God in Weakness: A Thought on Jn 19.16-17 & Lk 23.26

Introductory Thoughts

Have you ever wondered to yourself if Jesus knew what it was like to hurt so bad he wanted to quit? Have you ever wondered to yourself, perhaps after that secret fall, if Jesus knew what it was like to fall? Have you ever wondered if Jesus became weary, exhausted or just plain tired? I have! I have wondered to myself often if Jesus knew what it was like to really fall flat on his face. Could Jesus understand when my body not only wanted to give out -- but did give out? I have wondered, have you? In fact one of my favorite poems is by Donna Swanson called "Did You Ever Cry, Jesus?"

Did you ever cry, Jesus?
did the world ever pile up on you 'til you wanted to
quit?

Did you ever cry, Jesus?
Did you ever get so tired of humanity you wished
you'd never come?

Did life ever throw you too much hate?
Were there more lies and apathy than could be born
silently?

Did you ever ache, Jesus?
Did you sometimes fret at family obligations
and long to be about your Father's business?

Did the blind eyes, the twisted bodies,
The warped minds and maimed souls get to you? Were
you ever just plain mad?

Were you ever lonely, Jesus?
When your friends misunderstood and walked out on
you, did you ever cry, Jesus?

I think you must have, for you know me so well. So
well!

I think you must have cried a little.
(in Calvin Miller, The Book of Jesus, p. 242-243).

He Identifies With Us!

The Gospel texts for ruminating reads ...

"So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the skull . . . Here they crucified him . . . (Jn. 19:16b-17)."

"As they led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene . . . and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus (Luke 23: 26)."

According to our text in John JESUS was forced to carry his cross. But according to Luke (and Mt & Mk) Simon was forced to carry the cross. How are we to understand this? There is no reason to assume a contradiction between the two. The explanation is much simpler than that -- it is hinted at in the NT and explicitly declared in early church tradition. Jesus of Nazareth fell beneath the load of the Roman cross and Simon was forced to carry it the rest of the way to Golgotha!

It makes perfect sense actually. Think about what he has been through. He hasn't slept in over 48 hours. Think of Gethsemane? Did he have visions of the countless sins pressing down on him -- tortures, murders, rapes, slander, lies? Did he visualize shattered families, molested children, millions of murdered babies? Did he see my disobedience. Did he see the warfare his brothers and sisters would eventually make upon one another!? What unspeakable emotional agony the Messiah went through in Gethsemane! Emotionally he was spent!

His body has been tortured, battered and abused. Now it is failing him. Just as yours and mine fail us at times. For Jesus isn't God dressed up as a man. He is a REAL MAN! He bleeds real blood. He shares the weaknesses and limitations of the flesh with you and me. The reason the African, Simon of Cyrene, has to carry the cross is because Jesus falls ... He falls to the ground ... Do you see what the Cross teaches us here? Jesus is one of US! He was a Man!

He understands when our bodies are subject to fatigue as well as pain. He knew his own body would fail even as the disciples did in the Garden of Sorrows.

We rush past the cross sometimes. We must see how the Cross teaches one of the hardest of all lessons to learn-- Jesus is one of us! The Cross teaches the humanity of Jesus. What do you see when you see the Lord of the Universe fall to the ground under the burden of the cross, under the burden of our sin? Do you see raw and bloody knees as the hit the stone pavement? - I see his weakness, I see his humanity. I see just how far the love of God really goes. I see how completely the Son of God identified with human beings calling himself the `Son of Man.' I see a man who knows what it is like to fall. His is not due to personal sin but because his human body is just like mine. We get bruised just as he was bruised. We are spent emotionally just as he was spent emotionally. To fall is a very visible sign of our vulnerability. It is even embarrassing at times. But we fall because we are human.

Listen to it. The One who falls under the horrible burden of sin does not look away as we fall under the burden of life or sin. When we are down he is there at our side. He understands, he has been there. He is one of us! That is comforting to know. In fact there are days that that is the ONLY thing that gets me through! There are times I want to quit. There are times I fail terribly as a husband, as a father, as a minister, and as a Christian -- praise be to God Jesus knows what I am going through! Each step I take he is by my side, he has never deserted me, and he leads me closer home. In fact, Jesus who fell under the cross said,

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened and I will give you rest Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light . . . (Mt. 11.28ff)

How can his yoke be easy and his burden light? The picture we have of him is some falling to the dirt under a burden. The answer is the yoke and the burden he's carrying to the cross is not his own. They're ours. He's carrying our burdens, our sins; he falls under our yoke of condemnation -- Not his! But he offers us an easy yoke and light burden. Jesus understands. Now isn't that Good News! You have to come to the cross for this Good News from the Lord. Maybe Hebrews will mean more to us when we understand this message. Listen:

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too SHARED IN THEIR HUMANITY so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death . . . FOR THIS REASON lie had to be made like his BROTHERS in EVERY WAY . . . Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted (2: 14-18).

God In Weakness

The lessons of the cross are never discovered by those in a hurry. They are never discovered by those who spend little time watching the One carrying the cross. Yet it is at the heart of the Gospel. The Epistle to the Hebrews is built upon it. The amazing message proclaimed by the Cross is that the omnipotent Creator of the universe is at this moment in his life on earth to weak to carry a wooden cross! Yes, to weak to even stand. Perhaps we can just begin to grasp the distance our great God would go to save you and me.

Because Jesus bore the cross, because he fell beneath the load he says to you and me, "I understand your weakness. There was a time when I couldn't even stand upright like a man." Our Savior descended from the realm of perfection to imperfection. From the strength of heaven to the weakness of earth. That is a long, long journey to make. Christians fall! And Jesus falls do to weakness as well.

Radical? Indeed! True? Absolutely! Comforting? It gives us strength because he is there with us.

Wrapping Up

Max Lucado in his classic, God Came Near, tried to communicate this truth of the gospel (that Jesus is one of us) in these memorable words:

He was touchable, approachable, reachable. And, what's more, he was ordinary. If he were here today you probably wouldn't notice him as he walked through a shopping mall... (p. 54).

Don't rush past the cross, We in the church do that to often. The cross is telling us the wonderful news of grace -- Jesus understands when we fall. He is one of us. He didn't come to condemn us but to save us by being condemned on the Cross for us. Did Jesus cry? You bet he did! He still cries for us ... and with us!

May these thoughts bless you ...

Read More

Supreme Savior: Late Nite Thoughts from Col 1.15-20

I was reading through Colossians this evening and began to mull over its message in my head. As I reflected these thoughts began to percolate through my mind. I doubt they are that scholarly but perhaps they are going in the right direction what Paul was after - especially in chapter 1 of this rich letter.

INTRODUCTORY THOUGHTS

The Epistle to the Colossians was written by Paul and Timothy to a group of disciples about 100 miles east of Ephesus. Paul had never been there before, however, a coworker named Epaphras was from there and he started the church in that city. This probably happened while Paul was living and preaching in Ephesus (cf. Acts 19).

This letter was written several years after Paul's ministry in Ephesus for he is in prison awaiting trial (4.3b). His good friend, Epaphras had come to minister to him and inform him of the condition of God's work in the Lycus Valley. The Colossian Christians are doing fairly well but they have taken their eyes off of the center of the Faith. The Christians, or at least some of them, in Colosse are being led astray by what Paul calls a "hallow and deceptive philosophy" (2.8). A great deal of scholarly effort has been spent on this heresy and the nearest equivalent to it today would probably be a "Christianized" form of the New Age Movement pr perhaps an early form of gnosticism.

This teaching did not deny that Jesus was important: Jesus is after all the Message of Christianity. But this "philosophy" did, apparently, deny that Jesus was of SUPREME importance! Jesus was just one of many spirit beings (angels, powers, planets, etc) that we would be "wise" to give each its proper place. Paul confronts this problem on two fronts in our text (which is called the "Christ Hymn"). Jesus is not one among equals, Paul argues, because Jesus created all things including the spirit beings. Second, Jesus defeated the evil powers and brought peace through his death on the Cross. Therefore, says Paul, Christ is the Ultimate and the Supreme that Christians should look to.

SUPREMACY IN CREATION (1.15-16)

"He is the IMAGE of the invisible God, firstborn over all creation. For by
him all things were created: things in heaven and things on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers, whether rulers [principalities] or authorities [powers], all things were created by him and for him."

The first half of the Christ Hymn exalts the center of the Faith, Christ, as the Creator of all things in the universe: physical or spiritual. Paul calls Jesus the "IMAGE of the invisible God." The One True Living God is invisible and cannot be seen with the human eye. But we can see his "image." In the Hebrew Bible God had forbidden the making of images of him. The reason is that Jesus is the Image of God.
Perhaps we could say if we had a photograph of God it would be an image of Jesus. Jesus told Philip in John's Gospel, "if you have seen me you have seen the Father" (14.9ff). Paul is recognizing the true significance of Christ. He is God in the flesh, he is God among us. He is in a category all his own.

Jesus is not just one among the spirit beings but the Image of God himself. Paul continues to undercut the philosophy that would lower Christ's status by saying not only is he the image of God he is the the "Firstborn BEFORE (NIV="over") all creation because in him all things were created . . ." The NIV, and other versions as well, do not make the force of the genitive as clear as should be, Jesus is the firstborn BEFORE creation. The phrase denotes priority as well as supremacy. To say that Jesus is the Firstborn is talk about the eternality of Christ with God. It is to talk of his divine nature or Godhood. It does not mean that Christ was/is a creation: that would contradict both the grammar of the text and the context that says Jesus himself is the Creator not the created. Jesus is ultimate no
matter how you slice it according to Paul.

If it exists in any form then Christ created it (cf. Heb. 1.3ff). The NIV has helped the reader out with its punctuation of vv. 16b through 17. The colon is indicating that what follows is a summary of the things created by Christ. Paul emphasizes whether it is in heaven, an angel, another spirit [principalities and powers are references to the spirit world] Christ created them and is therefore no their equal or to viewed as such.

