Broking-Maxey Debate

Broking-Maxey Debate

Broking’s Third Negative

Introduction

I want to thank Al Maxey for extending his good grace and allowing me an extra week to work on this reply. I further appreciate Al for telling those who inquired about the delay that he extended his good and kind grace to allow me this opportunity because, as I wrote to Al, I recently moved. When Maxey sent his third affirmative I was in the process of packing the books in my office. Then a few days later I moved from East Tennessee to Florida whereat I have attempted to get back to some sense or orginazation and normalcy. Because I am not using previously written material, I needed a little extra time to complete this assignment. Thus Al Maxey, as the master of grace, compassion, and kindness, was understanding in this matter.[1]

It is evident to those who follow Maxey’s writings that he is very flexible. Maxey can write like the pragmatic postmodernist that he is and reach those on the far left. When he needs to work on a more moderate audience he has the keen ability to rephrase his words to make it appear that he is not theextremist that he really is. As he noted in his third affirmative, he is now trying to influence readers of this debate who are in flux with their beliefs. It is imperative then that Maxey tried to make it appear that he believes in some of the principles upon which the Lord’s church stands. Don’t be fooled by Maxey’s bob and weave methodology.

Maxey’s Questions Answered

1. Darrell Broking has declared that one is "not obligated" to observe the Lord's Supper if the same elements Jesus used cannot be obtained. Darrell can, and will, provide the passage that provides this exception to the "pattern." True or False? True. The fact of the matter is that unless one has the authority of Christ to observe the Supper otherwise than written, it is sin to do so. When God specifies a manner in which a thing is to be done, man does not have the right to change God’s plan. Al Maxey is indeed the hypocrite in this regard. Maxey is hypercritical of the inductive method of hermeneutics. He decries the idea that humans must make inferences from God’s Word. Then Maxey turns and derives an entire theology based on what is not written. Maxey may say that he respects God’s Word but the fact of the matter is that when God’s Word is convenient he uses it, and when it does not specify what he believes then his subjective “I think” becomes God’s Word. As far as producing a verse of Scripture, I have already in this debate written several pages on the observance of the Lord’s Supper and what the Lord authorized therein. That plan can be followed by faith, because it comes from God’s Word (Rom. 10:17). Walking by faith (e.g., 2 Cor. 5:7) is walking in the commands, teachings, and promises of Jesus Christ. There is nothing in the Scriptures that authorizes the Lord’s Supper to be observed on any day other than the Lord’s Day.

1. If Darrell Broking cannot provide the passage where the above exception is specifically stated, then his assertion constitutes "adding unto" the Word of God. True or False? I answered question one in the affirmative; therefore, this question is moot. However, it should be of interest to note that so many things that Maxey teaches are the product of his subjective intuitiveness and not the Word of God. It is Maxey that adds to and takes away from God’s Word.

1. Darrell Broking is on a plane flying over the ocean, carrying a large supply of Welch's grape juice and "authorized" communion bread to a remote island for use in the Lord's Supper by local missionaries. The plane crashes on a very remote deserted island and Darrell, along with one other Christian, are the sole survivors. They're both unconscious for several days, and in bad shape for days after that, but manage to nurse one another back to good health. When they finally recover, they realize they have no idea what day it is. Although they have an ample supply of the "correct elements" for the observation of the Lord's Supper, they have no way of identifying which day is Sunday. If Darrell and his fellow believer just pick a day and observe the Lord's Supper (and that day happens to be Friday, though unknown to them), they have SINNED. True or False? Maxey is good at coming up with far out theoretical questions that just do not address reality. The reasoning used here is equal to suggesting that Darrell and his friend were able to hunt deer to live and killed a deer about every week; therefore, Al Maxey back in his enchanted land can kill a deer a week and that is fine. Come on Al lets deal with reality in this debate. On that island I would seek to establish a calendar and follow it. Thus my Sunday would not be my Friday, just as when it is the Lord’s Day in Nome, Alaska, is it Monday a few miles away in Uelen, Russia.

1. In the above scenario, if Darrell and his fellow believer can't get the day exactly "right," then they are "not obligated" to ever again observe the Lord's Supper, even though they have the "correct elements" in abundance. True or False? False. See my answer to question 3.

1. The particulars of a pattern (even though inferred rather than specified) are more important in the sight of God than the heart of the person engaged in the performance of that action. True or False? The fact is that these two elements are equal parts and unless they are both properly engaged one’s religion is vain.

1. Darrell declares the deaf/mute are "not obligated" to SING in a worship assembly. However, if they SIGN their heartfelt hymns of praise, this is a practice "not authorized" in Scripture and is thus a SIN. True or False? False.

