Is there any one willing to debate the authorization issue with E. Lee (I am assuming that E. Lee would be willing to formally debate this issue - Please correct me if I assume too much Lee)?

I would like to see this issue formally debated, and I believe there are others that would also.

It would be impossible to debate the instrument issue without debating this issue first.

-- Anonymous, November 06, 2001

Answers

My 2 cents! I rarely post but I feel compelled in a way. It seems modern day phariseeism is alive and well. I thought, I was called to love God, and love my neighbor as the only laws I was under. I thought that I was required to be faithful until death, and to keep free from sin. But this "authorization issue" is ludicrous. I read the posts and it is an issue, to me, that drives people away from God. Continually I see responses from E. Lee that would take me hours to write, and I refuse to read them because I see it is not worth my time to read his so many words. So would a debate work? I doubt it. We would lose the point in so many words.

WE have freedom in Christ. Prohibition by omission is as idiotic as the pharisees counting the mishnah and the talmud as the equivalent of holy writ.

We are not under law and freedom in Christ says, to me, as long as we do not sin, and as long as we are acting with propiety, we have the freedom to worship as we choose. With an instrument or not, in a building or not, with a paid preacher or not!

I don't think a "debate" would work as most minds on this forum are all ready made up (and yes mine is - I choose freedom in Christ, not a new law that binds).

My stance if you know me, is typical for me, it leans towards grace. I will err to the side of grace most every time as opposed to law and judgements.

So brothers and sisters don't take Christ off the cross and give us a new law. Pardon my stance little Sis, but I do see where a debate would do more good than just stating opinions on this forum. Actually I have never seen and I may have missed if it happened, someone on this forum actually having a change of heart and/or mind.

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2001

I must agree with Brother Bill on this one. At least from what I have seen on this forum, the chances of a debate changing anyones mind on the authorization issue is slim to none.

Maybe a debate for the sake of debate? Maybe so all can see the arguments to be made.

I am convinced that silence gives us freedom to choose, provided we don't choose that which would go against what God has prohibited. Outside of that, we are free the choose how we worship God. I will not change my mind or beliefs on this. I believe I have heard all the arguments from "the other side" and they fall quite short.

Would a debate like this, on the authorization/silence issue, or the instrument issue (just a small part of the overall issue) do any good? Outside of sharing with folks who might not have ever heard the arguments, I don't think so.

Just my opinion.

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2001

Sister D. Lee:

You have said:

“Is there any one willing to debate the authorization issue with E. Lee (I am assuming that E. Lee would be willing to formally debate this issue - Please correct me if I assume too much Lee)?”

I am at work right now and haven’t much time to respond at the moment. But I wanted to respond to your words written in Parenthesis. You have “assumed” correctly. There is not any subject related to the truth of the gospel of Christ our Lord that E. Lee Saffold is unwilling to formally debate. And this issue concerning our need for “authorization” from Christ, who is the head of the church, for all that we do in worship and service to him is one that I would be happy to formally debate with anyone willing to state their proposition clearly. And anyone willing to agree to a set of rules and guidelines for the discussion that allows both sides to be heard fairly and objectively.

And you are also correct that the issue of instrumental music, as well as many other issues, cannot be resolved until this one is resolved. And it should be resolved from the word of God and not the opinions of men. For the word of God is our only rule of faith and practice in the church of Christ serving under our Lord Jesus Christ who is the supreme and ultimate authority in the church for he is indeed the “head of the church” (Col. 1:18). And he is the author of eternal salvation to all them that OBEYS him. (Heb. 5:8,9).

I appreciate your desire to hear this subject debated in a formal way and will be happy to engage in such with anyone interested in doing so. Such a person seeking to engage in such need only come into this thread and state that such is their desire. And then contact me via email or call me on the phone. My home phone number is (contact by email). My Cell phone number is: (contact by email) and my office number is (contact by email) If they agree to discuss this issue in a formal debate we will arrange for propositions that both sides will either affirm or deny and we will agree upon the guidelines and rules that we will follow. Every word will be established via email sent to each other and copied to our chosen moderators. So that “every word can be established” and we will agree within two weeks upon the time for the debate to take place in this forum and we will announce it in the forum and encourage everyone to listen in.

