Broking - Maxey Debate

Maxey refers to me as a legalist who is given to subjectivism in regard to interpretation of the Scriptures. I have referred to Maxey as a postmodern pragmaticist, which is exactly what he is. In Maxey’s hermeneutical approach to the Bible he is postmodern, and he clearly exercises a pragmatic adaptation of hermeneutics as needed to support his theology. Al Maxey is a self proclaimed reformer of the church, who is in fact a denominational leader in rebellion against the Lord and His teaching. You are now left to decide which of us is correct.

The idea for this debate originated at the 2008 Bellview Lectureship when a few patternists discussed the need to show just exactly how extremely liberal Al Maxey is. As we discussed this idea the plans were for me to debate Maxey on his anti-pattern theology and then for Daniel Denham to challenge Maxey to defend his error on MDR. This debate has been an outstanding success inasmuch as it has clearly demonstrated that Maxey is deeply stooped into error. It is of further interest to note that from the onset of this debate Maxey claimed victory. So confident was Maxey that in one of his Reflections he wrote the following lie:

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)

First of all Mr. Maxey this was no miscalculation. Secondly Mr. Maxey, we realize what we did and challenge you to take advantage of your opportunity as you said you would do and meet Daniel Denham in debate. Finally, Mr. Maxey, we know that you lied in your book and do not expect you to even attempt to discuss it with Denham. There is abundant evidence that you misused and lied about sources used to support your false teaching in Down But Not Out, which is in my estimation why you misestimated your ability and want to retract this statement and seek shelter behind your walled enclosure and ignore the fact that we have the truth on these matters. (A few days ago the New Mexico Sun News declared Obama the winner of the November 4th election. What is it with these New Mexicans and their presumptuousness?)

In this concluding post my aim is to highlight some of the error that Maxey advocated in this debate. Maxey was unable to prove that the New Testament is not a pattern, and at the same time his anti-pattern arguments were self destructive when he attempted to advocate that there is a rather small pattern within the New Testament that is to be obeyed for salvation and fellowship. There are two appendices attached to this material. The first is a small sampling of just how much Al Maxey falsified his research for the book Down But Not Out, and the second is an answer to the quibbles of Maxey and his Hamptonian anti-patternist friend.

1. In case some did not already know it, Al Maxey will lie when he needs to lie to promote his teaching. For example, Maxey is the master of bending sources which do not agree with him to teach his error. In my second affirmative I gave an example of this and showed how that Maxey tried to use Barns to support his objective genitive error on Second John 9, where Barns did not agree with Maxey.¹

   ¹ Knowing that Daniel Denham has identified multiple example of Maxey’s dishonesty in regard to his alleged research, I asked Daniel to provide a few examples for the readers of this debate. Daniel sent me over 40 pages of examples. I added a few pages of Daniel’s material as an appendix.

2. If Maxey would have agreed with me that the New Testament is our pattern for salvation and fellowship, it would not have changed his erroneous practices because Maxey believes that Jesus violated the Old Testament pattern and was sinless in so doing; therefore, the pattern really does not matter. Thus, “The problem with Maxey is that he does not acknowledge God’s Word as the authoritative standard which it is” (Broking, Second Affirmative).
3. Al Maxey does not believe that baptism is for, i.e., in order to the remission of sins. (See my third affirmative for more on this error). To reiterate the point lets revisit Maxey’s available light error:

   The light available to this caveman, or some primitive living beyond the parameters of civilization, may well only be that of Nature. That then becomes his available light "coming down from the Father of lights" (James 1:17). This man is therefore responsible for seeking to understand that revelation to the best of his ability, and also for ordering his life according to the truths perceived therein. Those who perceive GOD in this revelation, and who seek to live as He would have them to live, have responded to that revelation of the Creator, and God will judge their hearts and actions accordingly. Those who REJECT this light from above, and choose to continue living for self, will be rejected by the One who provided them that guidance in that revelation. Thus, regardless of the brightness or dimness of the light made available, all men have a choice; they will either seek and accept, or ignore and reject .... and God will judge accordingly, dispensing either life or death based on their choice (Maxey, Reflections, #158).

   Thus, according to Maxey’s theory a person can be saved long before he is immersed for, i.e., in order to the remission of his sins. Liberals agree with Al on this point but God does not (cf. Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21)!
4. Maxey alleges that inferential study of the Scriptures is not a method by which authority is established. He seems to understand that because God said that priests were to come from the Levitical tribe that Jesus could not have been a priest on earth because he was from the tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:14). However, Maxey then suggests that the same method of establishing authority when applied to singing in worship generates subjective opinion instead of being authoritative; therefore, Al Maxey alleges that the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship is an optional matter and not a violation of God’s Word.
5. As a postmodern theologian, Maxey will always take a pragmatic approach to the Scriptures which forces interpretations to harmonize with his subjective perceptions. In my second affirmative I noted:

   Maxey wrote: “When God specifies, man must obey. It is when men assume or infer or seek to deduce such legal regulation in the face of divine silence, and elevate said personal perceptions to the standing of divine precept that I must voice a strong objection.” But the Mosaic Law, as stated by Maxey, clearly stated the day on which the Passover was to be observed. According to Maxey’s doctrine, because God specified Jesus was bound to obey, but according to Maxey He did not obey and God approved anyway. The final interpretation in regard to which of God’s laws must be obeyed and which of God’s laws can be set aside must be determined by Maxey’s perception. Al Maxey is the classic, twenty-first century pragmatic, postmodern theologian. The application of Maxey’s doctrine makes perception the standard; how eclectically pragmatic of Maxey.