Questions For Maxey

1. Love involves human effort. True or False.

2. Love does not involve human effort. True or False.

3. Love as a human response to God is required for salvation. True or False.

4. Jesus saves men before they express a love response. True or False.

5. The love response of men has nothing to do with their salvation. True or False.

6. If one stops demonstrating a love response he is in danger of ceasing to exist for all eternity. True or False.

.

Maxey’s Second Affirmative Examined

Maxey apparently assumes that when a Christian obeys the pattern of the New Testament that he somehow thinks that he earns his salvation. At the same time, his theory suggests that when an anti-patternist obeys his micro-pattern that he is just simply displaying an outward manifestation of his inward salvation, which by the way he did nothing to secure. Darrell Broking does not now nor has he ever believed in a system of meritorious works.The Bible teaches that man cannot earn his salvation. Jesus had to die on the cross to secure the salvation of men. At the same time, man must do something to enjoy God’s good grace. Maxey’s teaching is very confusing on this matter. His theory suggests that acting faith is reaching for that which God gave to mankind. Herein is Maxey’s problem. You see if one has to reach out and take a gift, then he still does not have that gift in a possessive sense until he reaches out and takes the gift. He will never have that gift if he fails to take it, even though God gave it to him.

Jericho was a free gift from God to Joshua: “And the LORD said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour” (Josh. 6:2). Maxey would argue that Joshua’s march around the city was just an act of faith designed to show that he already had the city. However, God gave Jericho to Joshua and Joshua had to do something to get the city. Until he did what God told him to do, exactly as God said to do it, Joshua did not posses his free gift. If on the seventh day of marching, during the sixth trip around Jericho, had Joshua fallen down, dashed his head on a stone and killed himself, he would have died without receiving his gift and possessing Jericho.

God’s prophet gave Naaman instructions about how to cure his leprosy. God’s grace was the cure and it was indeed a free gift. Had Naaman the ability to earn that gift he would have done so before coming to God’s prophet for help. The prophet gave simple instructions, dip seven times in the Jordan River (2 Kings 5:10). Al would have argued with those instructions and suggest that Naaman’s dipping was simply an outward symbol that Naaman had been cleansed by God’s grace. The fact is that until Naaman dipped the seventh time he was still plagued with leprosy.

The Bible teaches that man has to obey God to get into His good grace, and that he has to keep on obeying God to stay in His good grace. When the faithful have done all that they are to do, then it is as Jesus said; “So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do” (Luke 17:10).

Maxey suggests:

Al Maxey does acknowledge that the Lord has required us to evidence certain qualities of heart and mind, which then dramatically demonstrate in our daily attitudes and actions that which benefits others and glorifies the Father. These evidences of our faith affirm our saved state, … (3rd affirmative).

Maxey, what if no evidences ever arise to confirm one’s saved state? Then was that person never saved? If one fails to keep doing what the Lord required and fails to repent is he lost? If it is the case that if one fails to do what the Lord required and was lost because of that, then is it the case that salvation is the result of Jesus + what Jesus requires one to do?

Yes salvation is a free gift. There is nothing man can do to earn salvation; yet, until man obeys the faith Jesus in not the author of his eternal salvation (Heb. 5:9). Maxey alluded to Ephesians 2:8 to prove his salvation by faith only doctrine. In Ephesians 2:8 we have, “For by grace (dat. of cause) you are saved (pref. pass.ptc., nom. pl. mas., used in a perfect periphrastic construction) through (means usage of dia)the faith. And that (grace by faith salvation is the conceptual antecedent of touto) is not your own [doing]; it is God's gift.”The perfect periphrastic looks back to the act of being saved. It herein denotes the present state of a past act. What is that act? It cannot be the sacrifice on the cross. If the act denoted in Ephesians 2:8 is the sacrifice of Jesus then all men are saved. The fact of the matter is that the act under consideration is baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), which is the act that allows Jesus’ blood to wash away sins (Acts 22:16). Baptism now saves us (1 Pet. 3:21)! Notice the comparative in Colossians 2:12: “When buried together (2aor. pass. ptc., nom. pl. mas, used adverbialy) with him in baptism, in which also you were raised together with [him] through the faith of the working of God who raised (1st. aor. act. ptc., nom. pl. mas, used attributivly) him from the dead.”Therefore, when one obeys Jesus in the waters of baptism he claims his free gift of salvation and not one second before that time (cf. Eph. 2:6; Rom. 6:3-4).