So, Sister D. Lee, we wait to see if anyone is willing to discuss this matter that you would like to see discussed in a formal debate in this forum. And I am more than aware that you are not the only one reading this forum that would be interested in such a formal debate of this issue.

I am still praying for you that our Lord will be with you and bountifully bless you in body and spirit.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

(note from Duane: E. Lee, I deleted the phone numbers for your safety... there are a lot of sickos out there in cyperspace who have nothing better to do than deluge you with phone calls, and some who would even look up your address with your phone number and mail stuff or even visit. I would suggest if they are interested that they begin with an email and you proceed from there)

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2001

D. Lee,

If you're really interested in this debate, there are plenty of them available in print format and probably some on the web. There is nothing new that can be said here.

There is no one who holds to E. Lee's position on this that can be consistent. They have no "authorization" for pews, sound systems, pitch pipes, carpeting, church vans, Sunday Schools, communion trays, bound Bibles....need I go on?? They choose what they want to be "authorized" and what they don't based on their own legalistic and unbiblical assumptions. A debate is a complete waste of time.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2001

Sister D. Lee:

Brother Davis does not like your suggestion and he says:

“D. Lee, If you're really interested in this debate, there are plenty of them available in print format and probably some on the web. There is nothing new that can be said here.”

Indeed, Brother Davis is correct in stating that there are plenty of such debates in print but We do doubt if there are plenty of them that specifically take up opposing propositions on the specific subject of “authorization”. But even if there were hundreds of them it would not prove his assertion that “there is nothing new that can be said here”. No one can really know that for certain until a debate is completed in this forum. Then our readers can compare, if they like, and see if anything “new” was said. But, it is a poor excuse indeed for one to avoid debates solely on the grounds that nothing “new” will be said. If that were a good reason to avoid debates many subjects would simply be debated once or twice in the history of man and never repeated because nothing “new” could be expected to be said. But, the truth must be taught to every generation and the battles fought hundreds of years ago often erupt again and must be discussed again even though nothing new will be said. And for many, who have never read the debates of the past and do not understand the circumstances that brought the subjects into focus might very well hear some things that THEY have not heard before. But, as we pointed out before truth does not change. And the fact that truth is often challenged means that it must be defended every time it is challenged and we should not read a debate looking for “something new” but to come to a knowledge of the truth which is never “new” but ever remains the same.

Then he says:

“There is no one who holds to E. Lee's position on this that can be consistent.”

Well, that statement is really not something “new” now is it? But Brother Davis finds it important to repeat it anyway, doesn’t he? What would be “new” would be for Brother Davis to actually make some reasonable attempt to prove that this old and often repeated assertion is in fact true, now wouldn’t it? Brother Davis cannot prove that that E. Lee Saffold has been inconsistent in the least on this matter and he is even unwilling to engage in a formal debate of the subject because he knows that he cannot prove that we are inconsistent.

Then he says:

“ They have no "authorization" for pews, sound systems, pitch pipes, carpeting, church vans, Sunday Schools, communion trays, bound Bibles....need I go on??”

Well, that is another fine assertion for which he has no proof. If he wishes to engage us in a formal debate of this subject we will be more than happy to show “authorization” for anything that we do in the worship and service of Christ our Lord. Which would include several of the things mentioned in his above list. And he would be welcome, in such a debate, to “go on” and list all of the things that we practice in the worship and service of Christ in the church of Christ and we will be happy to either show authorization for it or cease the practice of it. If he were willing to engage in such a debate he would indeed find the “need to go on” in his search for things that we practice which we do not have authority from Christ our Lord to do. And his search would end in futility for we always ensure that what we do is authorized in the scriptures or we will not practice it. So, it is clear from this fact alone that it is quite likely that Brother Davis might indeed learn something “new” to him should he be willing to engage in the debate that you suggest. But then again it may not be new to him after all. He may know full well that we can show authority for all that we practice and he does not want to be placed in a position where he would have to answer our arguments concerning such things because he knows that he has no answer.