The church at Colosse had people who believed that the ancient equivalent of horoscopes and astrology could help them out or better - protect them. Now let me make it clear today that Paul does NOT DENY that there is in fact a evil power behind these things. Rather he says Christ is supreme over them and he alone is to be served and worshiped. In the modern world it is the psychic hot lines that Paul is talking about. Christ controls the universe he is supreme over it.

SUPREMACY IN REDEMPTION (1.18b-20)

"He is the beginning and the first born from among the dead, so that in everything he might have supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood shed on the cross."

If the first half of the Christ Hymn celebrates Christ's role in the First Creation then the second half celebrates his role in the New Creation, especially with regard to redemption and reconciliation. The Supremacy of Christ is again emphasized. He was the beginning of the old order and he is the beginning of the new.

The point of the second half of the Christ Hymn is that Christ has defeated these celestial beings the Colossians are tempted to follow. They, the Christians who were deceived by this philosophy, believed in a hierarchy of powers among which the divine fullness was distributed and these power or beings occupied the "space" between us and God. Each one had to be given its due place in order to get to God. They controlled the flow of communication. They function sort of like toll booths along some interstates. Paul though cuts that by saying that God was pleased to have ALL of the divine fullness to dwell in Christ alone. Christ did not share it with any power – including Satan!

Paul's point is that the divine fullness manifested itself in Christ's work of reconciliation on the Cross. Because God has reconciled the creation to himself through Christ's work, we do not need to pay a "toll" to the spirit beings. Yes, the world is at odds with the Creator but through the Cross peace has been IMPOSED on the powers and authorities. Paul describes the downfall of the powers in powerful language in 2.15: though they certainly did not submit willingly. Christ had to defeat them in a great victory:

"And having DISARMED the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them triumphing over them by the cross."

Why give these spirit beings any glory or "due," if Christ has defeated them at Calvary? Why divide our loyalty to Christ when he has made it possible "by the cross" for us to have peace in our lives again? Or more likely it was not simply to give "glory" to these beings but a sense of FEAR of them that drove the Colossians to these measures. But Christ, says Paul, has defeated them! Christ is Supreme. He is to have "supremacy in everything." Paul does not say some things, but everything. Jesus does not share pride of place with anyone or anything. It is important for us as Christians to remember that.

How do we, even unintentionally, undermine Christ's supremacy at times today? Some Christians still have horoscopes and believe in astrology, mantras and crystal balls. Perhaps we are also driven by fear of the unknown future and we seek "outside" assistance. Every time I consult one of those I am saying Christ did not really gain the victory over the powers. But we know he did. Some Christians want Christ to share pride of place with their pet doctrine or theory. Sometimes they want him to share his glory with the church. It is important to watch our doctrine and the church is certainly magnificent and important. But Christ is supreme even in these matters. Christ is Lord of doctrine and Head of the Church. He is IT'S glory not the other way around. We simply need to be reminded of that from time to time.

We must remember that it was not doctrine that defeated the powers. Rather it was the Suffering of the Son of Man that did that. We must remember that the church did not overcome the principalities (Colossians itself is proof of that). No, it was as Paul says the shedding of his BLOOD that did that. We must remember that the powers are not for us -- they hate us with a passion and that is why Christ had to "subdue" them. We owe it all to the Supreme Savior – Jesus the Christ.

WRAPPING UP LATE NIGHT THOUGHTS

Paul declares that Jesus is the Supreme Savior. He is supreme in creation because he is the Creator. He is supreme in redemption because he disarmed the powers through his great victory at the Cross. Even among the Colossians themselves the victory of the Cross had been manifest. Some of them had been enslaved to the "spirits" of greed which Paul says is idolatry (3.5). Some were enslaved to the "spirit" of anger, malice and slander (3.8). Some were enslaved to the spirit of guilt and fear or impurity. But Christ the Supreme Savior has defeated all of these spirits at the Cross. If the Savior has set us free he should be supreme in our life, he should be supreme in the church, he should be supreme in our worship. Paul says he should be our very life for "he IS your life" (3.4).

May Shalom be the blessing of those who read these words.

P.S. The image above is Colossians 1 in Minuscule 321 - a 12th century mss located in the British Museum

Read More

Alexander Campbell, The Spirit of Intolerance & Fellowship

In light of my last three posts that share dialogue on unity and fellowship in which the "approved apostolic example" of Paul was appealed to ... especially his relationship with the Corinthians - I want to share some thoughts from the Stone Campbell giant Alexander Campbell on unity.

In the late 1820s as things heated up in the Redstone Baptist Association, pressure was brought upon Alexander Campbell. The drawing a line in the sand disfellowshipping kind of pressure! A group met together and "Resolved" not to fellowship Campbell and his "doctrines." What follows is his rather enlightening response - a response I believe needs to be heard in Churches of Christ today. It is more than worth reading.

"The Spirit of Intolerance

What means this intolerant spirit? I ask again, What is the meaning of it? Is every man who acknowledges in word and deed the supreme authority of Jesus of Nazareth as Lord Messiah; who has vowed allegiance to him, who is of good report as respects good works, to be sacrificed upon the alter of opinion, because his opinion upon some speculation, fact or doctrine differs from mine? Because, while he admits that Jesus died for our sins, he will not dogmatize upon the nature, extent and every attribute of 'the atonement,' is he to be deemed unfit for the kingdom of heaven? Admitting 'an election of favor,' is he to be given over to Satan because of some opinion about the the conditionality or unconditionality of that election? In one word, are we to understand that an exact agreement in opinion, a perfect uniformity is contended for as a bond of union? If so, let our Baptist brethren say so, Let them declare to the world that

'Tenth, or ten thousandeth, breaks the chain alike.'

That a disagreement in the tenth opinion, or in the ten thousandeth opinion, breaks the bond of union. If this be the decree, let it be published and translated into all languages -- let it be known and read by all men. If, again, a perfect uniformity be not decreed, but a partial uniformity, let it be proclaimed in how many opinions an agreement must be obtained; then we shall know who are, and who are not, to be treated as heathen men and publicans.

"What makes divisions now? The man who sets up his private judgements as the standard of truth, and compels submission to them, or the man who will bear with a brother who thinks in some things differently from him? No man can, with either reason or fact on his side, accuse me of making divisions among Christians. I declare non-fellowship with no man who owns the Lord Jesus in word and deed. Such is a Christian. He that denies the Lord in word or deed is not a Christian. A Jew or Gentile he may be, a Pharisee or Sadducee he may be, but a Christian he cannot be! If a man confess the Lord Jesus, or acknowledge him as the only Savior sent by God; if he vow allegiance to him and submit to his government, I will recognize him as a Christian and treat him as such. If a man cause divisions and offenses by setting up his own decisions, his private judgement, we must consider him a FACTIONIST, and as such he must be excluded -- not for his difference in opinions, but because he makes his opinion an idol, and demands homage to it.

"There are some preachers in the East and in the West -- some self-conceited, opinionated dogmatizers -- who are determined to rend the Baptist communities into factions by their intolerance. They wish, moreover to blame it upon us. As well might blame the sun for its light and heat as blame us for creating divisions. When we shall have cut off from the church any person or persons because of difference of opinion, then they may say, with reason, we cause divisions. Till then it is gratuitous. They are the heretics, not we. Yes, they are the heresiarchs, and will be so regarded by all the intelligent on earth, and by all in heaven."

Quote taken from Christian Baptist, Burnett's Edition, p. 651.

I believe these words of Campbell are incredibly relevant to our day. They deserve thoughtful and careful reading. The spirit of factionism, of dogmatism, of intolerance, and of homage to our own opinions is as rampant today as in Campbell's.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

Worship Acts, Hermeneutics & Fellowship: Continuing Dialogue - Pt 3

Read Salvation by Correct Doctrine, Pt 1 HERE
Read Salvation by Correct Doctrine, Pt 2 HERE

This is the third part of a dialog with a brother. After practicing a "principle of avoidance" (see the end of our previous dialogue) for about a week I received a five page letter which I reproduce all but the first page. I chose to refrain from reproducing the first part because it was, in my view, very unfriendly. The second part of the letter seems to be his attempt to shift the discussion to "acts of worship." There are the standard appeals to Nadab and Abihu and the like ... I post this completely unedited. I suspect the material under "Is All Service to God Worship?" has been excerpted from another source and is not his composition. As before I will share my own reply just as I sent it. If you take the time to read this I ask your indulgence for the length today.

To Bobby V,

Yes, you're right I have been silent for a time Bobby. The reason is because it is clear to see when certain things are going to be a hindrance to my work here. I do have an obligation to "charge false doctrine" (1 Tm. 1:3). However, if I do not put some boundaries on the extent of this work, Satan will easily consume all my time, while the local congregation is consumed by false doctrines in my own backyard.

I hope you can understand that. We are clearly at odds brother, and after seeing what I saw at the preachers meeting last time, these controversies extend beyond yourself. I will seat myself to the teachings of false teachers like N.T. Wright, nor should any Christian (1 Tm. 6:20-21). I believe, and know, that you have strayed off from the old paths, and refuse to walk in them (Jer. 6:16).

Bobby, I'm not sure when I will return my message to you should you reply, but I will tell you that my focus here is on the local work. Surrounding preachers can be a great help, but they can also be a great hindrance as it is apparent the latter will be the case. It is sad to see when local preachers from churches of Christ have strayed from the path, but such is a reality all the same.

I'm sure I will hear from you again, and should I have the time I will answer any of your questions.

Here is some additional information I promised you concerning worship...

IS ALL SERVICE TO GOD WORSHIP?

The churches of Christ Greet You (Romans 16:16)

Worshiping God in spirit and in truth is one of the most demanding, yet meaningful and rewarding, activities in which a Christian can engage. However, for worship to be meaningful and rewarding, it must be done according to God’s word, in both action and attitude (cf. John 4:24). If God has not authorized worship then there is no basis for it. However, if God has authorized worship, then it is to be regulated by His word.

Many in the denominational religious world and even some brethren are not aware of the grave consequences of affirming that everything one does is godly worship. However, the devil is fully aware of the great potential for leading men astray in this area. Our adversary (1 Pet. 5:8) has performed his destructive task well. He has convinced multitudes to stray from the pure pattern of truth that is set forth in the Bible.