Al Maxey claims, “The ‘score’ of what Al Maxey must DO in order to be eternally saved is 0% ... the "score" of what God has DONE for Al Maxey to be eternally saved is 100%. I may either accept this free gift or rejectit.” Maxey just gave up his argument in this debate! Maxey claims, “The New Covenant writings CONTAIN specific requirements and expectations of our God, few in quantity, that are essential
for both fellowship and salvation.” If there are a few essentials, then it cannot be the case that what “Maxey must DO in order to be eternally saved is 0%.” This is not what you set out to affirm in this debate Maxey.

Maxey dodged the challenge to put together a list denoting his micro pattern. In his second affirmative he listed a few things, but not with much clarity. In his third affirmative he gave this short list: 1) Love God; 2) Love one another. It sounds to me that this list could be used and expanded to cover anything that Maxey wants to include in his little pithy paradigm of salvation and fellowship. I can affirm the same list. 1) Love God—I agree and thus if we love Him we will keep his commandments (John 14:15). 2) Love one another—just as commanded in the Scriptures! But wait a minute here Maxey, to love takes effort and your equation is Jesus + ______= salvation.

Maxey sees the law in the Galatians epistle as law keeping in general, whereas Paul referenced the Mosaic Law. Galatians 5:4 refers to the Law of Moses, Maxey, not following the Law of Christ. Let us do a little exegesis work in Galatians 5 and do what Maxey fails to do, set the context!

Galatians 5:1 For this (te referring back to the freedom of the heavenly Jerusalem, 4:26) freedom (eleutheria dative of cause indicating the why of the action of the main verb, “for freedom,” BDAG, 251.) Christ set you free; therefore stand firm and be not (me … enechesthe, prohibition with the present imperative) entangled (enechesthe, present passive imperative;en + echo = “to hold within; to fix upon,” in the passive it means “to be entangled,” Perschbacher, 143.) again in a yoke of slavery. 2Behold, I Paul am saying to you that if (ean introduces a more probable future condition) ye undergo circumcision, Christ will profit you [in reference to] nothing (ouden accusative of reference). 3And I affirm solemnly again to every man who undergoes circumcision (peritemnomeno, present passive participle, attributive usage modifying anthropo. The present tense is denoting a continuing practice, not durative action for the participants.) that he is a debtor to perform (the sense is that he must abide by the law so as to keep it all. The focus of the aorist seems to be on the actual, perfect, obedience to the law, see 3:10) [the] entire law [of Moses]. 4Ye have become separated from Christ, [all] who are attempting to be justified (dikaiousthe, present passive indicative. It is a conative present portraying the subject as desiring attempting to do something. They think that they are actually being justified by the law of Moses, Wallace, p. 534-5.) by (instrumental use of en) [the] law, ye fell out of (exepesate, ek + pipto, 2 aorist with a 1 aorist ending.) grace. 5For we (hemeis, first person plural, the exclusive “we,” limiting the group to Paul and those with whom he is in fellowship) by [the] Spirit out of faith expect [the] hope of righteousness (elpida dikaiosunes, appositional or defining genitive.) 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision means anything (ti, apparently the direct object of ischuei) nor uncircumcision, but a faith which works (energonumene, present middle participle, attributive usage modifying pistis, indicating the kind of faith) through love. 7Ye were running well; who hindered (enekophen, 1 aorist active indicative from ekopto, “to cut or strike in.”) you not to obey (peithesthai, infinitive of result) the truth? 8This (he, refers back to the cutting in on the Galatian Christians, as they were running the Christian race) persuasion is not of the one who calls you. 9A little leaven is leavening (zumoi, present active indicative, customary present; the action was ongoing as Paul wrote.) the whole lump.

This clearly relates to the problem of the troubling Judaizers who were attempting to make the Gentile Christians also follow the Mosaic Law (Acts 15:1). This is not my perception but what the passage means. Just as the postmodernists that he is, Maxey twists the passage to teach his error that men do not have to keep law to enjoy salvation and fellowship. Maxey’s faith/response teaching drips with Calvinism and it is damning error packaged to deceive those who do not read and know the Scriptures. Paul asked the Galatians who hindered them from obeying the truth! Maxey, the lively leaven that he is, hinders men from obeying the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Conclusion

Al did not like the fact that I will not put together a numeric list of specifics. I have given many in this debate, but the list is the New Testament itself. I will have more to say about this in my final post. Al Maxey has one more opportunity to try to explain how men must do something, i.e., they have a mico-pattern that is essential for salvation and fellowship, but at the same time they really don’t have to do anything to be saved. He can’t explain that can he. He lost the debate when he attempted to take the position that there are a few things men must do to be saved and enjoy Christian fellowship, because he does not believe nor teach that at all.

Appendix A

Emails About Al Extension of Grace

fromDarrell Broking <>