Then he says:

“ They choose what they want to be "authorized" and what they don't based on their own legalistic and unbiblical assumptions.”

Well, notice, Sister D. Lee, that again Brother Davis makes an assertion for which he is unable to offer any proof, doesn’t he? If he wished to enter this debate and take that assertion as his proposition we will be more than able to deny it. But he is unable to prove what he has said above and for that reason he is unwilling to enter into a formal debate making such ridiculous and unsubstantiated assertions, now isn’t he?

We sincerely believe that we have scriptural authority from Christ for all that we do in the worship and service of Christ our Lord and we are prepared to prove that in the formal debate that you request that we have in this forum. And if Brother Davis wishes to try and prove his above unsupported assertions in such a debate he has my phone numbers and he can contact me and arrange for a debate on these matters whenever he likes, now can’t he? But so far all we have from him is empty assertions and needless insults. If he could do any better than this he would have no problem with debating the subject, now would he?

It does indeed seem to me Sister D. Lee that we are the only ones that are showing any respect for your good suggestion. Tell me, beloved sister, does it not make you wonder WHY?

Then he says:

“A debate is a complete waste of time.”

Isn’t that a pathetic comment? What he means is that a “formal debate is a waste of time” for even he often enters this form to “debate” various issues, including this one, in an informal way and he does not consider his unsupported assertions in his discussions to be a waste of time. But a formal debate, where both parties to the discussion are required to follow agreed upon guidelines and are required to answer the questions asked of them and respond to all arguments made by the opposite side would indeed be a waste of time for Brother Davis. For he has shown nothing more in this forum than his complete inability to give evidence to support his assertions or answer the arguments that have been put to him. But such a debate would not be a waste of time for those seeking to learn the truth about these issues and Brother Davis is completely unable to prove other wise. Debates are generally not a waste of time for those who have never seen or heard them. But for those who have little hope of sustaining their propositions it does indeed seem to them that debating is a waste of time. But we agree with something that Brother Alexander Campbell once said. He said, “a weeks debating was worth a year’s preaching”. And he was talking about debates of subjects that had been debated many times over again and again. Debates on fundamental issues like baptism for the remission of sins, which is another topic that Brother Davis would consider it a “waste of his time to debate”.

It is often true that those who have not the truth often fear and avoid fair, reasonable, and honorable debate, don’t they? The sectarians in Alabama and Georgia have learned, the hard way we might add that it is wise for them to avoid debating. And it seems that some of my brethren, like Brother Davis, have learned in much the same way to avoid debates as well, haven’t they?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2001

Barry - I appreciate what you said. It is amazing how people who belive in prohibition by omission can justify the many things that don't have the NT seal of approval.

E. Lee - you prove my point time and again. Is it possible for you to speak to an issue with short and succinct answers. Your words are an overload. You have dominated this thread: as in there are 7 posts and your two by quantity of words are at least twice more than the other 5. Just consider, you might be heard more if you chose an abridged version of your own answers. Just a thought.

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2001

Brother Umstetter:

You have said:

“Barry - I appreciate what you said. It is amazing how people who belive in prohibition by omission can justify the many things that don't have the NT seal of approval.”

Brother Umstetter that is a fine assertion for which you have not the ability to prove it is true. If you would like to engage in this debate and attempt to prove that we have “many things” that do not have the “New Testament” seal of approval you are welcome to do it. And if you can prove that we do anything that is not authorized in the New Testament we promise to stop doing them. But you are a long way from accomplishing that task, now aren’t you? So, do tell us just why you are not willing to engage in this debate since you think it is so easy to show that we practice “many things that do not have New Testament approval”? Are you simply afraid that you cannot prove your above unsupported assertion? Perhaps you would like to debate the issue of authorization as our good sister D. Lee has suggested?