The Old Testament was “written for our learning” (Rom. 15:4). From it we learn that engaging in ungodly worship has long been an activity that has left man outside the fellowship of God. The first record of mankind’s attempt to worship God is found in the first book of the Bible. Able worshiped God by faith (Heb. 11:4) and his offering was accepted. Cain attempted to worship the same God as his brother, yet his offering was in vain (Gen. 4:3-7). Since “faith” comes by hearing God’s word (Rom. 10:17), the implication is evident: at the dawn of time God told man how to worship. Abel worshiped the way God directed while Cain did not follow God’s instructions. Cain engaged in ungodly worship. His worship originated by his own will and was rejected by the Lord.

Nadab and Abihu were worship leaders, priests under the Levitical system (Num. 3:1-3). However, they offered “strange fire” in worship which God had not commanded. The result: they were consumed by that which they offered (Lev. 10:1-2). These worship leaders sinned presumptuously. They failed to follow God’s instructions in worship. The result was death. God has always told mankind how to worship. Jesus condemned some for worshiping in vain by following the doctrines/commandments of men (Matt. 15:9). There worship was directed to God, but it was not directed by God (cf. Mark 7:6-13).

The subject question is a doctrine that has seen an evolution in its development over the years. Initially, there were those who asserted that EVERYTHING a Christian does in his or her life is an act of worship to God. The foolishness of such an assertion would mean that lying, cursing, or even fornication would qualify AS ACTS OF ACCEPTABLE WORSHIP. If everything one does in life is worship, than that includes exactly that – everything. This false concept was later refined and cleverly affirmed that everything a person does is godly worship, except sin. We challenge this ungodly assertion with a few questions: “Do we worship God when we brush our teeth? What about while listening to a rap or country song on the radio? Do we engage in worship when we crank up the mower and cut the lawn?”

The newest twist to this false doctrine affirms that every act of SERVICE we render to God is worship. At first it was claimed EVERYTHING was worship, then everything EXCEPT SIN, and now everything is worship involving SERVICE to the Lord. Those who believe that all service is worship do not distinguish between worship and service. They contend that worship and service are one and the same. If their contentions are true, then no longer are there only five acts of acceptable worship to God. If their contentions are true there are literally thousands upon thousands of divinely sanctioned acts of worship in which a Christian can engage. This surely is a contradiction to what Jesus instructed the woman of Samaria regarding the nature of true worship (Read John 4).

If everything we do in service to God is worship, one could pass out a religious tract, cut the church building lawn, drive someone to the doctor, and on and on as claims of acceptable worship to God. While one must avoid the extreme that says worship includes everything a Christian does, one must also avoid the extreme that says worship is only that which takes place in the church building. However, if everything we do in service to God is worship; one could stay at home on Sunday in order to cook a pot of soup for a sick person and could claim that he or she has worshiped the Lord through their act of service. If such a doctrine is true, the rebuke of the Hebrew writer is presumptuous
(Heb. 10:25-26).

Worship and service, although closely related, should not be confused as synonymous terms. There are many examples in Scripture where both terms are used in the same context, yet are not to be understood as describing the same exact thing. In Deuteronomy 11:16; 17:3; 29:26; and 30:17, God warns His people not to “worship” other gods and “serve” them. If all service is worship, why did the Holy Spirit make a distinction between worshiping gods and serving them? (cf. 2 Kings 21:20-21).

In the New Testament Jesus said, “…Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve” (Matt. 4:10; cf. Rom. 1:25). Why make a distinction between the two if all service is worship? The answer is because, although all worship is a type of service, not all service is a type of worship. Worship and service are not interchangeable terms. Paul taught that Christians are to “serve” one another (Gal. 5:13). If “serve” and “worship” are interchangeable terms, then it would be correct to teach that Galatians 5:13 demands that we “worship” one another. Consider Hebrews 13:10. It refers to those who “serve” the tabernacle. Did the priest worship the tabernacle or serve it?

It is not necessary that anyone learn Greek or Hebrew in order to understand what God wants a person to know. However, we will give a brief introduction to three of the thirteen Greek words that are translated by a form of “worship” in the KJV. The most common Greek word translated “worship” is from the compound word proskuneo. The literal meaning is to kiss (kuneo) the hand towards (pros) one. This term reveals the outward expression of the reverence paid toward the Creator (Matt. 2:2; 4:10; 1 Cor. 14:25; Rev. 4:10) or a creature (Acts 7:43; 10:25; Rev. 22:8), by kneeling or prostration; to do homage or make obeisance.

The second most common word translated by a form of “worship,” with its accompanied forms, is the Greek word sebomai. From the root original meaning (to step back from someone or something, to maintain a distance), sebomai came to be used to denote an attitude of respect which was given to gods, people, or things. This word moved from the idea of respect to denote religious veneration – including acts of worship (cf. Rom. 1:25). The noun form denotes that the object of worship is to be revered, and thus honored in some way (cf. 2 Thess. 2:4). In the New Testament, sebomai is always associated with deity and involves a deep reverence for the object of worship (cf. Matt. 15:8-9; Acts 13:43, 50; 16:14; 19:27).

The third most common word translated by a form of “worship” is the Greek word latreuo. This word is only rarely translated “worship” in the KJV. The root meaning of the word is service rendered for hire; then any service or ministration - the service of God. It is used for the carrying out of religious duties by human beings. Latreuo is more often translated by “serve” than by any other term. Its primary usage relating to worship centers upon service rendered (cf. Matt. 4:10; Luke 1:74; Acts 7:7). This religious service may also include that rendered to false gods (Acts 7:42 ASV; Rom. 1:25). Because worship is a part of religious service, latreuo also carries the idea of “worship” in some contexts (Acts 7:42-44; 24:14; Phil. 3:3; Heb. 10:2). A way to explain the entire situation with latreuo and its forms would be the following: all worship may be said to be a vital part of our service to God, but not all of our service to God is worship.

In Summary: Latreuto reveals that worship involves service rendered to God. It shows that man is serving God when he worships Him. Worship is not merely an attitude, but involves specific acts according to the requirements of God (cf. Col. 3:17). Sebomai shows that man must have the right kind of heart when approaching God in worship. It involves an attitude of reverence and respect. God and God alone, is the only true, sublime and majestic One, and must be worshiped reverently (Ps. 114:7; Hab. 2:20). Proskuneo shows that worship involves an outward expression along with the inward frame of mind. It involves humility on the part of the worshiper (cf. James 4:10; Matt. 28:9).

Worshiping God acceptably involves the proper attitude and authority (John 4:23-24). The acts of worship are not worship in and of themselves without the involvement of one’s spirit, or attitude (cf. Isa. 1:11-15). Thus, worship is something done intentionally (cf. 2 Sam. 12:15-20). Unless one’s intention is to worship, any act or series of actions cannot be worship. One can be engaged in similar actions as those done in worship and not be worshiping, because the intent to worship is not present. For example, a person can eat unleavened bread and drink “fruit of the vine” for breakfast without violating God’s pattern for worship. The difference between eating breakfast and partaking of the Lord’s Supper is not found in the contents, but in the intent and manner in which it is consumed. For breakfast the intent is nourishment, but for worship the intent is to “shew the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26). Being intentional, it follows that the worship of God is also momentary and not continual. It should be understood that we may worship at other times than on the Lord’s Day. However, the Lord’s Day is the only day authorized to take the Lord’s Supper.

Worship is also to be regulated by the truth – God’s word (John 17:17; 2 John 4). If worship lacks the proper attitude and/or the proper authority, it is “vain” – Matthew 15:9 (i.e., to no purpose), ignorant – Acts 17:22-23, or will worship - Col. 2:20-23 (i.e., self-chosen). God reveals “in truth” a set of approved actions for worship. The total teaching of the New Testament authorizes only singing, praying, teaching, giving, and partaking of the Lord’s Supper as acts of worship. Worship has always required specific action. Worship has always had a “starting" place and a "stopping" place (cf. Judges 7:15; 1 Sam. 1:19; 2 Sam. 12:20; Isa. 66:23; Zech. 14:16; Matt. 2:2; 15:25; Acts 8:27; 24:11; Rev. 3:9; 15:4).

The example of Abraham is perhaps one of the most convincing arguments against the doctrine that all service is worship. In Genesis 22 Abraham was commanded to take his son and go to a mountain to offer him as a sacrifice. Abraham collected wood and saddled his ass, and after coming near to the place of sacrifice, “…Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you” (Gen. 22:5). Remember that Abraham had been traveling for three days, and had already been involved in acts of service. Yet he indicated that something special was about to occur…he and the lad would “go yonder and worship.”

If only some who teach that all service is worship had been there…! They could have straightened Abraham out on his “incorrect” view of “service” and “worship.” They could have enlightened Abraham to the fact that he had been worshiping God the whole time he was traveling, and he did not even know it. In fact, Abraham did understand the difference. He knew that although he had been engaged in service prior to coming to the place of sacrifice, worship was a unique and special type of service that was different than what he had been doing.

Before closing this lesson we also must note the fact that some in and out of the church seem to have worship confused with entertainment. While it is true that worship should be enjoyable to all worshipers (cf. Ps. 122:1), its focus is not upon pleasing the flesh. Worship is not a spectator/performer situation with the congregation in the spectator role while the preacher and song leader are performers. Every effort to honor, adore, and praise God in true worship demands the involvement of the spirit, the inner person (1 Pet. 3:1-4), the heart of a person. Without the involvement of the heart, “worship” becomes a type of performance. The performance may be appealing to people; it may indeed be entertaining, but God is neither honored nor pleased. True Christians need to know the difference between acceptable worship and entertainment.

Conclusion

The Bible does not support the doctrine that everything one does or all service is worship. Christians who love the truth will not hold to such foolish assertions. Jesus makes it clear that one must know the object of true worship in order to worship correctly (Matt. 4:10). The only object of true worship is deity (Rev. 22:9). In true worship, our spirit connects to God who is Spirit. All worship may be said to be service to God, but not all service rendered to God is worship.

