Gospel Vs. Doctrine AND The Doctrine of Christ

I sense a double standard here. . .I wrote an article which Al never refuted. Al simply submitted another article which does not in any way address the points I made in my article “What The ‘Doctrine of Christ’ Means in 2 John 9.”

Mr. Maxey wrote:

<<I sent my article on the doctrine of Christ to Steven, and surprise ... surprise ... surprise!!! Another one of your great warriors in the Word has fled for his cave. It seems your champions of the faith would rather retreat than refute anything I teach. Makes me wonder WHY?!!!

Perhaps because they know they CAN'T take up God's Word and refute it?!!!>>

I assure you that I run from nothing where the Bible is concerned. Who is running to the cave and who is already in the cave? Al, you are in the cave and my running to you would soil my feet in bat waste . . . yet I will cautiously wade in for the moment.

The "Surprise" is that you didn't answer the arguments that I articulated. Why? Why did you only send another article? What did you refute in my article, AL? Are you therefore guilty of your own condemnation of me?

Maxey charged: <<You guys are all thunder, but no rain!!!!>> (email 4/27/04)

Why do you spew out that we are "only thunder" and yet you didn't critique my own message! Who is thunder and who is rain? Maybe I should send out an email to my entire list that Al Maxey and his followers can't answer my article? Should I follow your pattern? I will "pour" on the truth regarding your position and post this material on our website that all may see how badly your logic is eroded.

Against my better judgment, I will once again seek to chase you out of the cave of deceit and sin, but I know from experience that you are obsessed with arguing and do not love the truth. You deny the eternal nature of punishment as well as argue for instrumental music in worship. Because of my former discussion with you regarding these, and because of your stubborn mind, I am very hesitant to even respond to you.

If you have any decency in you, Mr. Maxey, then you will forward this entire post to your readers as quickly as you were about sending my private repudiation of you to them!!!

Now, to your unscriptural view:

Let it be known that the readers can access Maxey's own articles alluded to below at:

http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx84.htm

http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx117.htm

1. Doctrine of Christ (2 John 9)

Mr. Maxey condemned me for not answering his when he never penned one letter in rebuttal to mine. Such should evidence itself that he is a dishonest man who only wants to argue rather than learn.

Misidentifying Barnes:

Al only quotes part of Barnes. He doesn't give Barne's position on the subject because then it would punish his own premise. For the record, Barnes continued:

"Macknight understands by it the doctrine taught BY Christ and his apostles. IT WOULD SEEM MOST PROBABLE THAT THIS IS THE SENSE OF THE PASSAGE, BUT THEN IT WOULD INCLUDE, OF COURSE, ALL THAT CHRIST TAUGHT RESPECTING HIMSELF, AS WELL AS HIS OTHER INSTRUCTIONS. The essential idea is, that the truth must be held respecting the PRECEPTS, THE CHARACTER, AND THE WORK OF THE SAVIOR." (Barnes on the New Testament, Vol. X, p. 365).

Al, do you want me to continue to expose your frail failures to be objective? We shall have pleasure in doing so, but why not confess to your readership why you refused to state Barnes' position? Why only quote some and not all? I want you to answer that. Can you tell us what Barne's position is from this excerpt since you are content to fill your articles with what men say?

Labeling:

<<If the phrase "doctrine of Christ" is a subjective genitive, then it refers to the teaching which Christ Himself taught, either in person or through the apostles or through the inspired writings (Scripture). It is this view that is held exclusively by the legalists and patternists>>

Then perhaps I should quote yourself in contradiction with the same approach you used Barnes,

<<Scholarship has been divided for centuries over which to choose, since either is correct grammatically!>>

Al Maxey admits both are correct, yet he taints one view as being held by "legalists and patternists" as if that should be reason enough to reject that one? Please define to us who is a "legalist" and "patternist." Is it the one who contends that the fires of hell and that the torture in hell are "forever and ever" upon those who die outside of Christ? If so, then John is a "legalist and patternist" (Rev. 20:10). Perhaps a "legalist and patternist" is one who insist that we build according to the pattern given? Well that would make Jehovah, Moses, Paul and the Hebrew writer (if other than Paul) "legalists and patternists" (Ex. 25:9, 40; 26:30; Num. 8:4; Acts 7:44; Phil 3:17; 2 Tim. 1:3; Heb. 8:5). I would rather be in their company than yours, particularly on judgment.