Then you say:

“E. Lee - you prove my point time and again.”

If your point has ever been proven at all, Brother Umstetter, someone beside yourself would have to do it for you have failed miserably to do so. But the truth is that you cannot even prove that we have “proved your point time and again”. In fact you assert such without even attempting to show just how we have proven your point at all and you do not show that we have in fact done such. You merely assert it and our readers are expected to believe just because you have said it. No proof, no evidence, no reasons are offered by you. You simply expect us to believe it because you say it is so. Well, that is not sufficient. What we want is evidence to substantiate your completely unsupported assertions before we believe them.

Then you say:

“ Is it possible for you to speak to an issue with short and succinct answers.”

I do not think so. And if it were we might not chose to “speak to an issue” with short and succinct answers especially when our opponents are the only one’s that want it to be that way.

Then you say:

“ Your words are an overload.”

You are welcome to that opinion of our words even if you cannot prove that it is true by any means. They may be an overload for you but we have many readers who can handle it.

Then you say:

“ You have dominated this thread: as in there are 7 posts and your two by quantity of words are at least twice more than the other 5.”

Well, we would not really consider such as “dominating” the thread. But if such is the case it is not necessarily our fault. If you would like to dominate the thread then you will just have to get busy, stop being so lazy and sit down and write more. If you would like to prevent us from “dominating” we recommend that you get more involved and encourage others to write longer post instead of the common short, unsupported and meaningless assertions without proof that is common for yourself and others. It might make your post a little longer if you would attempt to PROVE some of your pathetic assertions.

Then you say:

“ Just consider, you might be heard more if you chose an abridged version of your own answers.”

You might want to consider that we are being heard far more than you think and it is because we take the time to write lengthy post that provides evidence and support from the word of God for our assertions. WE do not have any difficulty with how many people are “listening” to us and our post. For we are not writing to please anyone but our Lord Jesus Christ.

In fact, if you could read my email you would see that the only justification that there would be for me to shorten my replies would be to free up more time to respond to those who lurk in the forum. Those who write to us for more information than what we provided in our lengthy post. In is indeed humorous how you assume that everyone who reads this forum has the same response to our post that you seem to have. The only thing that you can say with honesty is that YOU might listen more to us if we “chose an abridged version of our answers.” But currently we have enough response from those who like our “unabridged version” and we could care less if you do not appreciate our work. WE would not expect you to appreciate it whether it were abridged or unabridged. For we are opposed to some of the things that you teach. So you would not like it in either case, now would you?

Then you say:

“Just a thought.”

And not a very good or clear one at that, now was it?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2001

E. Lee

From your post: Brother Umstetter that is a fine assertion for which you have not the ability to prove it is true.

Do you use a hymnal Mr Saffold? Do you worship in a specific church building? Do you get paid as the preacher (if you are the preacher)? The NT does not specificaly sanction any of these. How much more proof do you need. Your statement shows either ignorance or a willingness to ignore fact.

My point that is proved time and again is your wordiness. I have read many posts that have stated how you have over stated your position with your many words. (Isn't this akin to Jesus criticism of the pharisees with their many words?) And your reply to me in just this one post is more than my 2 previous postings and more than others statements. You sir, dominate. Your words are dominating and lacking in grace. Your words are authortarian to show who is in control. You know if you gave scripture reference to your point and a sentence or two as to how you see it, I (and maybe others) would respect it more. But I have met people like you who lord their knowledge and opinion on others and I have seen its damage and hurt. People cannot hear what you say for your attitude and many words. This is what I am trying to help you to see sir. (And I do not discount that you make good points, nor that some people enjoy what you write - but there is another side to it.)

You posted:

“ Is it possible for you to speak to an issue with short and succinct answers.”