BTW, I believe (its been some time) but I do remember looking at your link you provided for me (Alexander Campbell, etc.). I don't necessarily see how Campbell supports you. In fact, I believe Bobby that you have a habit of twisting the ideas and thoughts of the restoration brethren to your thoughts. I know of one time you did it with brother Warren concerning "remote context." Its funny, because I studied Warren's book in preaching school, and here are the notes I took...



I read the above "note" repeatedly. Let it sit for a week and for good or ill composed the following reply.


Brother ....,

I have thought long, hard & prayed about how to respond to your 5 page "note" of Nov 24. Like you, I have a lot to get done that consumes a great deal of my time. However, since I genuinely respect you I believe you deserve to heard, regardless of the tone you use, your material deserves to be reflected upon and you deserve a reply. I have heard it, I have read every word numerous times and I intend to reply to you.

Since your 5 page “note” was rather lengthy I do not think I will be able to reply to everything at this moment but I will get to all of it. Here is my plan: I intend to focus, briefly, upon the center of the letter or what I take to be the conceptual center. Then I will at the second post that begins with "Is All Service to God Worship?" Brother .... , I intend to reply kindly but firmly and as clearly as I can.

A PRELIMINARY NOTE: Let me begin beloved brother with an observation that may be kind of sticky. I am sorely disappointed in the general "tone" of your communication with me. There is enough debatable points in the material you and I have talked about to refrain from dogmatism and personal attacks. There are things beloved that you do not know and you just simply do not know you don't know them. I have been studying the word for a long time, and have encountered just about any situation you can think of in ministry ... and I can assure you (though you will not believe me at this stage of the game) you simply will have to experience.

#1) Another important note. Brother .... I am astonished that you are so quick to draw some major conclusions about godly men. How long were you at the meeting brother - 10 minutes?? Yet based on that you drew the astounding inference that they are "dangerous" to your spiritual well being. Your boldness, beloved brother, is reminiscent of Paul's lamentation in Romans about some Jews who had a "zeal for God" however it was not "according to knowledge" (10.3). May I suggest a mediation exercise for you: dont just memorize passages like Romans 14.4, 13; 15.7 and James 4.11-12. Let your righteousness exceed the scribes and Pharisees who could quote the text from here to doomsday but did not have "knowledge" anyway according to Paul. Meditate brother ... even Michael the archangel did not have the arrogance, or perhaps guts to put is crassly, to judge Satan himself (Jude 8-10). I am sorry .... but your brothers deserve better from you. You know virtually NOTHING of them ... and for that matter me and yet you feel sufficiently omniscient to cast reflection and judge them.

#2) I do not know what your motives are ... I did not speculate on them before and will not now. All I know is that you are very quick to judge

#3) On N.T. Wright the "well known false teacher." It is interesting that you agreed to discuss this book ... The reason for reading the book in the first place was because a brother's relative was. Now brother, according to your own words, you never heard of N. T. Wright at that time. But now he is a "known false teacher." Of what may I ask? The book which we are reading is a defense of the Christian doctrine of resurrection and what it means for the christian faith and christian hope. There are places in which I am sure preachers here will say "I dont agree with that" but that still does not make the work as a whole unworthy or false. Closedmindedness is a sectarian trait I am sorry to say.

#4) Now on this next point I feel sort of almost embarrassed like Paul in 2 Cor 10; 11.16-33 and into 12 or Phil 3.4b-6 where he has to defend himself and "boast." So here goes with great reluctance. ... you flat out accused me of having a "habit of twisting the ideas and thoughts of the restoration brethren to your thoughts." This brother is something you could not prove if your life depended upon it to be blunt. You claimed that "I do remember looking at those links you provided for me (Alexander Campbell, etc)." Which link brother? I do not even give you a single link on Campbell - except his rules on biblical interpretation. How did I misrepresent Campbell

I am going to be quite frank here .... You could not and you cannot demonstrate that I have misrepresented J.W. McGarvey, Alexander Campbell or anyone else if your life depended upon it. But you made the accusation now back it up. I am not the one who has taken words out of context or twisted them ... you in a previous post cited Bruce Metzger and it was a bogus citation that doesnt even exist and then you declared you were not really interested in that man made book.

Now I apologize for being so blunt in this section.

#5) Regarding "Is All Service to God Worship?" I have to be selective. First on Nadab and Abihu. Here is another meditative exercise for you. Why do you observe the passover on half the chapter like you have Corinthians!? Eleazar and Ithamar are in the very same chapter? Do they not worship God incorrectly? Did they not do their worship in error? Why were they not fried?? Did God accept their worship? Look at the text brother - deal with the Word of God. Why do you simply act as if it was not written at all? Is the second half of Lev 10 not the word of God!!?? So beloved brother think deeply and prayerfully ... why the difference? One set of brothers were fried and another received grace. Why? Is Yahweh simply arbitrary? When you meditate on WHY there is difference between these two sets of brothers you will see our God in a brand new light -- not the light of idolatry but the light he reveals himself to be on every page of the inspired book.

As I read what you wrote it appears, at least on the surface, you let predetermined dogma define the meaning of the text rather than letting the text determine dogma. Churches of Christ have accused many a Baptist of refusing to let the text mean something because it conflicted with a pet theory. You state "IF {my emphasis} their contentions are true, THEN {my emphasis} no longer are there only five acts of acceptable worship to God." Brother it certainly does appear as if your doctrine is the standard rather than the biblical text. You cite John 4 to prove such the position of five acts is a "contradiction to what Jesus instructed." How so brother? Where in John 4 does it say a single iota about five acts of worship or any number of acts for that matter? It isnt there brother. You have made an ASSERTION but you have demonstrated absolutely nothing. The text has nothing in the slightest to do with the number so called acts of worship. Does the biblical text shape belief or does belief "filter" out of the text all except what we already believe?????

You attempt to show, citing Deuteronomy 11.16; 17.3; etc that "worship" and "service" are different realities. In each of those examples the Hebrew words abad and histahwah occur. There is not a Hebrew lexicon or dictionary that will sustain your argument on this point brother. The paralleling of these terms shows the manner in which certain worship would take place. The abad of some deity is in the cultic rituals done in the honor of that god or Yahweh himself.

You cite Matt 4.10 to which I have previously commented upon. Rather than showing a distinction between "worship" and "serve" in this text it shows they are synonymous! The parallelism of the text demands it. If you choose you can look in my book with John Mark Hicks and Johnny Melton for more on that: A Gathered People.

Then you state "Worship and service are not interchangeable terms. Paul taught that Christians are to 'serve' one another (Gal. 5:13). If 'serve' and 'worship' are interchangeable terms, then it would be correct to teach that Galatians 5:13 demands that we 'worship' one another." Brother ....!!! Surely you did not think this through. You are simply mistaken on a number of grounds here beloved brother. You seem to be under the impression that the English word "serve" in Galatians 5.13 is the same in either Matt 4.10 or Romans 1.25 since your assertion is in the same paragraph. You do realize that "serve" in Gal 5.13 is douleuo which quite literally means serve/be slave and the like. It is not latreuo brother. I am at a loss to understand why you would use this text to score rhetorical points.

BTW since you cited Romans 1.25 it is quite interesting to see what the classic restoration commentary by Moses Lard says on this text: "and worshiped and served the creature instead of him that made it.' The word here rendered worshiped is generally assumed to denote so much of our duty to God is internal, while the one rendered served denotes the outward part. The distinction may possibly have been intended here, but I can not see it. The two words together simply denote the whole of the worship due to God." (Lard, Commentary on Romans, pp. 58-59).

Interesting isnt it? Lard sees latreuo as meaning worship not something "distinct" from it.

In the same paragraph you cite Hebrews 13.10 and say "Consider Hebrews 13.10. It refers to those who 'serve' the tabernacle. Did the priest worship the tabernacle or serve it?" Brother ... again I scratch my head on this one. The meaning of the Greek text of Hebrews 13.10 is not that the priest worshiped the temple/tabernacle. It means that is WHERE he did his worship or service. The temple/tabernacle is the location where such worship takes place. Any number of English translations can help on this matter. But one from good old brother Alexander Campbell makes it quite clear: "We have an altar of which they have no right to eat, who serve IN the tabernacle" (Living Oracles).

Further on Hebrews 13.10 Vincent's Word Studies in the NT says of our word latreuein (our word) "is used throughout the N.T., with the single exception of Heb 8.5, of the service of the worshipper and not the priest" (p.1178). On the same word in Romans 1.25 that i commented on a moment ago Vincent says the term refers to "worship through special rites or sacrifices" (p. 672). He says to see Revelation 22.3. So when we turn in his volume of word studies to that point we read: "The word originally means to serve for hire. In the New Testament, of the worship or service of God in the use of the rites intended for His worship. It came to be used by the Jews in a very special sense to denote the service rendered to Jehovah by the Israelites ..." (p. 643).

Now Brother .... why is it that you assert that in Hebrews 10.2 latreuo carries the "idea of worship" but deny it in 13.10. I think the denial is arbitrary and driven by other concerns for your pet doctrine rather than the text. Chapter 10.1-5 mentions worshipers, sacrifices, cultic stuff. Chapter 13.10 speaks of the same cultic activities and then goes on to speak of a "sacrifice of praise" ... surely an act of worship!! Yes the priests worshiped IN the tabernacle!!

#6) ... you assert, with no documentation, "the second most common word translated by a form of 'worship' with its accompanied forms, is the Greek word sebomai." Where did you get this information ....? This is simply wrong. sebasma occurs 2x in the NT; sebozomai 1x and sebomai a grand total of 10x. The word has more to do with simply reverence or fear (occurs for example in Acts 17.23 see vv. 4, 17; 18. 7). It occurs about 9x in the LXX (Greek Old Testament) five of those occuring in the Apocrypha {Wisdom 15.16; Bel and the Dragon 3, 4, 23; 3 Maccabees 3.4 & 4 Maccabees 5.24). BTW latreia is the second most used word for worship in the NT ... 26x.