   This approach is how Maxey wrote Down But Not Out, which has been proven by Daniel Denham. Partial documentation is provided in the appendix on this matter. The fact is that Al Maxey will lie and falsify information to make his point and when called on it he alleges that his character is being attacked. The truth is that his character is being attacked because it is the kind of character that God detests.
6. Maxey does not accept the truth that the New Testament is Jesus’ last will and testament to mankind. It is the one sided covenant that God gave to men in order to find salvation and to enjoy fellowship with the redeemed in Christ our Lord. At the beginning of the debate I said this was a debate about the Word of God and that it was. Al Maxey says that he honors God’s Word but he consistently denies the truth of the Word of God and uses it mainly to try and prove patternists to be in error. Outside of using the Word to deregulate God’s authority Maxey does not seem to have much use for it. Of course he will deny this and cry that his character is being attacked, but facts are facts and many readers of this debate know that this is the truth.
7. Maxey does not believe that salvation is in the church of Christ. Baptism is onto Christ (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3-4; and into the body, which is the church (1 Cor. 12:15; Col. 1:18, 24); therefore, the saved are added to the church by the Lord Himself (Acts 2:47). Maxey does not even believe that baptism is in order to be saved so it follows that he would not agree with the Bible about where the saved are located. Make no mistake about it, Al Maxey is a liberal whose mindset is denominational and in complete rejection about the Bible doctrine of fellowship. In an email to me Maxey wrote: “I have also spoken at various Baptist churches, taught a class in one of their seminaries (on ethics), have spoken at the Lent services at the Episcopal church here, etc. etc” (Re: A Question). Al Maxey is a self proclaimed reformer of the church: “What I WILL do, however, is seek to call my brothers and sisters in this religious group to begin seriously rethinking their relationship with the Lord and with their extended family in the faith. I seek to reform the church, not retreat from it” (Maxey). It follows that Maxey believes that all people who are trying to follow Jesus according to the light they have, which must include their perception of the Bible right or wrong, are in Christ. Talk about making assumptions!
8. Did I mention Maxey’s assumptions equating to a thus saith the Lord in Maxey’s mind. What is interesting is that Maxey does not believe that the Lord expects people to draw inferences from what He gave us to study in His Word. As I proved in this debate inferences from the Scriptures are demanded of God’s people.
9. Maxey does not believe in the Bible doctrine of hell. As was noted in the debate, Al Maxey believes that at death one seeks to exist until the resurrection at which time only the saved will go on to exist throughout eternity and the lost will cease to exist, terminally. How painful!
10. In this debate we have demonstrated that Al Maxey is a macro-evolutionist who denied the Biblical record of a six day creation week and a young earth.
11. Maxey believes that the Lord’s Supper can be observed at any time and that it is just fine to add elements to the Lord’s Table as long as you have a good reason to do so. Does Al Maxey have a god complex or what?
12. Maxey believes that Romans 14 governs matters of obligation when in fact, as was proved in this debate; Romans 14 governs those matters which lie in the realm of opinion.
13. Maxey believes that Paul’s references in the Galatians’ epistle to the law refer to law keeping in general and not specifically to the Law of Moses, which is clearly the case. Maxey fails to recognize the fact that this makes him a micro-sinner because he believes in a little law keeping! Alas, Maxey is a postmodern, pragmatic theologian; therefore, when he feels that a law needs to be followed it must be the case and everyone else is just wrong! But that is ok because it is just a matter of perception anyway, according Maxey’s axioms of Maxeyism.
14. Did you notice how Maxey continued to push for a numeric list of all pattern obligations while he worked so hard to avoid making his own list? You see, all of Maxey’s criticism about how patterns divide is applicable to Maxey’ micro-pattern of do nothingness to be saved! Does the word hypocrite apply to Maxey here? I know how it works, Maxey’s I feel are equal to if not more authoritative than a thus saith the Lord. What Maxey chooses to ignore is the fact that the New Testament was written to deal with humanity until the Lord returns. If the apostle’s had written a numeric list then would they have included the sin involved with in vetro fertilization? What would the readers in the first century have though about that? The pattern is to be applied to life and thus requires study and application, which Maxey is apparently incapable of doing.
15. Maxey repeatedly attempted to poison the well by making it appear that patternists believe that men must merit salvation. We do not believe anything closely related to that concept. This debate was on the New Testament pattern not on the component parts of how men stay in the good grace of God.
16. Did anyone notice that when Maxey did not directly answer my questions to him it was because they were ambiguous, but when I did not directly answer his question I was avoiding his precession! Does the word pompous apply to Maxey the master of pragmatics?
17. Those of you who were able to read Maxey’s readers comments in his Reflections and some of his own comments in this debate maybe noticed that when Maxey uses descriptive terms to define patternists that he is justified, loving, and kind; however, when a descriptive term is used to define what Maxey is and the theory by which he operates that it is always hateful, mean, and judgmental. Maxey calls those who believe in the New Testament pattern factionists, et al. In one place Maxey stated: “These factionists and schismatics and partyists and sectarians are genuinely hated by our God. Frankly, I do not find it inappropriate to share that righteous loathing for those devoted to harming our holy Father and His One Family!” (#178). Al you are the master of love and kindness for sure.
18. Al Maxey is an advocate of faith only doctrine, which is why he denies that baptism is in order to salvation. To Maxey baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace. Maxey places salvation at the undisclosed point of some type of belief, which is prior to the outward demonstration. Jesus however, made it clear that those who believe in Him have the right, i.e., the authority (Greek exousia) to become sons of God (John 1:12). Maxey disagrees with Jesus and takes the position that they are sons of God, whereas Jesus says that they can become sons of God.
19. Al Maxey is able to take advantage of people because America is so deeply stooped into postmodernism that Maxey has their unlearned ear. I pray to God that those he influences study their way out of error before they find out just how real hell is. Maxey is as liberal as the Episcopalians he rubs shoulder with. It is time for Maxey and his kind to get out of the church and call them what they are, a denomination!

Sources Cited

Maxey, Al. “Re.: A Question.” Email to the author, et al. 30 Oct. 2008

------. Christianity then and now on-line. 2005. 28 Oct 2008 .

------. “Hated by God.” Reflections. 178, March 11, 2005. www. zianet.com/maxey/reflx178.htm (Accessed 31 October 2008).

The following is a small sampling of Mr. Maxey’s falsified documentation and is the fruit of Daniel Denham’s research:

Special Note – It’s fascinating to watch some butcher Greek grammar so efficiently as to assert that gnomic presents and presents of general truth never can reflect continuous or even habitual action. This is simply not true. For example, Al Maxey, in his debate with Ron Thomas, cites Herbert Weir Smyth as follows: “Dr. H.W. Smyth, in his Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), notes that the ‘present stem denotes the simple action of the verb in present time without regard to its continuance” (“The Maxey-Thomas Debate,” Maxey Eight). But notice the full quotation that Maxey actually butchers: “1853. The present stem may denote the simple action of the verb in present time without regard to its continuance” (Greek Grammar, p. 414). Notice that Maxey completely omits the word “may,” which implies the existence of exceptions – that in some cases it “may not.” He is surely aware of the force of the word “may,” is he not? In fact, he had to alter the verb in Smyth’s statement from “denote” to “denotes” in order to arrive at his new version of the quotation. Further, note how he places the expression “without regard to its continuance” in italics as though Smyth had done so to emphasize this point! If Maxey maintains that he was simply quoting Carroll D. Osborn, then he ought to have checked Osborn’s use of Smyth before doing so, or else noted that such was the case in his own use of the material. In the manner it is presented, one can only conclude that Maxey’s statement is misleading at best, if not downright dishonestly deceptive! Smyth further notes in part relative to the present indicative, the following: “1875. The present represents a present state, or an action going on at the present time” (p.421). He then refers the reader back to his comments under #1853 cited above. Also, he writes: “1876. Present of Customary Action. The present is used to express a customary or repeated action.” Again, “1877. Present of General Truth. – The present is used to express an action that is true for all time” (p. 421). He notes in this regard, “a. The present is an absolute tense in such sentences…” (p. 421). “1878. Conative Present. – The present may express an action begun, attempted, or intended” (p. 421). The assertion that a gnomic use of the present or the use of the present for a general truth never can reflect continuous or habitual action is simply false. 2 Corinthians 9:7 affirms that “God loves a cheerful giver.” Is this to be taken just as a one-time action? Clearly, it is not! Even Maxey’s own illustration can be turned with force against him. Notice what he says in the following: “The phrase ‘commits adultery’ (Present Indicative) is a simple declaration of Truth, not a declaration of continuing action. For example, I can use the same ‘gnomic present’ in the phrase: ‘Whosoever takes a gun and shoots a man in the head commits murder.’ Does the phrase ‘commits murder’ (being a Present Indicative) indicate continuous action? Of course not. It is rather a declaration of historic truth, even though it appears in the present tense.” First his example is given only in English, which does not inherently encode verbal aspect into its verbal system. But granting his illustration for argument’s sake, what if the man makes the habitual practice of shooting other men in the head so as to commit murder? Would not all such cases as encoded in Maxey’s illustration thus constitute murder? Could it not then be rightly said that such a person “keeps on committing murder”? An act repeated would well accommodate the continual or habitual force of the present, just as much as one in actual process at all times. Bro. Maxey thus destroys his own quibble! Remember that his purpose is to try to prove that the action involved in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is a one-time, once-and-for-all act. He could not prove that, however, even if the Lord had used an aorist indicative as opposed to the present by his own approach to verbal aspectuality! His argument amounts to this: there are x number of uses of the present tense in which some MAY contemplate simple action without regard to duration, so therefore these texts must involve one time action for moichatai! Now, apply that same reasoning to every other text of the New Testament and see what happens! Apply this same new “rule” to the aorist which also has multiple uses, including references in some texts in a summary fashion wherein the action was in actuality continuous by virtue of the lexical or contextual force of things. The Greek term for “swimming” (neo, “I swim”) may stand in the aorist in a text to summarize the action as an event, and yet the actual activity, according to the Aktionsart of the term, would obviously involve certain repetitive actions or motions making up the concept of swimming thus conveyed by the verb. [The present tense would express the particulars involved in or comprising the activity, while the aorist would summarize it. The perfect tense would focus on its completion and standing result, especially if consideration is contextually given as to where one has swum. Further, the imperfect, like the present, would focus on the particulars but in relationship to the past.] The same principle, as easily seen in the activity of swimming, applies to the repetitive act of having sexual relations, which is lexically indicated in the term moicheia and its verbal cognates. The Lord chose the present tense moichatai to stress the internal aspects of the activity. He thus takes for granted that married couples will have intimate relations which was the common practice of the time, which in the case of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 then implies the commission of adultery and, in view of the repetitive nature of such activity, the idea then of “keeps on committing adultery” properly obtains, especially when the present indicative verb is contrasted with the two preceding aorists (apolusee and gameesee), as we have previously noted. Yet, the butchering of one statement from Smyth by Al is not enough. He goes on to assert, while citing Smyth as his authority for such, that “In such a ‘gnomic present,’ or ‘present of general truth’ (see: Dr. Smyth, p.42f.) continuity is NOT under consideration’” It will be observed that Maxey presents this point as though he is quoting someone. It most certainly cannot be Smyth, because he does not say such! The statement that Smyth made relative to the use of “Present of General Truth” is given above and found on page 421 under section 1877. [NOTE: Other misuses of authorities by Maxey can be seen in the very same document (“The Maxey-Thomas Debate,” MaxeyEight). For example, he cites A.T. Robertson briefly on the use of the present tense, as he did Smyth, but conveniently ignores the great bulk of the scholar’s observations on the use of the present tense which is contrary to Maxey’s assertions. He writes concerning Robertson: “Dr. A.T. Robertson observes, ‘It is not wise therefore to define the present indicative as denoting 'action in progress' like the imperfect’ (A Grammar of the Greek NT).” First, he quotes Robertson as though Robertson is commenting on the observations and assertions of Carroll D. Osborn. The statement IMMEDIATELY preceding the Robertson quote, as given by Maxey, is: “Dr. Osburn notes that such a theory is false, ‘based as it is upon imprecise understanding of Greek mood distinctions.’” The word “therefore” in Robertson’s quote reflects back. Certainly, it is not the case that he was alluding to Osborn’s statement, unless Carroll is somewhere near 150 years of age. Second, it is interesting that Maxey, as he did in the first Smyth quotation cited, does not give the page reference for the Robertson quote either (in fact, his page reference for the second Smyth quote was plain wrong!). Third, Maxey fails to observe that while Robertson maintains that there are various species of aoristic uses of the present in the indicative mood, he shows there are many uses of the present in the indicative that involve linear or imperfective aspect. Maxey’s special pleading for his case ignores this evidence. Robertson clearly teaches that the Aktionsart of the verb itself and the context must be taken into consideration, along with the present tense verb, in order to determine properly the force and thus scope of the action being depicted by the verb. In fact, it is self-evident that Robertson would vehemently oppose and denounce Maxey’s abuse of his material. In his comments on Mark 10:11, Robertson observes: “Mere formal divorce does not annul actual marriage consummated by physical union. Breaking that bond does annul it” (Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. I, p. 349). Prof. Robertson would, undoubtedly, hold to a continuous or habitual force for moichatai ep’auteen in Mark 10:11 and thus for moichatai in Matthew 19:9 in direct contradiction to the assertions of Maxey! On Luke 16:18, Robertson states: “Adultery remains adultery, divorce or no divorce, remarriage or no remarriage” (vol. II, p. 220). Another example of Maxey’s misuse of authorities is in his referencing of Dana and Mantey’s A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Sandwiched in between the Robertson quote and then the Smyth quote as given by Maxey is Al’s citation of this work. He writes: “Dana & Mantey say, ‘It is a mistake to suppose that the durative meaning monopolizes the present stem.’” Again, he does not give any page number for the citation in order to facilitate the reading of the quote in situ. The material on the present in the book runs from sections 172 to 174 over six pages (pp. 181-186). In the course of their discussion H.E. Dana and Julius Mantey detail numerous uses and examples of the present with linear, continuous, habitual, or iterative force. They also detail special uses of the present, including the aoristic, tendential, and static or stative uses. They even apply these various uses to the indicative mood, as well as the non-indicative moods. While Al tries to leave the impression that Dana and Mantey believed that the action of the present indicative was undefined, that is simply not the case! In fact, they observe in section 172 that, “The fundamental significance of the present tense is the idea of progress. It is a linear tense” (p. 181). They then caution: “It is not, however, its exclusive significance” (p. 181). It is THEN that the observation, quoted by Maxey, is actually made. They write: “It is a mistake to suppose ‘that the durative meaning monopolises the present stem’ (M. 119). Since there is no aorist tense for present time, the present tense, as used in the indicative, must do service for both linear and punctiliar action. But it must be borne in mind that the idea of present time is secondary in the force of the tense” (p. 181). WHY DID MAXEY NOT GIVE THE CONTEXT OF THE QUOTE FROM DANA AND MANTEY? I believe the answer is obvious. It would be to have sabotaged his own attempt at an argument! It would have been to impeach his flagrant misuse of their work as a source! Dana and Mantey state: “In the indicative the linear significance of the present may sometimes be found more or less remote, being modified by other influences. The other elements entering into the resultant import of the present tense are the meaning of the verb itself {i.e. its lexical force or Aktionsart, HDD} and the general significance of the context” (p. 181). Again, notice their emphasis upon lexical meaning and context as bearing upon the force of the present tense! Furthermore, Dana and Mantey go on to note that the idea of the progressive present “is manifestly nearest the root idea of the tense” (p. 182). They add further: “It {the progressive present} signifies action in progress, or state in persistence, and may be represented by the graph (________). In the indicative it is related to present time, and because of possible varieties in this relation to present time it may denote three points of view” (p. 182). They then list these points of view in the progressive present as “description,” “existing results,” and “duration” (pp. 182-183). Maxey finally tries to poison the wells by the absurd assertion that the majority of Greek scholars accept his foolish notion that the present tense in the indicative in Matthew 19:9 is to be taken as an aoristic present with one time force. He states: “The bulk of reputable Greek scholarship, however, clearly sides with the view I have presented, and it denounces the view embraced and taught by Ron. After much research, I side with the majority position of Greek scholarship and completely reject Ron's view that the Present Indicative of Matthew 19:9 denotes ‘continuous action.’ It simply does NOT.” I wonder how he has arrived at this conclusion? I have some 120 plus Greek grammars in my library and some 60 to 70 commentaries on Matthew, Mark, and Luke dealing with the Greek text in some measure and addressing the key texts involved in this issue (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18). I also have numerous lexicons, dictionaries, and word studies, antiquated and modern. I have several major specialized works on verbal aspectuality and the syntax of the Greek verb. I also have numerous works on the Sermon on the Mount, Biblical ethics, the home, and the specific study of MDR, many which address some or all of the Greek texts in question. Yet I have found virtually no support in any of these for the position asserted by Bro. Maxey. The statement by Maxey is as false as false can be! Those which lean in his direction not only are in the minute minority, but I suspect have arrived at their conclusions despite the contextual evidence and not because of it! Invariably, their line of argumentation is more from the standpoint of textual agnosticism toward the meaning of these texts rather than a genuine, bonafide effort at exegesis based on their syntax.