I do not think so. And if it were we might not chose to “speak to an issue” with short and succinct answers especially when our opponents are the only one’s that want it to be that way.

I don't know who is for or against your long form replies (I have only read peoples posts which have refered to your words and attitudes. Some even don't post for fear of your scalding retributions.), so I don't know if only your opponents want it that way. (This statement you make sure sounds of paranoia.) A soft answer turns away wrath and so I think it applies in the realm of a conversation, a short and soft answer will certainly help others learn more as opposed to a long and dominating one.

By the way it also might work well if you wrote in first person. Your we and us is no longer the accepted style of language even in academic circles. And sometimes when you say we and mean me or us and really mean I, it is confusing. Another thought for you to consider. When it is I, then say I.

You wrote:

If you would like to dominate the thread then you will just have to get busy, stop being so lazy and sit down and write more. If you would like to prevent us from “dominating” we recommend that you get more involved and encourage others to write longer post instead of the common short, unsupported and meaningless assertions without proof that is common for yourself and others. It might make your post a little longer if you would attempt to PROVE some of your pathetic assertions.

1 - I don't want to dominate anything. 2 - I rebuke you for your unkindness in calling my and others thoughts as "pathetic assertions" and calling me "lazy" for not dominating a thread as you do. 3 - I have seen some people make statements that were brief, but yet very poignant. And then instead of answering in kind I have seen you write a commentary. It is not necessary. 4 - My thought is that you have a captive forum, and so you unload. But this is like a conversation. Do you talk to people like this? They give a statement and you give them a sermon? I doubt it. Try thinking in those terms.

About your statement that I am the only one that wants an abridged version, it may be true. If it is - to the rest of this forum I apologize. But I have seen several make statements about your attitude and your wordiness.

I do not cut you down or denigrate you for your thoughts. Have I once said you are pathetic or your thoughts are pathetic. You have a right to your opinions. This forum gives you the right to share them. I have no problem if you disagree with me. That is your right.

To be succinct: I (not we or us) have a problem with your mean spirit to those who disagree with you, your domination with long wordy posts, your unwillingness to find a way to respond without demonstrating contempt, and your unwillingness to even consider that someone may have a valid point for you to consider.

What would Jesus do. If my heart is right, he would teach me if my opinions were wrong. I am sure he would say it in a way that I could understand and grasp it.

E. Lee, when you write, think of the many and not the few, when you finish writing, review and think of how Jesus might have said it. Just a thought.

My apologies to the forum for this long post. But for once, I needed to address why, I don't think a debate would serve well. If I am wrong, I seek forgiveness. Blessings to you all.

-- Anonymous, November 08, 2001

My thoughts....

A debate probably would not accomplish anything.... that time could well be spent on a deeper study of the Word. I believe fully that E. Lee would agree with me here as I know he is now working on the beginnings of an exposition on the Word as he indicated he would.

HOWEVER, in order for us to not have this continual 'bickering' about the issue of authorization... those who are not willing to debate or discuss in-depth (Barry, Bill, etc.) MUST stop making assertions to which E. Lee feels (and rightly so in my opinion) the need to respond.

By the way, Bill, I am one who definitely enjoys the way E. Lee is willing to respond to everything written by others.... He does not avoid issues as is easy to do in this type of forum.

-- Anonymous, November 08, 2001

Robin,

The problem is that E. Lee does not respond to the issues, he just fills up a lot of space dancing around them. You mistake quantity for substance. If you will read through E. Lee's posts you will just find a bunch of blustering about nothing. In fact, you could cut and paste most of his responses, irregardless of topic they are supposed to be addressing, and read the same nonsense over and over again.

All anyone is asking is for him to explain the inconsistencies among people in his sect that choose not to use instruments in worship. His call for a formal debate is just a dodge as he knows none of us want to waste our time debating such nonsense.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 08, 2001

Barry

Am I misunderstanding you or do you really consider the non inst. congregations a sect or was that said in frustration?