Mr. Maxey includes in patternists those who teach "no eating in the church building." If by that he means, those who oppose church sponsored kitchens and meals and NOT an incidental of a preacher eating while working in his office, a mother giving her little child a cracker, a diabetic needing to eat something to keep the sugar level safe, etc., Then he most certainly includes Paul as a "patternists."

"But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come" (1 Cor. 11:34)

" for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 14:17).

Of course, Mr. Maxey will spin the issue on these passages and have them not "mean" what they "say" when he is done perverting them. The reader will just have to judge who he is going to believe. He will wade in shallow and cry, "It’s only a perversion of the Lord's Supper that is being discussed here." Yet the honest reader can see that while Paul was addressing a perversion of the L.S. he also records a precept for the church to not come together "as a church" for hunger. I wonder if Mr. Maxey will teach that Paul was a legalist and should just have focused more on the "gospel" and not this "doctrine"? We will see.

Mr. Maxey wonders:

<<In other words, what specifically did John have in mind when he spoke of our Lord's teaching? What teaching would that be? I see nothing in either the immediate or remote context that suggests John had the rituals of a "worship service" in view here. I doubt he was concerned with how the church treasury was utilized, what version of the Bible one read, whether church buildings could have a kitchen, or if shaped notes were acceptable additions to a song book. Rather, the doctrine/teaching, "which we have had from the beginning, is that we love one another" (2 John 5). It is this commandment "that you should walk in" (vs. 6). This is certainly the teaching of Christ emphasized in this second epistle (and indeed throughout the writings of John). >>

So if John only had one thing in mind, or only one thing that he was addressing, then we cannot apply his prescription to any other anathema in scripture? If John specifies one commandment, "that we love one another" does that mean every other commandment can be outside of 2 John 9? Is this "love one another" the doctrine of Christ or gospel, Mr. Maxey? Is preaching "love one another" preaching the gospel? Also, what did Paul have in mind in Galatians 1:6-9 about preaching any other gospel? Would preaching circumcision for salvation be preaching "another gospel"? What about the inverse, preaching "Circumcision is not for salvation; it is nothing" is this preaching "gospel" or "doctrine?" Can one even preach it or is he only able to "teach" it? Please tell us Mr. Maxey, which it is. By the way, who is endowed with the Spirit to say which is which? Please tell us how you are qualified to explain which sections of scripture is "doctrine" and which sections constitute "gospel." Please submit your, "Truth that matters list." More on this later. . .

2 John 6, 7, " This is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, that as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in it. For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."

John teaches that love is to walk according to "HIS COMMANDMENTS." Al says that this "commandment" (loving one another) is emphasized throughout John's writings. Is preaching this commandment teaching "doctrine" or preaching "gospel" and how do we know? Can we walk according to love by violating any other commandment of God other than "loving one another?" Please answer definitively. Also, can a church spend the church treasury on anything it wants to? Why not say:

"I see nothing in either the immediate or remote context that suggest John was concerned with how the church treasury was utilized, whether they spend it on saints or non saints, whether they spend it ski trips or camping retreats, whether they spend it on kitchens or Christmas festivals, whether they spend it on dance halls or drinking parlors." Likewise, since worship services were not in the mind of John (according to Al) then John is likewise indifferent on mechanical or non-mechanical music, clapping, humming and drumming, heavy metal, bluegrass or cowbell praise, espresso's and fruit salads or fruit of the vine, French bread or pizza crust." Non of these things have anything to do with the doctrine of Christ, right Al? We are at liberty to use any of the above, right Al? If not, which ones?

Misleading quotations regarding A.T. Robertson:

Mr. Maxey misleads in trying to show that A. T. Robertson could not make up his mind on this subject and quotes:

<< Dr. A.T. Robertson wrote, "The subjective genitive can be distinguished from the objective use only by the context. Sometimes the matter is not clear. In itself the genitive is neither subjective nor objective, but lends itself readily to either point of view ... some passages are open to doubt" (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 499). >>

But 2 John 9 is not a passage left to doubt in A. T. Robertson's mind. Read what Mr. Maxey didn't want you to read from Mr. Robertson regarding 2 John 9:

"Every one who goes ahead. \Proag“\ literally means to go on before (#Mr 11:9). That in itself is often the thing to do, but here the bad sense comes out by the parallel clause. {And abideth not in the teaching of Christ} (\kai mˆ men“n en tˆi didachˆi tou Christou\). Not the teaching about Christ, but that of Christ which is the standard of Christian teaching as the walk of Christ is the standard for the Christian’s walk (#1Jo 2:6). See #Joh 7:16; 18:19. These Gnostics claimed to be the progressives, the advanced thinkers, and were anxious to relegate Christ to the past in their onward march. This struggle goes on always among those who approach the study of Christ. Is he a "landmark" merely or is he our goal and pattern?"