In that same paragraph you said "In the New Testament, sebomai is always associated with deity and involves deep reverence for the object of worship." Then you say "cf. Matt 15.8-9; Acts 13.43, 50; 16.14; 19.27." In Acts 13 it is rendered "devout" in vv 43 & 50 in your New King James Version. In 19. 27 it speaks of the pagan worship of Diana ... you can look up the references I gave in the previous paragraph above. The word sebomai is a minor word in either the LXX or the Greek NT and contributes little to understanding Christian worship. The most significant use is in Matt 15.

#7) Concluding thoughts. Beloved brother you and I do not disagree one iota that "worshiping God in spirit and truth is one of the most demanding and and rewarding activities in which a Christian can engage." Amen. I absolutely agree. I do not think you have shown {as this discussion came from our discussion of Romans 12.1-2 and that was the material you brought to the preachers meeting} I was wrong or am wrong. Your information is factually wrong on a number of points and I have shown that.

I have also denied taking any one, Campbell or anyone else, and twisting their words. You have an obligation to show where I have done that.

I have lamented your tone and quick judgment of men you couldnt even pick out of a line up. They deserve better, I deserve better and believe it or not you deserve better.

I hope I have not been unkind or unloving. I have endeavored to stick with the inspired text. I have endeavored to treat you as one of God's children deserving of the utmost respect. I have endeavored to be open and honest. It is up to you to determine if I have.

I would love to take you to lunch one day brother. Or even better to have you and your lovely bride over to my home and we can cook on the grill. We can have food and get to know one another.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

Salvation by Correct Doctrine, Hermeneutics & Fellowship, Pt 2

Read Salvation by Correct Doctrine, Hermeneutics & Fellowship, Pt 1HERE
Read Worship Acts, Hermeneutics & Fellowship: Continuing Dialogue (which is Part 3) HERE

The following is the second part of a brotherly on again and off again discussion I allowed myself to get drawn into with another preacher. I felt it would be valuable to develop a Christian bond with this brother. As for the actual initial initiation of the discussion regarding music and fellowship I did not make. In what follows I will leave my own replies in normal type and his in italic. I think this exchange illustrates - in my view - the disease of sectarianism and the dangers of hop-scotch hermeneutics rather than dealing with context. I have not edited either him or myself except to take names out. I have been asked why I have talked to this brother - the reason is simple I really do value unity and I believe I need to do for this brother what others have done for me: be loving and patient. Blessings to those who strive to honor the prayer of Jesus in John 17.

This is his reply to my message that appears at the bottom of my previous blog, from my Correspondent ...

Bobby,

I cannot be long, but I did want to clear up a few things from your reply. Then, I will continue another day...

First of all, you will have to forgive me for my lack of precision on terminology. I was not referring you to the "new age movement," but what I was referring to was the prominent denominational idea concerning truth. The idea that truth is like an putting a blind fold on, and you only can touch part of the elephant, and never see the whole. This false doctrine has only lead to further denominationalism, and the ""agree to disagree, you go your way, I go my way"" philosophy.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, you view truth in the same manner.

Concerning your references to the restoration movement. I don't care, and I believe they have no bearing on a discussion of spiritual truth. I respect many of the men in the restoration movement, but I will not get into a debate about what they did or did not believe or promote.

You accuse me of ""observing the passover"" as you like to cleverly put it (I kind of find that terminology funny haha, but be careful in its use because I believe it can easily become malicious). I actually might easily flip this on you. Is this not the exact same thing you have done with the question that I asked to initiate ALL of this?

""Would you fellowship a church that has been warned, exhorted, and shown the word of God about unauthorized use of IM?""

Perhaps I should ask you to eat your own passover before replying to youraccusation. I'm still waiting for a clear ""yes or no""

Now, most importantly. You are mistaken to believe that I seem or want to draw lines over instrumental music. I realize you don't use them. You might take note that at no point have I ever set forth arguments against instrumental music. What I am asking goes beyond the dangers of instrumental music in many ways. It concerns the Lord's desire for purity and unity in the church. Unity doesn't come through acceptance of sin, but through obedience to God's word. We must keep sin out of the camp.

I will say this and clarify this again. I have only raised this question to know where you stand on the Lord's plea for purity in the church. Any inferences and suspicions that arise in yours, or anyone else's thoughts, are merely that, inferences and suspicions, and may even qualify as ""evil thinking"" (1 Co. 13).


Before I had opportunity to respond to the above my brother sent the following also in reply to my last at the bottom of my previous post.


Now, its another day Bobby. Hope you got some sleep and you're feeling a little more bushy eyed today.

I want to comment on a greater concern that perhaps now surpasses your "passover" of the question I raised from the beginning. (sorry, don't take that offensively. I seriously get a kick out of your catch phrase. It's funny, and I'm not offended in anyway)

This matter of knowledge and truth. I think it definetly extends beyond my beginning question about disfellowship of impurities like instrumental music, and so forth. (And please, always remember that my question was never set forth as an accusation, but as a quest to know where brethren such as yourself, here in AZ, stand and handle such things as Instrumental music among the Lord's churches)

Now this matter of truth is a serious one. It brings into question how we rationalize and logic about God's word and the search for truth. You have fully revealed your stance by the following statements:

"And the standard is not what any one of us believes. The standard is the Word. Any one of us or even all of us may be wrong."

and further stated here...

"Though truth has been fully revealed in Jesus of Nazareth there is not one single human being since the Lord Jesus returned to heaven that has fully grasped that entire truth. Did the Apostles? I ask this in sincerity?? I just read through the Gospels and how often does Jesus lament and wail at their dense understanding, their failure to SEE or HEAR or to grasp ... the answer is frequently."

It seems without a doubt that you believe complete truth is without grasp in any one of God's children. I can't help but categorize this idea with denominationalist who plead for the "agree to disagree, you go your way, I go my way, any one of us could be wrong," attitude.

This concept opposses all that Jesus, the word, and some very faithful brethren who have been true to God's word have, and continue to stand for. I would highly a reconsideration of your stance here, and recommend you to first and foremost the words of Christ (Jhn. 8:32, 7:17), and to the writings of faithful brethren such as Thomas B. Warren and his books like "Logic & the Bible."

You see, your stance opposses rational thought. You question my stance that one can know grasp complete truth on a spiritual matter. Yet, I will turn this around on you and ask you to answer for your proposition. Doesn't your proposition, "that anyone of us could be wrong, and that not one human being can grasp entire truth" demand a complete knowledge of truth in order to propose such a statement?? In other words, how do you make such a proposition without claiming a grasp for entire truth?? You're arguments are without logic Bobby, and they contradict rational thought, as well as Scripture.



A day after my brother's email (above) I sent the following reply

My Reply

Beloved Brother ....,

This will be very short because I have three hundred things to do right now. Let me make this as concise and clear as I can ...

1) You are my brother. I love you. And I refuse to not enjoy the fellowship that God created between us.

2) I think you misunderstand my statement that you quote. The statement has nothing to do with denominational anything. I believe that Jesus Christ and his Word are the ultimate authority. Your understanding of that word nor my understanding is NOT the authority. I submit my understanding to that word and will change as I come to see greater truth. How, my friend, can this can be denominational in your mind confuses me greatly.

3) I believe you are mistaken greatly on Corinthians - which you continue to observe the Passover on. And I am quite familiar with the writings of Thomas B. Warren and actually used his lingo earlier in this correspondence without mentioning his name already by referring to the "remote context" of Rev 2 & 2 Jn 9 ... from his book When is an Example Binding. My reasoning is neither irrational nor unbiblical - as I see it.

I was not intending any ill-will by using the phrase observing the passover. I will not use it again.

4) I believe Jesus is THE truth. He says so explicitly. I believe you and I can know the truth that sets us free. And I am convinced I do know the truth that sets us free. I do not believe, however, that either you or I know ALL truth or know all truth perfectly. So brother ... answer me clearly as you say:

1) do you know all truth? Yes or No?

2) do you know all truth PERFECTLY? Yes or No?

These are the real questions .... The question is not if it is theoretically possible for some human being to know absolute truth absolutely. The question is do YOU know absolute truth absolutely? I am convinced you do not. I am certain I do not. Now if neither you nor I have reached that level of perfection than it stands to reason ... it is logical to infer ... that we both not only could be wrong but likely are wrong on some matters.

THEREFORE the standard of truth is not you, it is not me ... it is the Bible ... which is what I said all along.

3) It is quite interesting that you sort of got defensive (or it appears that way) when I mention the restoration movement and then you turn around and cite the aforementioned Thomas B. Warren and his books. Do you see the irony in that? But if the truth be known Warren is a part of the restoration movement just as much as anyone I mentioned before.

4) Finally for now ... I have never thought evil of you. If I have appeared to so I apologize to you from the bottom of my heart. That was not my intent.

May the Lord bless you and keep you and make his face shine upon you.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine



His Reply
Bobby,

My friend, and I mean that...it doesn't matter which way you want to spin, flip, or twirl your viewpoint with a child of God's arrival to truth. Whether you say full truth cannot be grasped, or you say a believer cannot come to a complete understanding, and is always open to new discovery, is really the same when it comes to practicality. I reject this with all my heart and will continue to remind you that this is exactly what a majority of denominations teach concerning religious truth..."agree to disagree, you go your way, I go my way, any one of us could be wrong," attitude. In fact, it seems almost similar to something called the "new hermeneutic" of neo-orthodoxy.

Why do I reject this? Because the Bible is full of statements from Christ such as John 7:17, and 8:32 on knowing the truth. Jesus is truth, but the word is also the embodiment of Jesus. In other words, the word is truth (John 17:7). You cannot escape John 8:32 so easily.

I beleive also that your understanding of remote context is mistaken. This comes from a misunderstanding of canonization. Here are a few scriptures that I think you should consider: Col. 4:16; 2 Pe. 3:16; 1 Tm. 5:18. The scriptures were copied and cierculated among the churches long before formal canonization. As brother Dave Miller put it: "in fact, impetus for the multipliaction of copies of the New Testament documents existed virtually from the moment they came from the pen of the inspired writer." You might see Bruce M. Metzer's "The Text of the New Testament, 2nd Ed. p. 14, and p. 416 for further evidence on that.