-- Anonymous, November 08, 2001

Barry,

I have to disagree.... E. Lee DOES respond to the issues... usually with more scripture than others ever do. I DO read his posts... which is more than can be said for some who complain so much!!

-- Anonymous, November 08, 2001

Faris,

Of course I consider them a sect. That isn't a derogatory statement. They are a denominational group just like any other. They just happen to hold to some very far-out and unorthodox practices.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 08, 2001

Robin,

I Agree! E. Lee does use a lot of Scripture in his posts -- now if we could just get him to use them in context!?!....

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 08, 2001

Robin (and others) - It is not that I have a problem with Lee's differing opinions. HE is welcome to them. I don't feel that I have a corner on the market on all truth and understanding. I am, as always, a growing Christian. My concern is that he overstates the issues with lengthy posts & uses them as a "bully pulpit". To attack those who would disagree by using pejoratives such as calling opposing thoughts as "pathetic" and other posters as "lazy" if they do not agree with him, to me is using this forum inappropriately as a Bully Pulpit.

Philippians 2:5 says for us to have the same mind as Christ - it is refering to Christ's servanthood. If we are focusing on submitting to one another and serving one another, we can point out our differences in a more Christ-like way. I don't believe Jesus would use pejoratives on his people who were striving to grow and learn. IMHO.

-- Anonymous, November 08, 2001

Bill --

"About your statement that I am the only one that wants an abridged version, it may be true. If it is - to the rest of this forum I apologize. But I have seen several make statements about your attitude and your wordiness."

No, you aren't the only one.

"By the way it also might work well if you wrote in first person. Your we and us is no longer the accepted style of language even in academic circles. And sometimes when you say we and mean me or us and really mean I, it is confusing. Another thought for you to consider. When it is I, then say I."

I've been wondering, if the use of "we" and "us" etc. shows that Brother E Lee has been assimilated into the collective, and is now a part of the Borg. :) Just a bit of humor, there.

-- Anonymous, November 08, 2001

Barry,

I'll try to keep this short so you don't stress out reading it.... :-)

You have said, "E. Lee does use a lot of Scripture in his posts -- now if we could just get him to use them in context!?!...." To quote a favorite saying of a Brother in Christ of mine, "That is a fine assertion!" Do you mind sharing some proof (examples) that E. Lee uses scripture out of context?

It seems to me that he very much used scripture In Context when pointing out that Billy Graham (who you lauded) is a False Teacher... and now that more evidence has been put forth in the "More Reason Not to Support Billy Graham!!" thread, your silence does indeed speak loudly.

-- Anonymous, November 08, 2001

Hi Robin,

I am checking up on the Billy Graham thread to make sure that he was quoted accurately. If so, I'll be the first to condemn him.

As far as E. Lee's posts go, you'll have to do your own research. I tired of chasing his legalistic mumbo jumbo a long time ago. It's not worth the time nor the effort.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 08, 2001

Barry,

Here is a Link that seems to give more specifics about the Billy Graham interview: http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1141.cfm

Just do a general search on "Billy Graham Robert Schuller" to find much more interesting reading....

Robin

-- Anonymous, November 08, 2001

Robin,

I have e-mailed the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and asked them to comment on the quotes. I will post their answer here.

I find it very hard to believe that the statements are accurate. Especially since Billy Graham stated before a worldwide audience in his sermon from Washington just a few weeks ago that you could only be saved through Jesus Christ.

Let's wait and see if BGEA responds.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 08, 2001

Brother Faris:

Brother Davis has responded to your good question, which was:

“Am I misunderstanding you or do you really consider the non inst. congregations a sect or was that said in frustration?”

His reply was as follows:

“Of course I consider them a sect. That isn't a derogatory statement. They are a denominational group just like any other. They just happen to hold to some very far-out and unorthodox practices.”