If you all touch your computer while reading this, you may feel Al shimmer at Robertson's wording of "pattern"! This is twice that we have show where Mr. Maxey misleads in quoting others to justify his position at the expense of maligning them. Should we not be suspicious when he quotes anybody, let alone when he tries to tell us what inspired writers wrote or meant? For someone to speak about context, but then blatantly misrepresent recent scholars is spooky.

Maxey's Fence Riding Hypocrisy:

Maxey wrote: <<My own personal conviction on this passage, after much research and reflection, is that "doctrine of Christ" is most likely, based on the context and John's overall focus in his writings, an objective genitive. Thus, the text is referring to the teaching ABOUT Jesus Christ;>>

And then said: <<Nevertheless, I am unwilling to be dogmatic about my conviction. The subjective genitive is also a grammatical and contextual possibility.>>

YET MAXEY WROTE ME REGARDING MY ARTICLE, "WHAT DOES THE 'DOCTRINE OF CHRIST' MEAN IN 2 JOHN 9'" AS BEING "FALSE DOCTRINE."

Maxey said, "Morris Bowers sent me your false teaching on 2 John 9" (email dated 4/27/04).

It looks like Maxey's cloak has been uncovered here! He says he is not dogmatic, but then writes me saying that my article is false doctrine. Can one label something as "false teaching" without being dogmatic? Mr. Maxey, could you answer that? Are you dogmatic that it is false doctrine? My article shows that 2 John 9 is the doctrine taught BY Christ where I give many different parallels in scripture. The reader can access this at: http://www.sunnysidechurchofchrist.com/id54.html The reader can make up his mind about Maxey's flip flop! So, Maxey is not against "dogmatism," he is not some gentle, "can-we-all-get-along-" kind of fellow who wants the Lord's prayer in John 17 realized. He is as dogmatic as any and will gladly pursue division when someone doesn't agree with his personal interpretation, thus violating his own man-made rule.

Will Maxey tell us what "the apostles' doctrine" is Acts 2:42? Is it the doctrine of the apostles ABOUT the apostles or what they taught about Christ and the church. Please tell us and if it is not the same approach to 2 John 9 please enlighten us as to why.

2. Maxey Sends Another Article "Gospel/Doctrine Debate."

After I requested Mr. Maxey to take me off his list and stop sending me his false doctrine, he sent yet another entitled, "The Gospel Doctrine Debate." He wrote me saying,

<<Steven, Here is another one you will run away from, but can never answer or refute from God's Word. Care to prove me right again?!!!>> (email: 4/27/04)

Does it sound like Maxey practices his "tolerance" doctrine that he continually spews. Does his tone sound gracious to you, reader? I do not subscribe to it so I will readily employ an abrasive tone to certain servants of Satan. But Maxey vomits this kind of rhetoric out all the time in public, but as you can see, in private he doesn’t' practice what he preaches "or should I say teaches?" (I think Maxey only thinks you can preach gospel and teach doctrine, you cannot preach doctrine, etc. It is just more superficial foolishness that he has created. Let me know if we can preach doctrine and teach the gospel, Mr. Maxey)

Maxey labors in his case:

<<Paul told the Corinthian brethren that he was determined to "know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2). >>

Maxey, you do not want to run to 1 Corinthians to prove anything related to your contention. Yes Paul wrote this, but what is the bulk of the letter about? Is it not things that you would clarify as petty? Now if Paul's meaning "knowing nothing except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified" is only the death, burial, resurrection and person of Christ, then why does Paul spend the great majority of the letter addressing "conduct" and "beliefs."