More Examples of Al Maxey’s Misuse of References and Source Materials

1. Matthew Henry – “The fact that this verb appears in the passive voice rather than the active has long been recognized, and many distinguished scholars have bemoaned the failure of translators and interpreters to correctly render it. Writing almost 300 years ago, the noted commentator Matthew Henry states, ‘It is adultery against the wife he puts away, it is a wrong to her, and a breach of his contract with her’” (Down, But Not Out, p. 130).
1. Al is intimating that Matthew Henry believed and taught what Al believes and teaches on Matthew 5:32 that the woman does not actively commit adultery, but rather has “adultery” committed against her in the breaching of the marriage vow by putting her away.
2. However, that is not how Henry defines the word “adultery” – neither here nor elsewhere. It is fascinating that Al does not give the specific reference from Matthew Henry. Why?
3. The fact is Matthew Henry was not “bemoaning” the translators and interpreters supposed mishandling of the text! That entire idea is from the 23rd chapter of Al’s imagination. Let him show from the immediate context of this quote that Henry was doing just that! In fact, Henry not only is not teaching that the woman is totally passive in the adultery, as Al avers, but teaches that she is guilty of the adultery when she herself remarries, as is even intimated in the very next clause of the verse. If the one marrying the put away woman commits adultery, then who does he commit it with? HMMM, AL?
4. Matthew Henry would have considered Al Maxey a heretic on MDR!
5. First, in his comments on Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew Henry states that, “That men's divorcing of their wives upon dislike, or for any other cause except adultery, however tolerated and practised among the Jews, was a violation of the seventh commandment, as it opened a door to adultery, Matthew 5:31-32.” Notice, folks, that Henry cites the seventh commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” as being violated by the kind of divorcing and remarrying described in Matthew 5:31-32! His reference is to Exodus 20:14, which clearly deals with the sexual crime of adultery. Thus, Matthew Henry does not take the word “adultery” with the same special twist that Al places upon it.
6. Notice also this following comment from Matthew Henry on the text: “How this matter was rectified and amended by our Saviour. He reduced the ordinance of marriage to its primitive institution: They two shall be one flesh, not to be easily separated, and therefore divorce is not to be allowed, except in case of adultery, which breaks the marriage covenant; but he that puts away his wife upon any other pretence, causeth her to commit adultery, and him also that shall marry her when she is thus divorced. Note, Those who lead others into temptation to sin, or leave them in it, or expose them to it, make themselves guilty of their sin, and will be accountable for it. This is one way of being partaker with adulterers Psalm 50:18.” (http:// www. studylight.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=005). Again, it is clear that Matthew Henry considers the sin of adultery here to be a sexual sin. He contends that it gives the grounds for a Scriptural dissolution of the marriage. He also contends that one “commits adultery” when involved in an authorized divorce and remarriage situation – the one who marries the put away woman commits adultery and she does too. Henry’s reference to Psalm 50:18 confirms all the more that he took the phrase “commits adultery” literally and that the woman, despite having been put away against her will and being thereby “caused” to commit adultery, is nonetheless guilty of the sin of adultery with the man whom she marries. Henry teaches from Matthew 5:32 that the husband “causeth her to commit adultery, and him also that shall marry her when she is thus divorced.” Notice, Hnery places reference to her action in sinning in italics for emphasis and adds that the man who marries her is also guilty. She and he are said to be lead “into temptation to sin.” How, brother Al? Folks, Al Maxey has tried to remove the sin from the text. Rather than bemoaning the ostensibly woeful work of the translators and interpreters on Matthew 5:32, I am persuaded, that Matthew Henry, if he were here, would be bemoaning Al’s butchering of his material and of the Word of God on the subject!
7. But, folks, here’s the real kicker on this matter. Al presents things as though Matthew Henry is commenting on Matthew 5:32a, the first independent clause, and bemoaning the horrible work of the translators and interpreters who just keep missing it! YET, the quotation does not come from Matthew Henry’s commentary on Matthew, but on the text of Mark 10:11! The fuller quotation is as follows: “Christ's discourse with his disciples, in private, about this matter, Mark 10:11-12. It was an advantage to them, that they had opportunity of personal converse with Christ, not only about gospel mysteries, but about moral duties, for further satisfaction. No more is here related of this private conference, that the law Christ laid down in this case--That it is adultery for a man to put away his wife, and marry another; it is adultery against the wife he puts away, it is a wrong to her, a breach of his contract with her, Mark 10:11. He adds, If a woman shall put away her husband, that is, elope from him, leave him by consent, and be married to another, she commits adultery (Mark 10:12), and it will be no excuse at all for her to say that it was with the consent of her husband. Wisdom and grace, holiness and love, reigning in the heart, will make those commands easy which to the carnal mind may be as a heavy yoke.” (http://www. studylight.org/ com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=mr&chapter=010).
8. A further irony in Al’s misuse of the quotation is seen in that Al is pointing out how the woman who is put away is a victim of the evil actions of her husband in doing so. He endorses the point of Matthew Henry that adultery is committed “against her.” But Al uses a quotation from Henry on Mark 10:11, which deals with the man committing adultery “against her” (ep’auteen) when he divorces her and marries another. Al has just give up any opposition to Mark 10:11 showing that the marriage bond is still intact!!!!! In what could be called a Freudian slip, Al admits that 1) the woman under consideration in Mark 10:11 who is sinned against is the first woman, and 2) Matthew Henry is teaching the truth on the matter here. Those two admissions devastate his case on MDR completely, when one actually realizes what Matthew Henry was teaching here!
9. Furthermore, it will be observed that Henry places the statement “against the wife” in italics for emphasis and as a direct reference to the construction “commits adultery against her” in Mark 10:11, thus showing that Matthew Henry took the phrase ep’auteen as referring to the first wife against whom the sexual sin of adultery was committed! BTW Al conveniently leaves out the italics.

In this appendix I provide a follow up in regard to Mr. Maxey’s email to me and Daniel Denham as noted in my third and Maxey’s fourth posts in this segment of the debate:

Second, what prompted the majority of those emails, especially from Darrell Broking and Daniel Denham, was an email I received from a minister who has had personal dealings with both, and who shared with me some of the godless tactics that they have employed in seeking to attack various ministers, ministries and congregations. Specifics were given. With this brave brother's permission, I confronted both Darrell and Daniel with this information, and these emails you read are a few of their written reactions (Maxey, 4th Affirmative).

Here is the email that Maxey sent to us from this Hamptonian anti-patternist:

Al,

Concerning one’s self about Daniel Denham and his “gospel” meeting at Bellview in Pensacola, FL is a waste of time. If the word gospel means “good news,” then this is not what Daniel Denham or Darrell Broking are preaching. Let me tell you just a little about these two from my own experience.
A couple of years ago Daniel enlisted the aid of several young men from my congregation to act as spies and keep him abreast of the goings on at our congregation. From his spies he learned we were teaching “grace only” and other “heinous” doctrines (we were teaching about grace, but not grace only, except for the fact that Jesus provides 100% of grace, whereas we provide 0%). He also learned that we had accepted the baptism of a young lady who was not immersed “in the church” even though she stated she was baptized for the remission of sins and as an answer of a good conscience to God. This event boiled over into such a divisive issue (egged on by the previously mentioned spies) that it caused a physical division in the church and about half our members left (the young lady eventually was “re-baptized” to show her sincerity and to abate the division caused by the judgmental attitude of others, but no one came back, nor tried to mend the division). Daniel also learned that we fellowshipped congregations that he and his did not. After some time, he enlisted the aid of his cronies and sent letters to area congregations to encourage them to disfellowship other entire congregations. Among his “evidence” were multiple pages printed directly off church web sites and links of these to other web sites. After receiving one of these letters, our assembly made the decision to invite Daniel (with whom he brought several of his supporters) to our building one Sunday afternoon to enlighten us on his desire to disfellowship these churches. During his presentation, he used the same tired “evidence” sent in the letter. He labored to make connections between the web links to other web links to build more and more of a case against particular congregations. Using his prized “logic” he determined his syllogism to be perfectly accurate and reliable; “Since this congregation has a link on their web site that connects to another link of another web site that has a link to a liberal web site…” you get the picture. He also tried to make the same connections with brothers who endorsed books of those who associated with “questionable” (“false teachers,” “heretics”) men or churches. He castigated these men because of their loose associations with a particular author or speaker/lecturer. Other reasons Daniel listed for disfellowshipping congregations, were their use of praise teams and children’s church. To make a long story short, at the end of his invective, we asked him some questions. I personally mentioned his lack of scriptural evidence against any congregation, and the spurious nature of his arguments, and also mentioned that Jesus said He Himself would be the one to remove lampstands and that there is no scriptural evidence or support for other churches or individuals to disfellowship entire congregations. Out of the blue, his retort to me was, “Yeah, and I understand you teach grace only.” To which I replied, “we could have a discussion about that.” He answered back, “I think you have just shown us what your beliefs are on that issue.” He had already made up his mind about my beliefs before hearing a single word from me personally as to what I believed concerning grace (it is Daniel Denham who states with seeming pride that he was once a Calvinist. I am happy to say, I never have been). Needless to say, the meeting did not end well since our brethren indicated we were not prepared to disfellowship any congregation, especially on weak/flimsy information such as was provided.

