|
Our Lord prayed for unity so that the world might believe (John 21). The apostle Paul condemned the divisive spirit in Corinth (1 Cor. 1). Therefore, when Christians seek unity among disciples they are to be commended. Unfortunately, Al Maxey's desire for unity greatly exceeds his desire to follow the word of God. In his effort to bring all professed believers together he has totally rejected the authority of God by rejecting the New Testament as being His means of directing the church in the ways He would have it go. You might be thinking "Is this true?" and "Are people swallowing the Kool-Aid Al is offering?" I assure it is factual and people are being deceived through his paper called "Reflections." What a shame that someone with Al's ability to write and to speak is not only failing to tell the truth, but has joined the denominations on important issues and is fighting against the truth. Oh, by the way, my challenge to formally debate the issue of what one must do to be saved (an issue that can be clearly settled by the Scriptures) was ignored.
This is my third installment in this discussion with Al. The discussion started when I questioned something he wrote on a Church of Christ Facebook group that involved the matter of authority. He asked me to consider his publication "Suggesting Another Hermeneutic; Inquiry into an Interpretive Methodology" and show where it is wrong. After I did as requested, he wrote a response in "Reflections" called "Two Old Authors on a Bench." I replied to it and he retorted with a Reflections article called "Revisiting the Park Bench - Final Attempt to Reason with Robert."
Al and I are in agreement that some brethren in the church are too rigid and fail to grasp the teaching about the grace of God. But his abhorrence for their teaching has caused him to take extreme positions on important issues for which there is no scriptural support. He even rejects examples set forth by the New Testament churches as they were guided by the apostles. He wrote, "Robert, I don't reject the place of examples in the Bible. They do serve a purpose, but I don't believe that purpose is to establish 'authority.'" He reasons that all examples may be rejected for establishing authority because of examples with which we have difficulty in determining applicability, such as when tradition and custom come into play.
Our differences are as follows: 1) I believe that authority from God is needed for the church in the category of organization, work, and worship; and 2) I believe authority is established by looking to commands of God found in the New Testament as well as to examples of early church practices that were approved by the apostles, and also that some authorizations are necessarily implied. Al rejects all of the above. He seeks to replace a reasonable, workable system with something he says is far better; yet after I refuted what he offered, he gave up on it and argued that the church does not even need authority.
In his effort to promote unity in diversity Al misapplied a text that is limited to the issue that was at hand. Paul said, "The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God" (Romans 14:22). The context is meats and drinks, but Al would have his readers to conclude that this passage applies to all doctrinal issues. He says, "we cross a line when we demand that others embrace those beliefs and convictions as Truth." Who is demanding others embrace truth? Are we not all simply endeavoring to persuade others to learn and follow the truth? The "line" that one crosses is limited to matters of opinion like the consumption of meats and drinks.
Al continued, "Our unity in Christ takes a beating when we seek to impose and enforce a uniformity of conviction." Again, this comment is true if the text on which it is based is taken in context. We have conviction that Christ is the Son of God. We MUST have uniformity of conviction on this, as well as other important matters.
Al continued, "The Lord has never called us to be uniform in our convictions, for it is not humanly possible. He has called us to be united 'in Him,' though, and that is a reality that is attainable." While we agree that there are many issues to be considered and that it is not possible for all to agree on each one, Paul did in fact call upon (demand) the divided Corinthian church to "all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1:10).
In the next paragraph Al reveals just how far he has strayed from the truth. He says that I'm "like the religious leaders of old, to whom Jesus said, 'You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life' (John 5:39). These rigid religionists were seeking law within their sacred writings; laws they could use to regulate the attitudes and actions of God's people. They believed that in the scrupulous observance of such divinely declared or humanly deduced laws, they could acquire eternal life. They were wrong then, and they are wrong today! Life is in the Son, and they were failing to see it because they were looking for that life in the Scriptures (vs. 40)."
Wow! What you just read are the words of a man that claims to be a follower of Jesus, an elder, and preacher, but who denigrates and belittles the idea of searching the Scriptures to find life. Friends, Al could not be more wrong on a more important matter. Let's examine the text that Al butchers. Regarding the word "search" Barnes states that "It means a diligent, faithful, anxious investigation. The word may be either in the indicative or imperative mood." He said some "regard it as in the imperative, or as a command. It is impossible to determine which is the true interpretation. Either of them makes good sense, and it is proper to use the passage in either signification. There is abundant evidence that the Jews did search the books of the Old Testament. It is equally clear that all men ought to do it."