Also observe the following statment, "Consider the parallel situation that exists with the O.T. Early Jews did not have access to all the Old Testament. Yet Jesus and the writers of the N.T. gleaned passages from various locations in the O.T. canon in precisely the same fashion that we do from the N.T.. Jesus treated the Old T. canon as a totality-- a complet body of scripture.

Also consider more from the word of God: Acts 2:40, 42; 5:42; 20:20, 27, 31.
Examine these passages and tell me something, could early Christians have access to a sufficient amount of God's will through oral sources? Paul had preached the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27).

You speak Bobby, and yet do not realize the implications. You treat the 66 books of the word of God as if they aren't interdependant or as if God hadn't intentionally bound them together as a single body of truth, God's complete and total revelation to man. There is one author, the Holy Spirit.

We are not living in a period of progressive revelation as brother Miller put it. We have the complete inspired material from God and we're required to take the whole and interpret it accordingly.

As far as your questions toward me, I will ignore them till you respect mine. I've asked a simple question...

Would you fellowship a church that has been warned, exhorted, and shown the word of God about unauthorized use of IM? Si or No?



My Reply to My Brother
Beloved ....,

I look forward to your leading us in this study. I encourage you to continue studying. I know that I have not arrived at all truth so perhaps I can learn a great deal from you. I remain convinced in the mean time you are more than mistaken on the quoted statement you feel is "denominational" ... send it to brother Miller and get his opinion on it.

Now you are throwing around some really big words: Neo-Orthodoxy and New Hermeneutic ...

You may want to reread those cited texts yourself though beloved brother. And if brother Miller is correct how much time is included in those words "virtually from the moment" the documents came from the pen of the writers?

For example you cite 2 Peter 3.16 but I think u meant v.15 ... from a historical standpoint is it not interesting that either you or Miller cite this text as evidence of canonization from the "virtual" moment (but that is a slippery term so we do not know just how much time is included in it) but from early canonical lists we know that Second Peter itself was quite late before being accepted as one of the apostolic writings. You can read that, btw, also in Metzger. And I ask honestly are you citing Metzger from actually having read him or are you getting this info from a secondary source ... brother The Text of the NT does not have 416 pages. But I refer you to his work The Canon of the New Testament: Its, Origin, Development; and Significance. I have both the works in my office and would be glad to let you examine them ... if you do not have them.

I have answered your questions.

Love you brother but you must be patient with me ...

And btw I do believe in the Scriptures as a complete body. I believe all sheds light on the rest. But the individual text still has to be understood FIRST in its OWN context. Thus Paul in Corinthians is still inspired and authoritative on seeking ground to maintain unity rather than division.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine



This is his Reply
Bobby,

I'm looking at your message here, and it appears it will be the last. From our short discussion, I find you to be a man that enjoys intellectual thought, but I also take you for one who probably fears the possibility of being inferior in knowledge, intellect, and wisdom. Comments such as "I have both the works in my office and would be glad to let you examine them ... if you do not have them..." Tell me alot about a man such as yourself.

I'm a suburban boy Bobby. Never really paid attention much in high school, and I only experience college for a year. I really don't have any interest in appearing intelligent, or knowledgable. Trust me, you won't hurt my feelings by catching me on some misquote of a man-made book, or anything else. I only have one interest: bringing the lost to salvation. This means preaching the word of God in its sound, and healthy wholeness. I feed off passages such as 2 Co. 11:3, "But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." I preach this text with passion in an age that tells us scientific jargon reveals some kind of intelligence. That evolution is truth because of it's intelligent thought. This of course has spilled over into religion, just like everything else has and continues to do through the ages. The world always will have the upper hand in influence.

It didn't take me long to discover your over-complicated interpretation of God's word. When a guy has to play mental gymnastics with the text, he is up to something. And it's never any good. That is why I continue to ask the question that has never been answered: Would you fellowship a church that has been warned, exhorted, and shown the word of God about unauthorized use of IM?

I continue to put forth scripture such as Jhn. 8:32, 7:17, 17:7; Col. 4:16; 2 Pe. 3:16 (YES, 2 Pe. 3:16, notice that Paul was already calling the things Paul wrote SCRIPTURE); 1 Tm. 5:18; Acts 2:40, 42; 5:42; 20:20, 27, 31. And without shame or hesitation: Rev. 2 & 2 Jn. 1:9 All this to defend truth, the canonization, and proper interpretation of Scripture.

I will continue to reason with you, and challenge you to realize the implications of your stance on truth, and interpretation.

I will continue to challenge you to answer questions that demand a yes or no.

Why? For the sake of love. For you? Yes of course... but maybe more so that even if I can't reason with you.

My words to you Bobby are special, because Jam. 3:1ff reveals a stricter judgment for those who teach. I think you should already know better, beccause you spend time in the word, and you know what the text says. I would looove to have fellowship over disfellowship ANY DAY. However, I won't do it at the expense of twisting God's word, and disgracing His command to disfellowship. This is what is done though when brethren declare "remote context" on 2 Jn. 1:9 and Rev. 2 and say that 2 Jn. 1:9 only refers to the doctrine of not confessing Jesus as Lord. This is false Bobby. Remember Jesus and the apostles who proof-texted the Old Testament themselves and treated the O.T. as a complete body of scripture.

Yes, I will do the study. I will lead it as soon as you answer and respect my question: Would you fellowship a church that has been warned, exhorted, and shown the word of God about unauthorized use of IM?



My Reply a Couple Days Later ...
Beloved Brother ....,

I am dismayed by this response. I assure you beloved brother that I take my task as a teacher of the word with INCREDIBLE seriousness.

.... how have I offended you? I never claimed to be smarter than anyone else and have asked you repeatedly to be my teacher. I am willing to learn. All I have done is confess that I do not know all truth perfectly and I confessed that I do not believe you do either.

I dont think I have ever tried to appear intelligent brother. I have no need to impress you nor anyone else. I have not tried to impress you except with Paul's example to the Corinthians. I have not sought your accolades ... I am truly "just me." I have NO FEAR that there are folks out there a whole lot smarter than me brother. I am near the bottom of the divorced preacher totem pole brother ...

For the record, I apologize that I offended you by suggesting you were in error on Metzger, that "man made book." But in my own defense on this point, brother you are the one who suggested I consult that "man made book" giving the appearance that it was and is a reliable source of information. My question sought to learn if you actually read the work. And all "man made books" are not bad brother. You, not me, recommended (by implication) Metzger and previous to that Thomas B. Warren's "man made books."

Now brother the last thing I desire is for bad blood to be between us. We are brethren. Some final random thoughts: I dont think I have interpreted scripture in an overcomplicated way. Everything I said about Corinthians comes straight out of Acts 18 and the Corinthian correspondence itself. I do not believe I disgraced God's commands. I have no problem with citing scriptures ... even lots of them. But context rules brother. At least that is what we have always said.

So ... blessings be with you.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine



The Next Day I followed the above reply up with this one

Greetings to you from Alabama ... I will be home on Saturday. I'm enjoying my time with Tifani and the kids but we have not found resolution in court yet. This, as you know, was the entire purpose of our visit. I hope we are on for our luncheon.

Now ...., my beloved brother, I hope and pray that you do not harbor any ill feelings towards me. As of yet I do not think you have accused me of false doctrine just overly complex biblical interpretation ... something I will ask you to clarify in a moment. But in the mean time our fellowship was purchased with the outrageously expensive blood of Jesus Christ so I am praying that you are not going to sever that bond between us. I don't believe you will though.

My question is, Just how have I been guilty of overly complex biblical interpretation? I think my reading of First Corinthians would be confirmed by consulting most any commentary out there: from the time line I gave to the multiple letters and visits to that city by Paul and his associates. Even most basic NT Surveys will confirm this outline. It is not overly complex rather it comes from reading the information within the letters themselves. This historical exegesis has been the bread and butter of sound brethren all along. You provided a link to Dave Miller (and I have watched his first lecture and plan on watching all of them) so I feel free to provide this classic summary of good rules of biblical interpretation by Alexander Campbell: Principles of Interpretation

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/cs/ac4c2.html

These basic rules have been the backbone of exegesis all along. Understanding a document in its context (date, occasion, etc), understanding the argument and words within a given context are bedrock foundations for objective bible study. Those specific rules are the very ones I appeal to for interpreting 1 Cor 8 ... asking those basic questions the demand answering ...

1) Who are those with Knowledge
2) What did those with Knowledge KNOW?
3) Who are those without knowledge
4) What did those without knowledge NOT know?

Those questions, every last one of them, are answered in the text itself. We know what those "in the know" knew ... :-) { you knew i was going to do that didnt you!!! LOL!} We also know, from the text itself, what those who didnt know ... didnt know. Further we also know what Paul did in that situation.

Now asking us to read the text itself, and dealing with said text is not overly complex. In fact it is plain common sense in my opinion.

This is something we have always done brother. We insist that context matters. When our Baptist friends go to Acts 16.30-31 and say all you need to do is "believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved." What has been "our" response ... we say "you left the jail house too soon!" ;-) We say to them that context matters because v.31 is not the end of the story. We point out that Paul then spoke the word of the Lord and they were baptized. Context rules, context explains that v.31 is true it just means more than what some say it means. If we insist on this principle with others we need to heed it ourselves.

Just a few thoughts. Look forward to seeing you brother.

Blessings,
Bobby Valentine



His Reply to Me
Hello,

Hope you are all doing well. I'm not sure if there was a preachers meeting?

Either way, my visit would've been short. Bobby, you are right. I haven't accused you or anyone of false doctrine, but at the same time you have not really given me reason not to believe there is a sense of liberalism here. Why do I say that? Because there is an omission to answer a straigtht forward question on the disfellowship of instrumental music. I guess I would really get myself in trouble if I asked about MDR? Furthermore, your viewpoint Bobby on truth is absolutely wrong. Anyone of us could be wrong? That is false to the bone. There are facts about the gospel that one can know undeniably (John 8:32; Eph. 5:17).

I guess what I'm saying is, give me a reason to believe that I'm surrounding myself with brethren conservative to the Word of God. I think that's a perfectly honorable question for a preacher to ask. I'm in a position right now where I need assistance and encouragment in the area. I can't afford to immerse myself in warfare yet. Not that I'm not willing for the sake of saving a soul, but its a battle that I know wouldn't end soon.