Concerning Darrell Broking; he used to preach at a nearby congregation where he stirred up the church there concerning the Lord’s Supper, accusing a brother of teaching transubstantiation (which he was not). After making a near spiritual shambles of that congregation, he packed up silently in the night and skulked away. He has done this similar thing on at least two occasions. Why any congregation would want to hire him after these incidents is beyond reason.

Al, these are the type men you are dealing with—arrogant, spiteful, petty, cowardly troublemakers. They practice militant Christianity, take cheap shots, and beat others over the head with their patternistic dogma. Yet, supposedly, they believe in “speaking the truth in love” (“I love you so much, I will tell you the truth, even if it offends—especially if it offends—ONLY if it offends!”). It seems these guys’ view is that they have cornered the market on truth (at least their version of it) and that their methods are just and righteous. As they continue to draw their circle smaller and smaller, one day they will each discover they have left out the other. The final question will be: who then will have the correct “truth”?

My response to this brother is as follows:

1. When I was hired to preacher in Gloucester, I moved into the preachers house, unpacked and set up my office and started to work. On the first Sunday I preached, the men had a meeting to decide if they were going to pay me the stipulated wage that was offered to me to move to Gloucester.
2. The church in Gloucester was divided at the time of my arrival.
3. When I moved to Gloucester the baptistery was drained, dry, and in disrepair. You see it hadn’t been used in a long time. After baptizing several people in the York River, the men decided to fix the baptistery. The church experienced numerous baptisms while I was there.
4. After my first year (and having Dub McClish out for a Gospel meeting), I was told that I was to have a performance review by each family in the church. I was praised by faithful brethren for the work I was doing and raked over the coals by the liberals, who had finally gained the upper hand. I was told by the treasurer and his wife that I had to stop using so much Bible in my sermons if I wanted to stay in Gloucester. George Barnet, the man who says that is sin to say that the bread represents the body of Christ and the cup represents his blood, told me that I was not to teach from the Old Testament there any longer.
5. On my own time I started a school of Biblical studies, which grew into a large school almost overnight. I was told by brother McMillan, in a men’s meeting, that this school was not in harmony with the work I was doing for the church because they did not suggest the idea. I was also told that my work in Russia was self serving too. Brother McMillan also told me that my son needed to stop wearing his suit to church because the other boys did not wear suits and that he needed to stop talking with the adults of the church.
6. Brother Barnet called me the devil in one of those men’s meetings.
7. The list could go on and on, but after that evaluation I resigned and turned in my notice. When my notice was almost up the men meet with me and begged me to stay. They said that all of the prior criticism would be dropped and that we would just go on from there. I agreed to give it another go. After all was supposedly said and done, the liberals started it up again. I packed up and left at that point. I started going the second mile with Gloucester from day one when they meet to see if they were going to honor my wages. When I left they kept several hundred dollars from my IRS provisioned account. When they would not release the funds I threatened then with legal action and they released the funds. I felt that that was a civil matter but as I learned about five years later brethren in the area felt that I was wrong for threatening legal action. At that point I called some of the brethren in Gloucester, apologized, and offered to give them my money back if they still wanted it. These are just a few of many reasons why I made the decision to leave Gloucester. The Hamptonian anti-patternist is as uninformed as is Mr. Maxey. These men do not seem to have a problem with taking a bit of gossip and running with it.

Maxey, if you want to confront me with something, get the facts first. Also, Tim did not tell you about the two other places where I caused problems because he can’t. Maxey you are a disgusting example of an un-biased example of a researcher. What follows is Daniel Denham’s reply to the Hamptonian anti-patternist:

Inconvenient Facts Confronting Tim Henry and His Would-Be Mentor, Al Maxey

This post is a comprehensive answer and refutation of the charges made against me by Tim Henry recently in his attempt to assist his would-be mentor, Al Maxey, who made no effort to check the facts with the eyewitnesses to Tim’s stories. The matters pertaining to Darrell Broking, my good friend who is more than capable of addressing – much to both Al’s and Tim’s chagrin, in fact, I will leave to Darrell. The format thus will deal with the points concerning me seriatim.