· Immorality in the church (chap. 5)

· Withdraw fellowship from disorderly (chap. 5)

· Conduct toward brethren (chap. 6)

· Practitioners of sin will not inherit the kingdom of god (chap. 6)

· Role and laws regarding marriage (chap. 7)

· Be concerned over sensitive and weak Christians (chap. 8)

· Defending his apostleship (chap. 9)

· Paying ministers (chap. 9)

· Self-discipline (chap. 9)

· OT examples to learn from that we do not fall away (chap. 10)

· Lusting

· Idolatry

· Immorality

· Tempting Christ

· Complaining

· Headship and submission of Christ, man, and woman (chap. 11)

· Coming together as a church and eating a carnal meal (chap. 11)

· Identifying spiritual gifts (chap. 12)

· Identifying the duration of spiritual gifts (chap. 13)

· Regulating spiritual gifts (chap. 14)

· Confronting the false doctrine of "no resurrection" (chap. 15).

· Speaking of the future resurrection (chap. 15)

· Establishing a church treasury (chap. 16)

· Some personal plans (chap. 16)

To apply the meaning that "Christ and Him crucified" only means the death, burial, resurrection and the person of Christ is absurd since Paul spoke in great detail about other doctrinal subjects that are obvious to a healthy mind that these are "weighty" and will cause them to be lost. Was Paul not preaching Christ and Him crucified in these chapters, Mr. Maxey? Paul didn't want them to know anything but Christ, yet taught them the commandments of the Lord 1 Cor. 14:37; 11:23. Was Paul contradicting himself? Was he violating his own desire? Similar to this is Philips example of preaching Christ and the Treasurer asking about baptism. You cannot preach Christ without preaching baptism. The same form of argumentation could be said of Romans 1:15, 16, etc.

Teaching Versus Preaching

Maxey writes: <<"The NT distinguishes between teaching and proclaiming or preaching" (ibid, p. 1278). Paul wrote, "Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching" (1 Timothy 5:17).>>

Maxey just created a crater to fall in that I don't know if he will ever be able to hike out of it. By quoting this passage, he is saying that "preaching" is intended by the Greek word "logos" and teaching by the Greek word "didaskalia." Okay, we will accept his assumption but note:

1 Tim. 6:3-5 "If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words [GK. Logos], even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine [didaskalia] which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself"

Now Paul links "logos" with "didaskalia" or doctrine. Both are on an equal footing? Do you think they are on an equal plain Mr. Maxey? The effect of not consenting to either one will result in who is "proud, knowing nothing" and one who is to be withdrawn from. So even with Maxey's superficial distinction, the net effect is the same. If you reject the words of our Lord or the doctrine, you are destitute of truth.

APPLICATION:

· Will Maxey tell us if we can violate 1 Timothy 5:8 by not providing for our own family, yet if we accept that Jesus died, was buried and resurrected and that "he came in the flesh" we are still safe with Christ and should not squabble over this doctrine? Is neglecting to provide for our own gospel or doctrine? Will Maxey tell us?

· Well then, what about 1 Timothy 5:16? Can a church violate that passage by dispensing the Lord's money to non-believers or to widows who really are not "true widows?" If we can readily put a widow who is a non-Christian on the list to receive a regular administration of funds, what is the meaning or relevance of this passage? Does it have any relevance today? Is there anyway that we can violate it today? What does, "Do not let the church be burdened" mean? Please answer a little more than you did my article on 2 John 9 simply by saying it is "false." Come, let us reason. Answer these questions. If God makes a distinction over "widows" those whom we ought to have a great amount of compassion for, why do you think that contentions over the church treasury are mere squabble?

"for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust" (1 Tim. 1:10, 11).

Note: "sound doctrine" is according to "the glorious gospel." Thus, any honest mind can see that "doctrine" is a part of the gospel.

Matthew 4:23, "And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people."

The gospel is called "of the kingdom." What does that mean? Do you interpret it like you do 2 John 9. . .the gospel of the kingdom is "ABOUT" the kingdom? But then if it is about the kingdom you have to add all things in the kingdom to the "gospel." If not, why not? Is the plan of salvation in the kingdom? If so, then it is gospel? Are elders in the kingdom? If so, then they are a part of the gospel system? Does the kingdom worship? Then worship is in the gospel. Who will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9ff; Gal. 5:19-21), Mr. Maxey? Then anyone practicing these things are outside of the gospel! If not why, not?

Matthew 26:13, "Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her."

I haven't met one Unity in Diversity advocate mention this woman as a part of the gospel. Will Maxey tell us if he does? Jesus gives our answer that she would be a part of the gospel told. Who will you believe, dear reader?