He does not consider his unsubstantiated assertion that we are something that he knows that we abhor being to be “derogatory”, now does he? And just because he pretends that such a statement is not derogatory does not make it true now does it? One could not say anything more derogatory against the church of Christ than to claim that His body, the church, (Col. 1:18; 24; Eph. 1:22; Eph. 4;4) is a sect or a denomination like all others. But we are expected to believe that such a statement from him was not calculated to be derogatory when he knew full well that the church of Christ refuses to be a sect or party. We seek only to be Christians and the sectarians do not like that. For they want us to be just as they are and when they cannot convince us to willingly do it they seek to impose it upon us against our will. Is it not interesting to you that no one is willing to allow us to simply be Christians without belonging to any denomination or sect? They just cannot bear the fact that it is possible for one to be a Christian while he lives and go to heaven when he dies without belonging to any of their man made sectarian bodies following the doctrines and commandments of men which are opposing the doctrine of Christ. And he clearly thinks that such is “not derogatory” because he believes that there is nothing wrong with sectarianism. For if he believed that something was wrong with being sectarian then how could he not consider his calling us a sect as anything less than “derogatory”? Think about it Brother Faris. This man accepts sectarianism, as being something that is good, doesn’t he? And if you would ask him and he would be honest, which we doubt that he would, he would tell you that he believes that our Brethren who use instruments are “just as sectarian” as anyone else and that there is nothing “derogatory” about it.

He does not mention any of the specific “far out and unorthodox practices” that he has in mind, now does he? For to do so he would then be required by us to show proof that the practices that he mentions is “far-out and unorthodox” and that we, in fact practice such things. And he is not willing to go to the trouble, is he? He merely expects you and others to believe it simply because he asserted it. Well, we know that such is not sufficient to cause you or our regular readers in this forum to accept his nonsense and we are happy to know that such is the case with you.

If Brother Davis were honest he would tell you that he also considers all of us who are members of the church of Christ, including those of our brethren that use instruments in the worship, to be just as sectarian and denominational as are the denominations around us.

Now, this is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that the church of Christ has been erroneously and indignantly called a “sect”. For, we find the Jews speaking against that “pestilent fellow” the apostle Paul through their chosen orator “Tertullus” referring to the church of Christ as a “sect” among the Jews when he accused the apostle Paul of being a “ringleader” of what he styled the “sect of the Nazarenes”. Read it for yourself as follows:

“And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and [with] a certain orator [named] Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul. And when he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse [him], saying, Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence, We accept [it] always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness. Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words. For we have found this man [a] pestilent [fellow], and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came [upon us], and with great violence took [him] away out of our hands, Commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him. And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so.” (Acts 24:1-9).

Now notice how that Paul was considered a “pestilent fellow”. This word “pestilent” is a translation of the word “loimos {loy'-mos} which means “a pestilent fellow, pest, plague”. It was not a very kind or complementary word for the apostle Paul. But it did express the impression that Paul’s preaching of the Gospel had made upon these Jews and we can see that it is clear that the apostle Paul was a “pest” Can’t we? And he was accused of “sedition” from the word “stasis {stas'-is} which means “1.) a standing, station, state2) an insurrection 3) strife, insurrection”. Does this accusation sound “familiar” to you? And he was accused him of being a member of a “sect” among the Jews. This word “sect” is from “hairesis {hah'-ee-res-is}” which means, “a body of men following their own tenets (sect or party)”. And thus those who are following the “doctrine of Christ” instead of their own tenets cannot be considered a “sect” and anyone who wishes to consider the church of Christ a sect must show that they are following their own tenets instead of the teaching of Christ. Thus, until Brother Davis PROVES that the church of Christ is not the body of Christ following the doctrine of Christ under the Lordship of Christ he cannot justly claim that the church of Christ is a sect, now can he? And this he is both unable and unwilling to do, isn’t he? He is not willing to offer evidence for his assertion that the church of Christ is, in fact, a sect. But he does, by making this assertion without offering any evidence to support it, place himself in the company of his much despised “Pharisees and Sadducees and other false teachers among the Jews. Who falsely made this same accusation against the church of Christ in the days of that “pestilent fellow, the apostle Paul. So, we can see much about Brother Davis by the “company he keeps” can’t we? False teachers have this way of making the same unfounded assertions, don’t they? And this assertion that the church of Christ is a sect comes from the same source that the original assertion came from. It comes from persons who are angry with those “pestilent fellows” who are willing to tell them the truth even though the truth is not popular and in many cases is despised among them. We doubt very seriously if Brother Davis would be willing to debate the subject of whether the church of Christ is a denomination or sect, now would he?