1. Tim charges that I do not preach the Gospel of Christ and therefore did not at Pensacola in my meeting at Bellview, which means that he does not consider the preaching of the plan of salvation, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, the atoning work of Jesus, the preciousness of the blood-bought church for which He died, and any such thing to be Gospel preaching, as these are some of the very things I preached in my meeting at Pensacola, as the recordings of the lessons do show! Also, as I am the evangelist for the Newport News church, then Tim has implicitly charged that NN does not support the preaching of the Gospel through its pulpit work. Furthermore, as my predecessors all preached and still preach what I preach, then Tim Henry has implicitly charged that Mike Brandt, Glenn Hitchcock, Marc Lee, Jimmie Gribble, et al have not and thus do not preach the Gospel. As it is the case that Jacob Brunjes, who is the current preacher for the Hampton church where Tim holds membership, preaches what I preach, then it must be the case that Tim has also implicitly charged Jacob as not preaching the Gospel of Christ and, subsequently, Tim has charged that the Hampton church does not support the preaching of the Gospel of Christ in its pulpit work. Tim has thus told us far more about his attitudes toward the brethren at both NN and Hampton and especially more about himself than he realizes.
2. Tim charges that I “enlisted the aid of several young men from my {his} congregation to act as spies and keep him {me} abreast of the goings on at our {their} congregation.” It is interesting that Tim does not name these “young men,” as he knows to do so would invite further troubles where he currently attends. These “young men” would definitely have quite a different story to tell. They would tell of an ex-elder run amuck with thinking that he could bully and bull-doze brethren into accepting his false and perverted teachings. They would, no doubt, tell how they – along with numerous other good brethren from Hampton – turned to faithful brethren in our area for advice and Scriptures to combat the error promoted by Tim Henry and his supporter, Adam Davis, who was then the preacher at Hampton. These young men would also tell about how they were ridiculed, stone-walled, mocked, and verbally abused by the high-handed ex-elder and his minion in private, in classes, and even from the pulpit. They would most likely have quite a story to tell about how said former elder was tearing the church apart from within by his ungodly, overbearing attitude, how he even ridiculed efforts at door-knocking to make contacts for Bible study, and so on. Yes, indeed, these are things that Tim Henry really would not like to have brethren know about relative to the events of which he writes! Perhaps, also he would not like brethren to know about the “meeting” held by William Mural Worthey at Hampton, wherein rank error was taught publicly. Perhaps, he would not like folks to know that I heard the error taught personally, as did a number of the members where I preach. And, especially, he would not want folks to know about the promoting and selling of the heretic’s book Jesus, Our Righteousness, wherein said heretic willfully misrepresented the teachings of Guy N. Woods and Keith Mosher on “imputed righteousness” to justify his own Calvinistic heresy. I have the correspondence with brother Worthey to back up this statement! He admitted that he knew that Woods and Mosher, among others, disagreed with his position. Yet he nonetheless co-opted their materials in such a way as to imply that they did agree with his false doctrine. Worthey’s book also calls liberal Baptists preacher Harry Emerson Fosdick “a Christian,” even though Fosdick taught grace-only salvation and denied the bodily resurrection of Christ! Tim does not want folks to know how he and Adam Davis tried to alibi and cover for brother Worthey from the pulpit and in the classrooms, while still promoting his error. He will not tell you that I openly challenged both brethren Worthey and Davis to defend their false doctrine, but they would not! If Tim thinks he can do any better than they did, then he is more than welcome to have at it! I haven’t gone anywhere and he knows the building’s phone number. No, brethren, I did not have to enlist anyone, because the brethren from Hampton were flowing out to other congregations looking for and pleading for help to deal with a power-mad heretic who wanted control over the whole congregation to push his own agenda of error. Spies? No, they were not spies, but concerned Christians, along with the numerous other good brethren at Hampton, who sought to fight the error that they knew was eating like a cancer at the vitals of the congregation. Al, how many folks left Hampton over Tim’s nonsense? Are you ready to sit in judgement of each of them by your brazen disregard for facts? Did Tim tell you about those who left? HMMM? How many of these so-called “spies” left tearfully over the error – in some cases the only congregation they had ever known in their Christian walk – because of Tim’s high-handed promotion of error? I am certain that Tim did not give you those salient facts, and you did not bother, Al, even to find out the truth on the matter!
3. Tim Henry charges also that I falsely accused him and others of teaching “grace only” adding parenthetically that “we {they} were teaching about grace, but not grace only, except for the fact that Jesus provides 100% of the grace, whereas we provide 0%.” What a fabrication from a fertile imagination! Tim forgets that I have Worthey’s book, which he Tim Henry endorsed as faithful to the Word of God and even taught in a Bible class! Worthey admitted to me in writing that he was teaching Calvinism! Tim, are you willing to defend every word from Worthey’s book? HMMMM? Are you willing to accept every contradiction, absurdity, and nonsensical doctrine he puts forth? Again, I am just a phone call away and it’s not even long distance. Folks, brother Tim also seems to have a convenient memory about a copy of a book by D. James Kennedy dealing with grace, with which Tim openly said he agreed in the meeting with the men from the Newport News congregation! Folks, Kennedy was a Calvinist of the deepest dye, a Presbyterian preacher who affirmed the complete Tulip doctrine of Calvinism! Kennedy taught “grace only” salvation. I have several of his books in my own library. Tim seems to think that two plus two does not equal four. If Kennedy taught “grace only” and Tim agreed with what Kennedy taught on “grace,” then what does Tim Henry believe?! The only one who can’t figure that one out on this current list is Al!
4. Tim next brings up the case of the woman whom he says claimed that she was baptized “for the remission” of sins in a denomination. I noticed, folks, that he himself did not use that latter word. Why? He knows that it would be extremely rare for a person to learn the truth while attending only a denominational church, which had been the history of this woman. He also knows that one cannot be taught wrong, believe wrong, and then somehow be baptized right. But I also noticed that he did not inform you that the same woman had said earlier to other members of the congregation that she was saved BEFORE being baptized! Now, why didn’t Tim reveal that fact? Furthermore, it was only after talking with Adam Davis, Tim’s cohort in the move toward liberalism at Hampton, that the woman was convinced that she was all right anyway, despite the fact that she had voiced to others that she ought to be baptized. Again, why did Tim not reveal THOSE facts? Why was the lady talked out of being baptized by a man who supposedly was a Gospel preacher? Why did Tim Henry approve of her not being baptized properly at Hampton in view of her own concerns? The lady clearly was being used as a test case by Tim and Adam to push their liberalized views on salvation, which had been pressed repeatedly during the Mural Worthey meeting and through Tim’s teaching of Worthey’s book. It became divisive, brethren, simply because Tim Henry wanted his way as opposed to what God’s Word taught. BTW Tim also did not tell you folks why the men at Hampton finally ordered a halt to the teaching of that book, after the split, over its divisive nature. They were concerned that more good brethren would leave. These inconvenient facts place the entire issue in a more clear light, to say the least!
5. Tim charges, again erroneously, that “Daniel also learned that we {they} fellowshipped congregations that he and his did not.” He makes it sound as though I came in and did some snooping and discovered that Hampton was fellowshipping congregations they ought not to fellowship. The Hampton congregation did not even enter into the process until some months after the disciplinary action concerning five errant churches in our area was already well underway. The fact of the case is that the men of the Newport News congregation appealed to me to help organize an effort to restore these erring churches in the spirit of Galatians 6:1 and other passages. A group of men from among the men’s general business meeting, as we had no elders at the time, came to me with evidence THEY had already acquired – much of it by firsthand experience and others from the churches’ own websites. WE – get that, brother Al – drafted letters that were then approved by the men’s meeting and sent to said churches appealing to them for meetings to discuss these matters and to come to a Biblical resolution of them. Several attempts were made by letter appealing to these brethren to open frank discussion on the matters that concerned us, but only a couple of responses even came back to us from the elderships or leadership of said churches. Each of these rejected any meeting and discussion outright. Liberals like to talk about “dialoguing” with them, but what that evidently means is that those of an opposing view must be silent while they deliver their monologue. Meanwhile even more evidence was gathered as to the progressive nature of the error in these congregations. One congregation finally introduced a worship band and began movement toward becoming a Community Church. A second has quickly followed that same course. After well over a year, the action was taken, following much study and prayer, to withdraw fellowship from these congregations. Notices of the action were sent to all the churches in the area. Also, upon request copies of the letters and materials gathered in evidence of the apostasy of the disciplined churches were made available. The letters were replete with Scriptures addressing the issues raised in them and validated by the printed evidence. The evidence IN BLACK AND WHITE was abundant. Large packets bearing several hundred pages of documentation were made available to the leadership of each congregation. Hampton through its preacher, Adam Davis, requested a copy of this material, which was then provided. They later contacted some of our men about the possibility of meeting concerning these matters, ostensibly for clarification on key points. This is how the meeting came about. It is interesting that brother Henry refers to the men of the Newport News congregation as my “cronies” in an obvious pejorative fashion. He refers to thos who came with me to the meeting as “his {my} supporters” also to leave the impression that I had devised, pushed, and executed this effort of withdrawal. Again, Tim is claiming an implicit omniscience that he does not have. In fact, what he claims to know by his hateful remarks regarding these men is that a) they were each appointed by the men’s business meeting to represent the entire NN church and b) the men who brought the matter up and directed its course for the congregation were the men who served on the fellowship committee of the congregation to advise the church relative to such matters. They had been working on this problem in certain LONG BEFORE I arrived at NN! Tim needs to repent of these implicit accusations and libelous statements against these good brethren and me. It is noted in the business minutes of the men’s meeting that the decision, based upon the evidence, to withdraw from said churches was universally approved! In his remarks, Tim has libeled all of the men of the Newport News congregation involved in that decision as well as the members of the church who have stood by it. Tim owes an apology to the Newport News brethren, as well as other faithful brethren whom he has so perniciously reviled by his statements for their standing up for New Testament teaching.
