they all to be sung the same? <<[Ekklesia Then & Now] Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs>>

I read this by Dick Soule and his argument is that if we are commanded to sign psalms, then by definition we must have musical accompaniment.

An excerpt:

That should certainly be sufficient to prove that at least some psalms were to be sung with instrumental accompaniment, but it is likely that all psalms were accompanied. The Hebrew word translated “psalm”—mizmôr—specifically means instrumental music (Strong’s), so a psalm is understood to be a lyric poem set to instrumental music. The Greek word psalmos, transliterated to psalm, further corfirms this definition, deriving as it does from psallo, which means to twitch or twang. The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament used extensively in the first century, also translates mizmôr as psalmos.

The insistence of some on vocal singing (a cappella, Latin for in the church style) only in Christian assemblies lies in a tenuous conclusion based on a dubious premise using questionable exegesis. There is no biblical basis for the phrase “in the church style”—the Greek equivalent is not found in Scripture. “In the church style” therefore probably came into being from the notion that a cappella became, at some point, the traditional style of church music. There’s nothing inherently wrong with tradition, but most non-Catholic Christians reject tradition as authoritative.

Thanks in advance for your reply,

In him
****
Brother, as far as my sophomoric and unChristlike jabs are concerned, I wonder of referring to a brother’s attitude as sophomoric and unchristian is sophomoric and unchristian? It reminds me of one who judges another for judging. Maybe you have yet to deal with the damning consequences of Maxey’s doctrine year after year and watch people lose their souls as they succumb to his error. That is not the case with me. I intend no disrespect to you in my reply. What is your evaluation of the jabs in the following Scriptures: Judges 9:7-15, First Kings 18:27, Matthew 3:7; 23, John 8:44; Acts 13:10; et al.? Is there a problem calling a spade a spade?

As far as the psallo argument is concerned, please note that the psalms were not sang with mechanical instrumental accompaniment. There were interludes in some of the Psalms during which mechanical instruments of music were played. Notice that psalms were also sung (1 Chr. 16:9; Psa. 105:2). The same is true in the New Testament (James 5:13). Ephesians 5:19 relegates psalms to verbal utterances “speaking to yourselves” … “singing. The Greek verb psallo is translated with the words “making melody” in the KJV. Psallo is just that, a verb. Its object here is the heart. God does not want His people to pluck or twang a stringed instrument, but to pluck a heart cord! Further more, the reflexive pronoun “yourselves” is used to denote that the subject of the verb is also its object. If it is that case that the passage is authorizing mechanical instrumental music to accompany psalms, then it is the case that every worshipper is required to play and instrument while he sings.

Thanks for your email,
Darrell

An email from Las Vegas, NV:
Hello Darrell,

Years ago I shared your delusion and taught others with all my heart the same delusion. One day I was reading one of Jesus’ criticisms of the Pharisees. As usual I was cheering him on in my mind. Until, for some reason a thought came to me that scared me half to death. I thought, “What if it’s me?” What if I am the one Jesus is critical of?

I quit teaching the following Sunday and took almost 5 years off to study the bible with the goal of looking at God’s word from a fresh perspective without any preconceived notions.

I have now read the entire bible over 50 times in 9 different versions since then. I rarely look at commentaries anymore.

If time off and reflection on preconceived beliefs was good enough for Paul after his conversion, then why wouldn’t it be beneficial for us today?

After you finish this debate I would suggest you follow the example of Paul and take some time off to confirm your beliefs. When you return I have a feeling you will look back on your debate and feel the same shame and remorse that I felt after the Lord removed my pride and showed me the simplicity of his free gift.

You will find that Jesus wasn’t crucified because he brought in a bunch of new commandments the Jews didn’t want to conform to. He was crucified because his teaching was too simple for them. The couldn’t see how one could be saved without a bunch of rules to follow!

Isn’t that the same thing you are teaching. Would you have crucified him too?

PS. Are you going to put this one in your debate, or are you going to only put in the emails that are syrupy towards your side of the debate the way you claimed Al Maxey does?
***

A reader of the debate in Texas wrote:

Keep up the great work on the debate brother! Since Al does not believe in the logic of the standard hermeneutic (Command, Example, Necessary Inference), it made no impact on him, and he totally dismissed it.

Al believes you can only “infer” what he sees fit to infer, and if you infer something he does not agree with he does not accept it. It is kind of like arguing with squeeze ball, you can never bust it open and change its form no matter how hard you try!
***
Thanks for the email. I guess that the main use of the Bible to Maxey is to prove that we don’t need to follow the Bible.
Darrell

Another reader said:

Darrell this is great material and it need to be published. So many today believe this anti-pattern nonsense. Al Maxey just cannot answer the Bible teaching about what is required of Christians today. Thanks for this good study.
***

My plans are to put all of this material together in an e-book complete with a Scripture index.

Another reader commented:

Darrell you obviously have Maxey backed into a corner with the Word of God. With all of the murmuring and complaining in his latest post it is clear that he does not like it there.
***