The problem Jesus was addressing was obviously not that they were wrong to search the Scriptures but that they had not sought to understand that it was HE (Jesus) that they needed to find. Thus, they merely THOUGHT they had eternal life.
That the Scriptures teach the way of life, and that it is our duty to study them, is undeniable. Paul commended the Bereans for searching the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). He tells us that Timothy's knowledge of them is a good thing and that they "are able to make us wise unto salvation" (2 Tim. 3:15). The text Al perverts actually teaches the opposite of what he presents. Barnes continues: "They are they"... - They bear witness to the Messiah. They predict his coming, and the manner of his life and death, Isaiah 53:1-12; Daniel 9:26-27, etc. See the notes at Luke 24:27."
In my previous writing I noted that "Al denies that the New Testament church is guided by law. ... According to Al it is a lawless kingdom." He responded by saying, "In this new dispensation, we are under grace rather than law." But then he crawfished and affirmed that the moral law still exists. He opined, "The moral code has not been replaced. What has been replaced is the whole Jewish sacrificial and ceremonial system, characterized by laws and regulations." Okay, we agree to the above, and that we are now under a new covenant. But what a stretch of the imagination to conclude that because the Old Testament laws and regulations are not to be followed, then there are NO laws or regulations for the church to follow! Al wants to limit "law" to "moral code" and "love." He says, "It is a law that is liberating (law of liberty), one that frees us to express our love in any and every way that glorifies the Father and edifies His people and conveys eternal Truth to the world." The above comment is in reference to the use of instrumental music in the assembly of the saints. But how does introducing another kind of music, that God has not authorized, glorify Him and edify his people or convey any truth to the world?
Romans 6:14
"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace."
Previously I noted that in the above passage Paul was referring to the Law of Moses - "not just law." Al would have you believe that Paul is saying we are not under any law. He asserts that "Paul is not speaking of THE law; he is speaking of ANY law that would seek to regulate, restrict, or restrain our expressions of loving and worshipful service to God and others. Although, certainly, the Mosaic regulations would fall under this larger umbrella of 'law,' it was not exclusively so in the mind of Paul."
Whether the text should read "law" (any law) or "The Law" (Moses' Law) is irrelevant because it is understood to be the Law of Moses - a law that could not be kept perfectly and which made one a slave to sin. Let's note some select comments from various commentators who are united in the thinking that Paul was referring to "the Law." Their comments are helpful to understand the true meaning of this important text:
Barnes
The apostle means to say that Christians are not under the law as legalists, or as attempting to be justified by it.
Coffman
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. This verse brings into view the ability of the Christian to survive inevitable lapses of a sinful nature. If his justification had been such as that available to the Jew in the keeping of the law, his would be a hopeless predicament. If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin (1 John 1:7). "Cleanseth" is present tense active and may be translated as the present participle, and it means that the Christian is being forgiven and justified every moment of his life! Thanks be to God that we are under grace instead of law!
Clark
Sin shall not have dominion over you - God delivers you from it; and if you again become subject to it, it will be the effect of your own choice or negligence.
Ye are not under the law - That law which exacts obedience, without giving power to obey; that condemns every transgression and every unholy thought without providing for the extirpation of evil or the pardon of sin. But under grace - Ye are under the merciful and beneficent dispensation of the Gospel, that, although it requires the strictest conformity to the will of God, affords sufficient power to be thus conformed; and, in the death of Christ, has provided pardon for all that is past, and grace to help in every time of need.
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For Sin shall not have dominion over you - as the slaves of a tyrant lord.
for ye are not under the law, but under grace - The force of this glorious assurance can only be felt by observing the grounds on which it rests. To be "under the law" is, first, to be under its claim to entire obedience; and so, next under its curse for the breach of these. And as all power to obey can reach the sinner only through Grace, of which the law knows nothing, it follows that to be "under the law" is, finally, to be shut up under an inability to keep it, and consequently to be the helpless slave of sin. On the other hand, to be "under grace," is to be under the glorious canopy and saving effects of that "grace which reigns through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (see on Romans 5:20, Romans 5:21). The curse of the law has been completely lifted from off them; they are made "the righteousness of God in Him"; and they are "alive unto God through Jesus Christ." So that, as when they were "under the law," Sin could not but have dominion over them, so now that they are "under grace," Sin cannot but be subdued under them. If before, Sin resistlessly triumphed, Grace will now be more than conqueror.