Therefore, I'm ending this conversation until you can give me a straightforward answer on whether or not you would disfellowship a church that has been warned, and rebuked, and taught the truth on instrumental music, yet they continue to practice. It would help too, if I knew brethren in the area that followed Christ's teaching on MDR. The Bible teaches divorce is a sin unless a spouse committs fornication. And a person who has been divorced for any other reason than fornication cannot marry again. (Mat. 19:1-9).

Hopefully, you can understand where I come from. I'm not in a position of warfare right now. In fact, I need to avoid it. Disfellowship of instrumental music, and MDR, etc., are issues that are serious and I believe they demand disfellowship, especially teachers who do not teach these truths.

No, I'm not looking to draw lines Bobby. Understand that I'm looking to avoid the necessity of doing at this time. Would I? Of course, but not until I've taught in love, and longsuffering for as much as I could bear. I just don't want to go through that process right now while I'm settling into a new congregation, and especially when I'm not sure anyone would care to listen.



My Reply Today Later ... After I had some Coffee
....,

Greetings beloved brother. I pray that you are doing well and you and your bride are experiencing the all the shalom our Abba can give.

I hope and pray you will meet for our next lunch date. The Lord commanded that we love one another. His servant John exhorted us to "love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action" (1 Jn.3.18). He tells us later that if we love "God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us" (4.12).

I confess dear brother that your last communication puzzled me. What is with language like "I can't afford to immerse myself in warfare yet." Warfare? YET? Such militant language is strange to my ears especially in light of your confession of not having a desire to draw lines. I do not know how to interpret that language .... in a way that sounds "loving" and SEEKING fellowship and unity rather than lines in the sand.

Now beloved brother on the other matters you mention. I answered your question. And for the record there are "facts about the gospel that one can know undeniably." I affirm that. But why cite Jn 8.32 or Eph 5.17 for that "truth?" What are the "facts" of the Gospel? Paul tells us in no uncertain terms in 1 Cor 15.1-4. The Fact of Jesus; the Fact of his Death; the Fact of his burial; the Fact of his resurrection. It was not THESE facts that those poor Corinthians did not have "knowledge" of in chapter 8. They knew Jesus died for them (v.11). It was other "truth" they did not know or understand or grasp.

You and I agree that we can know the facts of the Gospel. And we do. You and I have not, however, been discussing the facts of the Gospel. Indeed it was only upon those FACTS that Paul retained fellowship with those doctrinally erroneous brethren in 1 Cor 8 and v.11 makes this explicitly clear. They believed in Jesus but they were not clear on monotheism!

As for MDR I am not sure the preachers in Tucson have ever discussed the subject so I honestly do not know what the views are of those guys. I suspect that we all hate divorce and believe that divorce is sin except for the reasons outlined by Jesus in Mt 5 & 19. I know from personal experience that divorce is a horrid evil. And I know WHY God "hates divorce."

Nobody here uses IM or advocates it.

Christian love -- that is love that is like Christ's love -- should be the bedrock of our relationship to one another .... I am striving for that. And I am sure that you believe you are too. Loving each other is just as much sound doctrine as IM perhaps more so ... so it would behoove us to go the extra mile in love with one another. In obedience to Paul's apostolic example with the Corinthians.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine



His Reply to Me

Okay Bobby... Just answer the question and I'd love to discuss things with you further...

Would you disfellowship a church that has been rebuked, exhorted, and warned? Yes or No?

...sorry, just so that you don't pick me apart on the specifics regarding the question. I'm asking about a church using IM.

And just so we're clear Bobby, I don't want to discuss anything else until this question is answered. I know what the Bible says about love, and trust me, I have nothing but love in this conversation. You don't like my terms? I'm sorry you feel that way, but there is nothing wrong with them.

"This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 19 having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, 20 of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. "1 Tim 1:18-20 (NKJV)

"Such militant language is strange to my ears..." Really? Then the Bible must be strange to your ears also. No sarcasm intended, but I don't appreciate your accusation about my unlovingness. I love, but I don't use love as a front to make myself look good or put another person in a position where I can make them feel bad for charging me with straightforward answers. Perhaps I should accuse you of this, but it would be against my conscience to judge your heart when its not my place. Nonetheless I will warn you that if you are you had better be very careful. My friend, I know when I'm doing things in love and when I'm not. But, lets just leave that to God to judge. I do love you, but I will not stand for false doctrine, and I will be straightfoward with men who stand in a position such as yourself.

I don't really understand your confusion about what I said "there are facts you can know about the gospel." Perhaps you are getting stuck into the precision of my language again. That may be my fault, so let me clarify. "TRUTH" can be known. The "Gospel" is truth, and it is the will of God, therefore it can be FULLY known, and FULLY understood, BECAUSE of Jhn. 8:32 & Eph. 5:17. NOT just the death, burial, and resurrection. But also what to do to be saved, worship, church organization, and especially DISFELLOWSHIP. This is what my question is to you....

Would you disfellowship a church that has been rebuked, exhorted, and warned about IM? Yes or No?

Please respect my request and withhold yourself from discussing anything else with me until you answer this question with a solid yes or no. It's a black and white question Bobby, and it demands a black and white answer. If you can't then I have to conclude that you must believe the Bible is somehow unclear on this matter, or you are afraid, ashamed, or something to give your answer.



My Reply a day Later

Beloved Brother ....,

I did not judge you brother. My final paragraph said that I was striving for Christ - ian love for you and I believe you think the same thing. What I did say was that the language of warfare seems incongruous with the stated desire not to sever fellowship. As I read through you post I get the feeling (and I could be wrong and I hope that I am to be honest but this is how it came across to me) you have already decided we (PV) or at least me are unworthy of your fellowship.

It seems to me that Paul's appeal to the metaphor of "fighting the good fight" and being a good soldier is not license for using each other for target practice. Endurance and not giving up seem to be what he is appealing too ... not soldiers use of artillery on each other. Now what exactly did Hymaneaus and Alexander deny my brother. Paul mentions Hymaneaus again in 2 Timothy. They teach that the resurrection has already taken place (2.17-18). These false teachers in Timothy seem to love to argue and lust for controversy. See 1 Timothy 6. 4-5 ... they have a "morbid craving for controversy." In the context of making an example of Hymaneaus again the apostle places him and Philetus in the larger picture of godly or spirit handling words and arguing. Look at 2.14 all the way down to 26. The admonition to

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth" (2.15)

is preceded by the command to avoid arguing and is followed by the same exhortation to avoid godless chatter. At that point Paul gives the example of Hymaneaus, a man who taught deadly error on one of the facts of the Gospel, his godless chatter would make those listening to it unclean (that is Paul's point by appealing to the utensils illustration). When Paul finishes that illustration he returns to the concern of v.14, which of course he never left. That is the concern that the disciple, the soldier of Christ, pursues love and peace and has nothing to do with "stupid and senseless controversies" (v. 23) and correct others in a spirit of gentleness. Paul makes it very clear that it is the unstable false teachers that yearn for conflict.

My point here is that Hymaneaus did not just have a wrong opinion. He left the basis of the Gospel itself. He and his companions loved to fight and the implication of 2 Tim 2.15 is that the word of truth was being used in ways that produced fights and Paul tells Timothy that is a sure sign of spiritual sickness. No one at PV is guilty of anything remotely like Hymaneus, Alexander or Philetus. The brothers here deserve respect just like you deserve respect.

Now concerning knowing all truth and fully grasping it. I have said before and I will say again that I know that I do not know everything and I am certain you do not either (no offense brother). Now if one has to know "all truth" and "fully grasp" it to be either saved or in fellowship then the apostle paul himself was wrong. But I dont believe he was do you? The Apostle tells us what the Gospel is (1 Cor 15) and he said the Gospel saved. This same apostle makes is abundantly clear in 1 Cor 8 that some members of the Corinthian church did not know "all truth" and they certainly did not "fully grasp" all that truth and they are both saved and in fellowship. Beloved brother .... this is the plain as the nose on your face reading of the text.

And there are churches and/or groups that I do not fellowship. I am not aware of any passage in the NT about disfellowshipping a church but there are those who I believe have indeed departed from the faith. Whoever they are I will love them but I cannot retain fellowship as I understand the word to mean. But most of the NT teaching on this subject is within a given congregation. A divisive person I will, as you say, teach and exhort, and I have had to call a person or two out in my 20 years of preaching. A most unpleasant and distasteful thing brother.

We are dedicated to search the scriptures, to learn to handle the word of truth in a manner that is worthy of the Spirit of Christ. We love as Jesus did and suffer with our brothers as Paul did the Corinthians.

Shalom brother,
Bobby Valentine



My Brother's Reply to Me
Bobby,

I don't think you make any sense about what you said in regards to disfelloshiping a church. If you can disfellowship an individual, than why not a church (a larger body of Christians, who follow and practice the same false doctrine). Would it really matter if I phrased the question this way?...

Would you fellowship a church of Christ, that follows all the doctrines of Christ, except, they practice instrumental music, and they've been warned, exhorted, and taught concerning the matter, but the whole church continues to worship in such a manner?

I have every reason to believe you are avoiding the question. It seems you are almost playing games. Also, Bobby, I would never consider you or anyone unworthy of my fellowship. The question is, do you have fellowship with the Lord's doctrine? If not, then you are not in the Lord. How can I have fellowship with that which is not in the Lord? You may want to put IM on a non-basis of the gospel level. However, you would be wrong. IM is on the basis of the gospel level. Christ would call IM "vain worship" (Col. 3:17).

If I do not recieve a straight "yes or no" in your next reply (should you reply again), then Bobby, I wish not to have this discussion any more. This will not result in a "disfellowship," but the Scriptures do teach that anyone who doesn't bring the doctrine of Christ should not be greeted (2 Jn. 1:9ff). So, in truth, God would consider this a matter disfellowship. However, when it be possible, I would go through every avenue to bring you or anyone else on this subject to the knowledge of truth, before delivering such a one to Satan.