6. Tim makes an interesting admission that “among his {my} ‘evidence’ were multiple pages printed directly off church web sites and links to other web sites.” This admission shows a) there was more evidence than the materials from the websites and linked web sites, b) there were “multiple pages” of the website evidence presented – meaning that there were many pages documenting the charges against the specific churches from these sources alone much less the other materials presented – and c) these materials were made clearly available from the websites of said churches, thus implying the endorsement of their leadership of the specific doctrines and practices promoted through them. In fact, there were no disclaimers posted by the leadership of these churches relative to any of the matters brought up, besides the simple fact that the leadership of said churches had more than a year (actually about one and a half years) to discuss these matters and make any disclaimers available to us in writing or in person. Also, Tim’s statement fails to note that many of those website sheets consisted of sermons, bulletin articles, and Bible class materials teaching the false doctrines that were duly noted in our letters. These materials came from the preachers of these congregations. Are we to assume that these poisonous materials just mysteriously wrote themselves and uploaded themselves to the websites? In fact, one can go even now to the website of the Denbigh church, where a good friend of Tim Henry’s, Charles Tucker, is the preacher and download “multiple pages” of this kind of poisonous teaching. The same is true of some of the other churches from whom we withdrew. Are we to conclude that these online sermons that were also advertised as having been delivered publicly in their assemblies or in their classrooms really do not give us any idea as to what their leaders and preachers believe and promote for their members to believe and practice? Al, I was born in the morning, but not yesterday morning! BTW this withdrawal process and meeting with the Hampton brethren were all PRIOR to the matters introduced by the Mural Worthey meeting and aftermath mentioned earlier. Tim would leave the impression that the withdrawal and meeting followed after the split over Tim’s and Adam’s false teaching on grace and salvation, especially the controversy over the nature of the imputation of righteousness introduced by the Worthey meeting and book. At the time of the withdrawal, Adam Davis had voiced to me and others, especially in our monthly preachers’ meeting at the NN building (and there are witnesses to verify it!), his concern over the liberal churches, but by the time of the meeting with the Hampton men he had changed completely around. Did Tim Henry influence him in this? That Adam eagerly lined up with Tim to promote the errors of Mural Worthey and push a liberal agenda relative to salvation and the nature of the Lord’s church in the Scriptures shortly thereafter would seem to indicate that such did indeed take place. Adam chaired the meeting and would not permit debate on Scriptural points to take place with any depth or to any length. I made the presentation for the men of the Newport News congregation, one of the few “facts” that Tim gets right in his email. Notice, however, that Tim states that I “brought several of his {my} supporters.” Again, there is an implied false allegation to prejudice Al, who clearly lapped it up like a cat wanting catnip, and Al just slurped it up without even a hiccup. Gossip-mongering, tale-bearing, and such have no place, brother Al, among God’s people. Yet these are the things YOU are guilty of in your use of Tim’s falsehoods. As noted earlier, the men who came with me had been appointed by the men’s business meeting at NN to attend as witnesses to the discussion and to emphasize that the action that had been taken was not MINE but the action of the NN congregation! I was asked by the men to make the presentation, but I was only part of a duly appointed committee on behalf of the NN church. If Tim doubts this, let him call my elders and ask them where THEY stand on the matter! Tim’s remarks are nothing short of a backhanded slap of every member of the NN church. In fact, we may need to arrange a meeting to make this clear to Tim before witnesses in his own congregation. I will discuss that with my elders.
7. Tim expresses his obvious disappointment that in my presentation I “used” what to him was “the same tired ‘evidence’ sent in the letter.” The fact is I dealt with the material in the very large packet, which he before acknowledged the existence of in his reference to “multiple pages.” There were probably several hundred pages of material in the packet, besides the many other pages that could have been added but were not. Just that which could have been downloaded and printed out from the Denbigh site alone revealing the public teaching of false doctrine by her preacher would have filled a couple of such packets alone. While we used several of brother Tucker’s homilies as examples of his error, by comparison much more could have been offered. In one lesson, for example, brother Tucker refers to Hal Lindsey, the faith-only, dispensational premillenialist as “a Christian.” As I noted earlier, Adam limited much of the discussion, especially when it seemed that Tim was exposing some of his own foolishness in his responses to the presentation. I am convinced that Tim would have popped a cork had it not been for Adam. That is not my view alone! A number of brethren present, including Hampton members, noted the same thing. Adam kept Tim from exposing more of his own views to examination. As to this supposedly “tired” evidence, Garland Elkins had seen it in the summer of 2004 and commented on its thoroughness and commended the men of the congregation at NN from the pulpit for taking a stand for the truth. This is on record. This “tired” evidence involved in large part statements from the elders and preachers of said churches as to their beliefs and practices. Such constitutes firsthand, primary evidence. Such evidence is called in some circles a tacit confession, as when a prisoner boasts to his cell-mate that he really did the crime for which he was charged! Such has been known to get men hung in honest courts! It was not so “tired” that it failed to tie the noose around their necks!
8. Tim charges that I “labored to make connections between the web links to other web links to build more and more of a case against particular congregations.” The fact is I made the case. I did not “labor” to make the case, as though there is some conative idea here. That Tim rejected the case is obvious. But then again Tim can’t seem to remember endorsing the teaching of D. James Kennedy on grace! Nor does he seem to remember the meeting and book by Worthey , which he taught and which occasioned the other controversy. In fact, it seems apparent that Tim sees what Tim wants to see, and Al is happy with that! Given such attitudes, they, unless they will repent which is our earnest prayer, will both fall merrily into the abyss together as blind men trying to lead each other. Evidence is evidence. Multiple pages of evidence, especially drawn from firsthand sources, make up compelling evidence to those who will see and reason. No amount of evidence will convince one who is determined not to see. He will have to suffer the fate of the fool who arrogantly ignores the truth choosing not to reflect upon it but rather submit to the impulses of his own aims and caprices to pursue his vain fantasies.
9. Tim claims that “using” my “prized ‘logic’” I “determined” my “syllogism to be perfectly accurate and reliable.” First, I presented no “syllogism” as Tim puts it, especially not the one he vapidly tries to ascribe to me. Had I presented a real syllogism Tim would have been made perfectly aware that indeed it was a formally valid and materially true one. Second, Tim evidences in his own remarks that he has no clue what a syllogism even is, but rather what he thinks it ought to have been to accommodate his purposes for the story he tells. Thus, his “snapshot” is woefully out of focus, and Al imagining what he wants sees just what he wants, but really doesn’t “get the picture.” Deceiving and being deceived is a way of life for these two men, it sadly seems. Finally, I made the case that a) there were no disclaimers placed on any of the sites tied to by these churches and b) the fact that the leaders of said churches adamantly refused to offer any word of explanation concerning them, as well as the other matters at hand, was compelling evidence, especially after these matters had been broached, that they actually approved and endorsed the programs they were tied in with by their links, including many that were obviously denominational (e.g. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, et al.). One prominent example immediate to our area of this very thing is Denbigh’s involvement in Denbigh United Christian Outreach DUCO, which is an inter-denominational outfit that serves as a clearing house for benevolence and openly touts the fellowship of the churches involved in it. Tim would have all to be ignorant of such “connections” from the Denbigh website. One can check out the DUCO site itself (http://duco1973.org/partners.htm). Prominently mentioned in the midst of these denominational and sectarian churches is the Denbigh Church of Christ.