People's New Testament
For ye are not under the law, but under grace. Paul has shown that law revealed sin. Where law exists, and the sinful nature remains, sin will continually manifest itself. But we are under grace. Our sins were forgiven on the ground that we have died to sin, been buried and risen with Christ. Hence, unless we trample all this under foot, there is no room for the dominion of sin.
Preacher's Homiletical
In the evangelical state in which grace is offered and bestowed the law is fulfilled and sin overcome. It is from the law as inadequate to effect the sanctification and secure the obedience of sinners that the apostle here declares us to be free.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
For Sin shall not have dominion over you - as the slaves of a tyrant lord. for ye are not under the law, but under grace - The force of this glorious assurance can only be felt by observing the grounds on which it rests. To be "under the law" is, first, to be under its claim to entire obedience; and so, next under its curse for the breach of these.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Sin shall not have dominion over you - It has neither right nor power. For ye are not under the law - A dispensation of terror and bondage, which only shows sin, without enabling you to conquer it.
Abbott's Illustrated New Testament
Shall not have dominion over you; make you the victim of its remorse and its penalties. --Not under the law; not dependent upon having fulfilled the law for salvation, but upon grace, that is, mercy.
Calvin
The yoke of the law cannot do otherwise than tear and bruise those who carry it. It hence follows, that the faithful must flee to Christ, and implore him to be the defender of their freedom: and as such he exhibits himself; for he underwent the bondage of the law, to which he was himself no debtor, for this end - that he might, as the Apostle says, redeem those who were under the law. Hence, not to be under the law means, not only that we are not under the letter which prescribes what involves us in guilt, as we are not able to perform it, but also that we are no longer subject to the law, as requiring perfect righteousness, and pronouncing death on all who deviate from it in any part.
John Trapp
Ye are not under the law] i.e. Under the rigour, irritation, curse of the law, Quatenus est virtue peccati. Or, "ye are not under the law," sc. of sin, as Romans 7:23; Romans 7:25.
Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary
The second part of the verse refers back to ch. Romans 5:20-21, where the law is stated to be the multiplier of transgression,—and accords with 1 Corinthians 15:56
Charles Simeon's Horae Homileticae
Believers are "no longer under the law but under grace"- [Once they were, like others, under a covenant, which cursed them for disobedience, but afforded them no hope of pardon for past offences, nor any means of resisting sin in future: but now they have embraced that better covenant, the covenant of grace, wherein God offers them a full remission of all their former sins, and assures them that he himself will give them grace sufficient in every time of need.
Heinrich Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
Romans 6:14. Not the ground and warrant for the exhortation (Hofmann), in which case the thought is introduced, that obedience is dependent on the readers; but an encouragement to do what is demanded in Romans 6:12-13, through the assurance that therein sin shall not become lord over them, since they are not in fact under the law, but under grace.
Johann Albrecht Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament
Romans 6:14. Shall not have dominion Sin has neither the right nor the power; it will not force men to become slaves to it against their will.- under the law Sin has dominion over him, who is under the law.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible
In the Romans 6:12 it was an exhortation, but in this it is a promise, that sin shall not reign in and over us. Rebel it may, but reign it shall not in the regenerate. It hath lost its absolute and uncontrolled power. It fares with sin in such as with those beasts in Daniel 7:12, who, though their lives were prolonged for a season, had their dominion taken away. It is an encouragement to fight, when we are sure of victory.
For ye are not under the law, but under grace: he adds this as a reason of that he had asserted and promised: you are not under a legal, but gospel dispensation; so some expound the words; grace is often put for the gospel: or, you are not under the old but the new covenant.
The law and grace thus differ; the one condemns the sinner, the other absolves him; the one requires perfect, the other accepts sincere, obedience; the one prescribes what we must do, the other assists us in the doing of our duty. This last seems to be the genuine sense: q.d. You may be sure sin shall have no dominion over you; for you are not under the law, which forbids sin, but gives no power against it, or which requires obedience, and gives no strength to perform it (like the Egyptian taskmasters, who required bricks but gave no straw); but under the gospel or covenant of grace, where sin is not only forbidden, but the sinner is enabled to resist and overcome it.
Justin Edwards' Family Bible New Testament
Over you; Christians, who have believed in Christ, and are justified by faith.
Ye are not under the law; not under a legal dispensation, where perfect obedience to law, and freedom from all sin, are necessary to acceptance with God. The apostle had already shown that the law cannot deliver from either the guilt or the pollution of sin, but "worketh" wrath to all transgressors. Chap Romans 3:20; Romans 4:15.
Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible
For whilst the Law could make its demands, it could not draw alongside to help us. It was thus rendered powerless by sin, and could only leave sin in control. But now Christians are 'under grace.'
Expository Notes of Dr. Thomas Constable
The apostle concluded this section of his argument with a word of encouragement. Sin will no longer master the believer. The basic reason for this is that we are not under the Mosaic Law as the authority under which we live but under grace.
George Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary
You are not under the law of Moses, as some of you were before: but now you are all under grace, or the law of grace, where you may find pardon for your sins.
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
The sense and force of this profound and precious assurance all depends on what is meant by being "under the law" and being "under grace." Mere philological criticism will do nothing to help us here. We must go to the heart of all Pauline teaching to discover this. To be "UNDER THE LAW," then, is first, to be 'under its claim to entire obedience on pain of death;' and so, secondly, to underlie the curse of the law as having violated its righteous demands (Galatians 3:10). And since any power to fulfill the law can reach the sinner only through Grace-of which the law knows nothing-it follows, lastly, that to be "under the law" is to be shut up under an inability to keep it, and consequently to be the helpless slave of sin.
It seems evident that Paul had the Law of Moses in mind, but even if he meant "any law," I fail to see how this helps Al in his proclamation of his "grace and no law" gospel. When Paul said we are not under law but under grace, did he mean "grace only" and NO law - i.e., that God's teaching designed to direct his people in HIS way may be ignored? Is Paul's comment to be construed in such a way that we may disregard the following text: "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37)? The things Paul wrote, which we read in the New Testament, involve commands and examples, but Al overlooks the fact that such teachings "are the commandments of the Lord," and contends that they are not important. The record of Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:1-2) tells a different story, and Paul is clear about the need for us to consider such examples today (Romans 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11).
Do not misunderstand Al Maxey - he is saying Christ's law should not be a restriction for how we express our love and worshipful service. He contends that God's people are not governed by any law; that commands, examples, and necessary inferences may be totally dismissed (as far as establishing authority); and that for unity's sake Christians should hold the view that "anything goes" in religion. But he can't harmonize his view with Jesus' statement (command) that worship must be "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). Al ignores Jesus' words because they sound too much like God does indeed care that we worship Him according to the truth He has revealed to us in the Bible through the apostles (Acts 2:42). In view of Jesus' statement "If you love me keep my commandments" (John 14:15; 15:10), is it prudent to follow Al's ideology that "love" is more important than obedience (1 Sam. 15:22)?
Regarding the day and frequency of the Lord's Supper, Al labors to make it appear that God's revelation is so convoluted that we can't tell what He would have us to do. He asserts that the example God gave us is used as "a "'proof text'" by the legalistic patternists for imposing inflexible eucharistic law upon all believers throughout the world until the end of time." It appears Al is insinuating that God is okay with our changing his will because of the passing of time.
Al sought diligently to refute the use of NI (necessary inference) in determining the frequency of taking the Lord's Supper. The early church (under the direction of the apostles) took it on the first day of the week, and every week has a first day. People understood NI in that day. They did not have Al there to help them misunderstand it. They were aware of the command to Israel to "observe the Sabbath." They did not make arguments, as does Al, that were intended to allow those who might not like the command to instead observe the Supper once a year. They knew the necessary implication was that it was to be taken EVERY first day of the week.
Al continued: "Also, where in the NT writings are we ever commanded by God: "'"Thou must observe the Lord's Supper EXACTLY like Troas did on that weekend almost 2000 years ago!!"' The only regulation with respect to frequency is: '"As often as"' you do it, do it in remembrance of Him (1 Corinthians 11). Seems to me that pretty much settles the frequency debate. It is left up to us."
It is unbelievable that Al has rejected an actual example set forth by a church under the guidance of the apostles (recorded in the New Testament) yet asserts that "as often as" is a regulation. First, God chose not to say foolish things like "Thou must observe the Lord's Supper EXACTLY like Troas did." Even though we are careful to follow His teaching through examples, certainly some details are left to our choice, like the time of day or the type of cup(s), etc. Second, in no way, shape, form, or fashion does "as often as" regulate or provide authority. The phrase is better understood to say "whenever" you eat, and is so translated by several versions. (See https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/11-26.htm.) The intended meaning is that one understand that when we take the Lord's Supper, we are proclaiming, commemorating, or telling about the Lord's death.