IM is wrong Bobby. The Lord's church and members of her cannot have fellowship with those who worship God vainly with IM. Should a church fall into IM, it would also demand a disfellowship (Rev. 2, a chapter in the N.T. that might answer your question about passages on disfellowship of churches).




My Reply Two Days Later again after Coffee
Beloved Brother ....,

Can I ask you something brother. Do you ever stop to ask how you come across. Perhaps it is just me but you come across as one who has in fact decided who is and who is not worthy of your fellowship. You state, and have stated, you are not seeking a reason to sever fellowship (I stress the word seeking) but as I read you and "hear" you in my head that is exactly what it appears you are doing. You have stated that I am not guilty of any false doctrine yet you continue to erect hurdles for me to jump. Why brother? Why do you take this course of action? Why do you set up a court to hand out rulings on men you have met once?

I ask you in all seriousness beloved brother is this what Paul would do?? What biblical right do you have to address me in the manner in which you have? I am your brother period. You are my brother period. Why dont you begin to act like you and I are part of the family of Christ. I am not your enemy ... Recall how Paul began his address to the Corinthians both 1 and 2 Corinthians. He thanked God for the GRACE given to THEM!!

You dont like it that i will not acquiesce to your demand for a simple yes or no. That is ok brother but I did answer the question. And my answering your question with a question is a good biblical - in fact a good Jesus way of doing things. Why didnt Jesus just say "from heaven" when the teachers of the Law demanded to know "by what authority" he did these things? He declared he would tell them IF they answered his question. They didnt ... so he didnt. I asked you some basic questions about a biblical passage and you refused to answer. I refused your simply yes or no but I did answer your question. More than once I might add.

Now my fellowship with the Lord does not depend on my reply to your questions about IM. And for you to make those kinds of hurdles to unity brother takes you way beyond apostolic example or teaching. How is instrumental music more fundamental to the Gospel then monotheism and yet look what Paul did in 1 Cor 8!!??

You know brother ...., love is part of the doctrine of Christ. And it is not a shield to hide behind. It is the heart of the matter. the men that serve the Lord here in AZ are good men. They deserve respect brother. You may find beloved brother that they are dedicated servants. You might find that they are godly men. You might discover that they love the Lord and his word every bit as you do. And believe it or not brother you may find out that you just might be able to learn something from them.

Why dont you and I start fresh and commit to the apostolic word to make EVERY effort to maintain the bond of unity in the spirit of peace. Paul did this brother. He went the second and third mile with the saints at Corinth. He did the same in Jerusalem in Acts 21 when he offered animal sacrifices to demonstrate his unity with the Jewish brother and sisters. Loving is long suffering brother. Love forbears. Love seeks reasons to hold my hand rather than rejecting my hand.



Later that Day I Received this Reply:

Bobby,

I will not play these games. Again you can accuse me of many things, but the Lord knows my heart. I asked a simple question that you have NOT answered. That is fine though, because you've said more than enough for me. Trust me, I know where you stand with things. You also continue to repeat things that I've clarified for you over and over. That im seeking to draw lines, etc etc. Bobby I've observed ur spirit of letter and things are clear for me. You have ur ideas of who I am, what my heart is like, and ur own personal bible interpretation. Ur on a personal agenda to prove something in this conversation, seeking to be some kind of teacher guru to me. Bobby, in the words of Paul, it is a SMALL thing to be judged by you. No Bobby, I will not accept brotherhood merely because u call urself a brother. What makes a brother is one who is faithful to the family of God. I have every right to question everyones stances on things, before accepting brotherhood (1 jn. 4:1ff). Wouldn't you Advise the same to someone looking for the Lords church? You wouldn't just tell them to look for the name outside the building. The only thing you've shown me is a name, and a liberalness for truth and fellowship, and an unwillingness to reveal yourself. Don't put yourself as our Lord and Savior. He did reveal Himself in plain terms over and over to His disciples and many times plainly with his enemy. Nevertheless, you've shown enough for me. I'm going to depart from this conversation now. I hope the time will come when we can sit down and study the scriptures together. Until then I wish not to discuss this any further.



A Few Days Later I Sent this Reply

Brother ....,

I was not aware that I was playing games with you. I told you before that though I try not to take MYSELF that seriously I do take the Lord and his word with deadly seriousness.

I have never judged your heart. Never. I do not have insight into your heart. I ask that you remember that same principle when interacting with me too. I have no idea of who you are or judged what type of person you are either. I have attempted to assume the best of you just as Paul commands. I have taken the time this evening to go back and reread our ENTIRE exchange and I do not believe that I have been unkind to you at any point. If I have behaved in an unchristian manner than I apologize to you.

You assert, brother, that I have some sort of personal agenda. What might that be brother? If I have one, my agenda is two fold: 1) to have the fellowship of my preaching brothers; and 2) to study the word together. You simply do not know me well enough to come up with any other conclusion.

And on the matter of my supposed "personal interpretation" ... what do you mean by that? Do you mean that I have invented it? Do you mean that I have twisted 1 Corinthians? Yet beloved brother I reject the accusation. I believe I could walk into my office at this very moment and pull down half a dozen standard scholarly commentaries on 1 Cor and they would support my so called personal interpretation. It is not "my" interpretation rather it is an interpretation that is based squarely on letting 1 and 2 Corinthians speak for themselves. One the matter of 1 Cor 8, which you have not touched with a ten foot pole, how do you interpret those words to mean something other than what they say?? Some knew the truth (knowledge) and some did not know the truth (did not have knowledge and did not grasp it). If language means ANYTHING brother other than some willy nilly pulling something out of a magic hat then there were those at Corinth who knew and those who didnt ... what they did not know was of considerable more importance than IM. Yet Paul FELLOWSHIPPED THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am pleased it is a small thing to be judged by me ... especially when I never have. Now once again we are brothers. It is a fact of birth brother and there is nothing you can say or do about it.

I'm glad you brought up the disciples again. Yes Jesus did reveal himself to them. Over and over and over again. According to Luke 24 he spent even his last moments teaching them yet their joy was mingled with "disbelief" (v. 41) and according to Matthew 28 while they worshipped some "doubted" (v. 17). This reminds me of our previous exchanges ... there is nothing wrong with the "truth" but there is something wrong with many of us humans. We are sometimes slow to understand.

It may have been a slip of your keyboard beloved brother but yes I have a "liberalness for truth and fellowship." The truth of Jesus and his cross are the most important things in my life. I am open to the truth. i seek the truth. I pray for God to teach me everytime i open the word. The prayer on my lips is that of the Psalmist, "open my eyes, so I may behold wonderous things out of your torah" (119.18) and "teach me, O LORD, the way" (v.33). Yes every time I open that grand old book, brother, I expect God to blow my mind ... because I have lived long enough to know that I dont know everything. I've been wrong about stuff that I KNEW I could not be wrong about!!

As for being liberal in fellowship, beloved brother dont you agree that is what Paul was with the Corinthians? Even if I am mistaken on chapter 8, the Corinthians were one messed up church. And Paul loved them, he praised God for them, he was in fellowship with them. Let me remind you yet again of his words:

"I give thanks to my God always for you BECAUSE OF THE GRACE OF GOD ..."

"He will strengthen you to the end, so that you may be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by him you were called into the FELLOWSHIP (koinonia) of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord"

1 Cor 1.4, 8-9

I will not turn my back from you .... I will not withdraw my hand. I would have to disobey the example of Paul to do so. I will not.

You say I have "revealed" myself. Well I pray to our Father (the Father that made you and I brothers ... not step brothers!) that what was "revealed" is pleasing in his sight. I pray that it is something that is reflective of the love he has for the world, he has for his people and the love Paul had for those who were in the family too. I am sure I have failed miserably but that brother is what i hope was revealed.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine



This Reply was in the Mail the Next Day

Alright Bobby,

Well, I'm a man of my word. I will no longer have this discussion with you.

You are right though, you are a brother, but a brother that I see contrary to the doctrine of Christ, and I think it best to practice a principle of avoidance right now (Rom. 16:17ff).

However, I truly hope someday to sit and study the Scriptures with you, because it isn't my wish that it ends in this manner by any means.



I Sent this Reply the Next Day ... After a Spoonful of Sugar!

Beloved brother ...,

What do you want me to say? Wow! Is about all I can say. Do you not believe you have slightly overstepped any biblical authority here? On what biblical grounds do you have for taking this "principle of avoidance?" You cite Romans 16.17 ... So I ask what division have I caused or promoted? To be quite frank and honest you, dear brother, are the only one who has come in here like a bull and have sought to cause division.

Dear brother you are on record as saying I am not teaching false doctrine. So how beloved brother do you think you can explain your action to the one who is actually on the throne?

Read your words to me brother then read once again 1 Cor 1.4,8-9. Read your words and ask did Paul practice this "principle of avoidance" with the Corinthians? Where is that long suffering brother? You think after meeting one or two times and a few short emails that you have the biblical right to, for all intents and purposes, disfellowship me. Arrogance is a poor companion for one who professes to be the Lord's servant brother ....

For some reason my mind keeps drifting back to the words of Paul to the Galatians

... serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "love your neighbor as yourself." If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other" (5.13ff)

Something, and someone, other than Christ is being honored in your actions beloved brother. Your zeal for fighting is not what Paul calls us too.

The work of the flesh is among other things discord, jealousy, and dissension. I have walked with you and talked with you and held my hand out to you and you have for all intents and purposes spat on it. But the fruit of the one true Spirit is love, peace, patience ... are these things the aroma of your communications ... especially the last one?

I refuse to withdraw my hand brother. It will not happen. We are brothers. Not half brothers. Not step brothers. Not cousins. We are brothers. Paul taught explicitly and by his actions that fellowship is more important than your little personal axe grinding.

So I will end with a quote from our spiritual father in the faith, Barton W. Stone in item 7 of the Last Will and Testament ...

"We WILL, that preachers and people, cultivate a spirit of mutual forebearance; pray more and dispute less ..."

That is my intention. I am in complete and total fellowship with the Triune God. I am in fellowship with the brothers in this fair city. I AM in fellowship with you. You can choose to behave in ways that deny that absolute truth but that will not negate that absolute truth.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More