10. He similarly gripes and grumbles about my remarks relative to the false teachers (e.g. Rubel Shelly, Max Lucado, Joe Beam, F. LaGard Smith, et al.) represented by the books recommended and used by the preachers of said churches and/or as class books for “study.” The same diatribe he levels over my remarks concerning the use of false teachers (e.g. Jeff Walling and the aforementioned) in programs and at lectureships. Tim would have had the apostle Paul to have endorsed the use of Hymenaeus and Alexander, rather than obviously discouraging brethren from cozying up to them as he did in 1 Timothy 1:20. With Mural Worthey coming to Hampton shortly after our meeting, it causes one to wonder and invoke the old Shakespearean line, he “doth protest too much, methinks.”
11. Tim summarizes my presentation as an “invective,” but he cannot dispute the facts of the case. Place what spin he might seek to apply to it, the witnesses know better and are abundant. He cannot refute the evidence that was presented and has, in fact, admitted by implication the voluminous nature of it. Further, he cannot deny successfully that the materials presented came from the brethren in question – their sites, their sermons, their lessons, and their books! Again, I would hate to have Tim Henry ever as a defense lawyer, as he has shown so little concern or even the most rudimentary knowledge of the nature of compelling evidence, or, as a citizen, to be dependant upon him to keep our children safe as our civil prosecutor against the criminal element!
12. He claims they asked me “some questions.” Actually, they asked very few, as Adam would not permit discussion in depth, especially due to the aforementioned blunders by Tim on grace. The bulk of what discussion there was centered on a) the subject of children’s church, as one good brother raised a question about the practice as he did not himself see a problem with it, b) the dispute over the website evidence already referred to, and c) the matter of salvation by “grace only,” which actually flowed out of the latter point, as we shall see. Tim boasts, “I personally mentioned his lack of scriptural evidence against any congregation…” The problem with Tim’s boast is that he does not recount the matter quite accurately. It is more precise to call it fictional. He commented on the matter of “children’s church,” but when answered with Scripture, Adam, saying that we needed to concentrate on the presentation of the materials and not on debating each point, changed the subject. BTW in the letters to each congregation, of which the men of Hampton including Tim had a copy, abundant Scriptural evidence was cited on each of the matters in question. I also referred to a number of these in my presentation. No, I did not get up and quote the book of Acts and say that Denbigh has violated the book of Acts. Tim claimed that he had read the letters, which I assumed he was capable of reading and had in fact read as he claimed, and granting such, he should have then seen the Scriptural references himself. Maybe I gave HIM too much credit! BTW Tim, if you want to discuss each of these points as you claim, then get Al and you to form a debate team and we’ll just have at it POINT BY POINT, and we’ll see who runs out of the Scriptures first! Folks, many of his own members at Hampton acknowledged the thoroughness and Scriptural basis of the presentation and thanked all of us from NN for coming and dealing with these matters. They are witnesses of these things. In fact, many of them are now here at NN and the Peninsula congregation, because of the Mural Worthey matter and Tim’s own false teaching.
13. He gets one point right in that he CLAIMED – which is all that it was, a claim – that my “arguments” were “spurious.” Of course, he did not refute the evidence, nor address the real argument. The word “spurious” means “illegitimate, false, counterfeit, etc.” Yet, Tim admits himself that much of that “multiple pages” of that evidence came right off the websites operated by these very churches! Again, are we to conclude that these things just grew up on the sites in question without the knowledge and approval of their leadership? If these brethren were so disapproving of these materials and links, why did they permit them to remain or, at the very least, offer some disclaimer as to their problems or concerns over them? Mighty strange behavior indeed, if we are to grant Tim’s view of the situation! Tim also is right when he said that he claimed that “there is no scriptural evidence to disfellowhip entire congregations,” a claim that was refuted on the spot. In fact, I used brother Guy N. Wood’s quip that “if you withdraw from all of the individuals in a congregation what have you done?” I also offered to debate that with them, if they were so minded. Again, Adam sought to change the subject. BTW Christ indeed does remove the candlestick, but that contextually relates to the destruction and ultimate punishment of the congregation (cf. Rev. 2;3), not the question of fellowship which is addressed in other texts. Tim’s ridiculous position implies that a congregation MUST fellowship with all churches promoting fatal error and thus expose its membership to the same fatal error, regardless of how doctrinally loopy they become! Let him try to deny it! If Denbigh began practicing Voodoo, Tim, would you contend that all other congregations MUST continue to fellowship them? Yes or No. Al, that’s also a good question, for you!
14. But Tim, having gotten a couple of facts right out of all the things he got wrong in his email to Al, now goes back to getting them wrong. He states: “Out of the blue, his retort to me was, ‘Yeah, and I understand you teach grace only.’” First, I did not “retort out of the blue” (nor pink, purple, or orange, for that matter). Tim seems to be thinking of some other meeting with another Daniel Denham being then present. We had been discussing the false doctrine of Calvinism that we had documented off of the various websites, especially that of Denbigh! We had moved on from the subject of withdrawal of fellowship to the matter of doctrinal soundness, especially relative to salvation. I brought up the matter of Calvinism, along with other things, as an illustration of one of the reasons why congregations are not obligated to continue to fellowship those who go off into error. That false view of fellowship exposes other churches to contamination with more false doctrine from apostate churches. There was nothing “out of the blue” about my bringing up the matter of “grace only,” which was taught by the Denbigh preacher, Charles Tucker, in a sermon I referenced. Second, I did not know that Tim Henry believed “grace only” prior to the meeting. Thus, I did not say, “Yeah, and I understand you teach grace only.” Another piece of Tim’s fiction! Tim, YOU are the one who said, following my comments about your buddy’s false doctrine at Denbigh on salvation by grace alone, “We could have a discussion on that.” And, brother, I offered RIGHT then to oblige you on it! I asked you repeatedly, “Is salvation by grace only?” You did not answer for some time. One of the members of the Hampton church then, brother Chris Driver, who is now with the Peninsula congregation, said, “If he won’t answer, I will. No, it is not by grace only!” You finally said, “It depends on what you mean by grace only.” BTW I’m still available to discuss the subject, especially in a debate format. Perhaps, you can get your buddy Mural Worthey and your new pal, Al, to come and help you out! And, yes, indeed, I did say, “I think you have just shown us what your beliefs are on that issue” or words to that effect. In fact, I also added, “I suspect you told us a lot more than you wanted us to know.” Adam quickly called a halt to the exchange and closed out the meeting. Mike Brandt spent a considerable length of time with you discussing the doctrine of “grace only” with you unapologetically affirming a Calvinist view. This discussion was overheard by several of the men, including me. Yet, again, Tim seems to be forgetful of certain salient facts that clearly refute his version. Now, following the Mural Worthey episode, we do really know where you are and what you believe on this matter, despite your hedging in your email to Al that all you had reference to was that “Jesus provides 100% of grace, whereas we provide 0%).” No one has ever argued that, Tim! That is but a typical Calvinistic dodge of the issue! The question is whether or not one must do anything at all in order to access the benefits of the grace of God. That is the central point of the dispute, and what’s more, you know it! In the midst of my presentation on the use of books and materials filled with error, you held up a copy of the aforementioned Kennedy book and said that you were not a false teacher simply because you liked the book and believed his teaching was true. It’s amazing how convenient your memory is, Tim. I guess you are suffering from selective amnesia. You seem to be forgetting that you taught the book by Worthey, which book Worthey himself says teaches what John Calvin and Martin Luther both taught on salvation and imputed righteousness! BTW, yes I am proud of the fact that I WAS a Calvinist. The key word is “was.” For two reasons is that now the case. For one, it means that I am not snowed by the slipshod, shady shenanigans that you and Al Maxey try to pass off as Bible study. I know Calvinism when I read it and hear it! It is amazing how men will teach what John Calvin taught on salvation and which the denominations proudly call “Calvinism,” while some of our brethren will teach the same false doctrine and then run for cover from the name by which it is known. Tim, YOU are a Calvinist, despite your claims to the contrary. If you agree with Mural Worthey’s book, then you are a Calvinist – a warped version of it, but one nonetheless! BTW this is what bugged the daylights out of you when those young men, whom you libel as “spies” implying something nefarious and deceitful, were not snookered into accepting your spin stories for Mural Worthey. They were given a crash course on Calvinism by many good brethren in our area – Gospel preachers, elders, and other concerned brethren. Yes, indeed, I am thankful for the fact that I can, by virtue of my experience, aid in the exposure of one of the most perniciously false doctrinal systems ever devised from the fiery pits of Hell! But even more so, I am thankful to have learned the truth of God’s Word that refutes the foolish and flimsy nonsense you have sold your souls to promote. The Gospel doctrine of salvation as it truly in Christ is what I now believe and teach, and what I obeyed from the heart well over 30 years ago in becoming a blood-bought child of the living God! I have preached that same precious truth for some 30 years, and I will not back up one inch from false teachers like you and Al Maxey in its defense. You and Al are indeed false teachers, and need to repent before it is everlastingly too late and the fires of Hell engulf your bodies and souls in eternal, conscious torment!
15. I also take notice of your rejection of the New Testament “pattern.” It’s fortunate for you then that you weren’t around at the time of the Flood. You would have bubbled your way into eternity. But at least, for now you do have space for repentance. But I also wonder if you have been honest with the brethren at Hampton about this! We may very well see!

Daniel Denham

Return to the Broking - Maxey Debate page