Al continues: "How does one determine which examples to elevate to Law? Whose inferences are '"necessary,"' and who gets to decide?" Each local church (congregation) is independent and autonomous. Thus, no one "gets to decide" anything for the universal church. But we might ask, "Who gets to decide whether or not to adopt Al's alternative to CENI (that he has abandoned) or his rationale that we can do anything that is an expression of love, or edifies; and who gets to decide what edifies?"
Al finally gets to the matter he most diligently seeks to justify: instrumental music. Al argues: "Robert wrote, '"The command to teach leaves us the choice of material and methods."' Okay. I agree. So why doesn't the command to sing leave us the same choice?! The answer is very simple. Playing is not a choice of material and methods to be used in carrying out the command. It is another kind of music. Al, here is an illustration that you can relate to and respect. Your commanding officer says to you, "Procure a Hummer and take three men to guard the north section of the compound." You are left with a choice as to which men to pick for the mission. (It is understood that each man is authorized to take the usual personal equipment needed for the mission. That is common sense.) However, one might think a tank is needed. Unfortunately, the command under consideration involves a certain category-large vehicle equipment. You understand that the tank would AID you; however, it was not authorized. The tank may have been intended for someone else's use, or whatever, and so you dismiss the idea of taking a tank-mainly because you were authorized to take only a Hummer. You understand that when your commanding officer specified a certain vehicle for you to use in carrying out the mission, a tank, even though it could possibly aid, would not be an option. The commander said NOTHING about the tank, yet you have no question in your mind at all as to whether you can use it. You can't and you know you can't. Now, is there any reason not to use this same common sense reasoning when responding to God's command to sing? The command to take the Hummer is in the category of vehicles. When the Hummer was specified other types of vehicles were excluded. Thus, a tank would be out of the question. Al has no problem understanding this. He knows he would be in trouble if he took the tank instead or, to be more applicable to the discussion, took the tank in addition to or even as an aid to carrying out the command.
Al makes light of examples that are not generally practiced by churches today like "foot washing" and the "holy kiss." He opines that such should be considered "apostasy" by those who look to examples for authority. He said, "I'll stick with a hug or handshake, and I'll pass on washing feet as well." Okay, but WHY do you think it is okay to "pass" on practicing these things? (We can't choose not to follow an example just because we don't like it.) It is not because examples do not establish authority but because such examples were the custom of the day, and not OUR custom. Is it possible we are wrong not to follow these commands or examples that are generally not observed because of custom? Perhaps, but right or wrong Al's observation does not justify rejecting God's teaching on issues that are definitely not limited or not applicable because of custom or tradition.
Al's Irresponsible Misrepresentation
In my first review I noted that Al misrepresents CENI as being a hermeneutic. I wrote, "CENI is not a hermeneutic. Hermeneutics is the science and methodology of interpretation. When one uses CENI he is not attempting to interpret scripture. CENI is nothing but a common sense way to establish authority that has been used throughout the ages when an authority figure, such as God, has spoken; it is used even in the military, and in schools, the government, and the home. Hermeneutics is used to help one understand what the author of a particular passage intended to be understood by the reader."
Was the above not clear, or did Al deliberately misrepresent me in his concluding remarks when he said, "Robert believes hermeneutics has nothing to do with our effort to understand the Scriptures; rather, its purpose is to help us 'establish authority' for what we do in the church. I think Robert will have a hard time finding reputable biblical scholars who take the same view." Al, how could you have misunderstood my comments? Or did you? Do you hate CENI so much that you are willing to misrepresent what its advocates say in its defense? People who understand "CENI" will not hate it when they understand what it is and how to use it. (Download my free 51-page book Bible Authority. Sermons/class materials fully outlined.
Conclusion
Al's theme "reason with Robert" is a good one. God said, "come now, and let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18). God spoke of sins' being removed as a result of our reasoning with Him. But one who rejects the way God teaches and contends for some other way or even universalism is being unreasonable. If we want to demonstrate our faith then we must LISTEN TO GOD. If we want to benefit from the grace that God offers then we must FOLLOW His instructions because He is "the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him" (Heb. 5:9). If we want to be reasonable we must keep in mind and apply the words of Jesus: "Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but he that does the will of my Father who is in the heavens" (Matt. 7:21-29). If we want to be reasonable, we must obey God (follow His instruction), and this involves our understanding of the organization, work, and worship of the church with which we are affiliated. All those contending for CENI, whom Al refers to as "legalistic patternists," are not rigid, as he would have you believe. Many of us fully understand that in our efforts to follow the instructions and patterns found in the New Testament, we are subject to error. But we know that grace (by the blood of Christ) covers these mistakes if we "walk in the light" (1 John 1:7).
|