But Paul was accused of being a ringleader of the “sect of the Nazarenes” which is how these Jews perceived the church of Christ. But the church was not a “sect” among the Jews, now was it? And Tertullus’ accusation that it was did not make it true, now did it?

Well, neither does Brother Davis’ false accusation that the church of Christ is a “sect” among modern denominations make us any more a sect than was the church of Christ in the first century, does it?

Then we see another place in the New Testament where the Jews expressed their perception of the church of Christ as a sect. Notice how the Jews considered the church of Christ a sect of the Jews as follows:

“And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men [and] brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. Who, when they had examined me, would have let [me] go, because there was no cause of death in me. But when the Jews spake against [it], I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had ought to accuse my nation of. For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see [you], and to speak with [you]: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain. And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee. But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.” (Acts 28:17-22).

The Jews during the first century erroneously considered the church of Christ to be a “sect” of the Jews that was “EVERYWHERE SPOKEN AGAINST” just as our Brother Davis erroneously considers the church of Christ a sect among the sects which is “everywhere spoken against”. But the Jews were just as wrong as is Brother Davis because Paul made it abundantly clear that the church of Christ was the body of Christ and that sectarianism or divisions among them was sinful and wrong. (Col. 1:18, 24; Eph. 1:22; Eph. 4:4; 1 Cor. 1:10). Thus, the Jews were wrong just as wrong about the church of Christ (Romans 16:16) being a sect among them as is Brother Davis in his unproven assertion that the church of Christ is a sect among modern denominations. They completely misunderstood the nature of the body of Christ, as does Brother Davis. And just as the church of Christ then was “everywhere spoken against” it is still today “everywhere spoken against” by men like brother Davis who despises us because we prefer to follow the doctrine of Christ instead of his vain, and false assertions.

So, again, we remind you of what you already know to be the truth. The church of Christ is the body of Christ and it is one united body and Christ, our Lord, forbids any divisions among us. (Col. 1:18, 24; Eph. 1:22; Eph. 4:4; 1 Cor. 1:10). Therefore the church of Christ cannot be a sect as brother Davis falsely asserts unless they depart from the teaching of Christ and follow the doctrines of men like Brother Davis. WE have not left the doctrine of Christ but instead are ever vigilant to ensure that we are following his teaching in all that we do in the worship and service of Christ. And this is the very reason that the issue of “authorization” is important to us. WE do not want to follow the doctrines of men. And the best way to avoid that is to ensure that we have a “thus saith the Lord” for all that we do in the worship and service of Christ. You can rest assured that we care very much about that matter and Brother Davis is not concerned about the need for “authorization” at all. He certainly is not concerned enough to “debate the issue” as Sister D. Lee has requested that we do, now is he? All he wants to do is make assertions that he cannot prove to be true to save his life.

WE are happy that you took note of this particular matter. For it is just another false doctrine to be added to the ever-increasing list of lies taught by Brother Davis. And we are prepared to debate that matter with him. But he does not want to engage in such activity with this “pestilent fellow” whom he falsely charges with sectarianism, legalism, and heresy. And he makes those charges without any evidence that they are true and we are confident that you are more than capable of perceiving his complete lack of proof for his pathetically false assertions.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

E. Lee said: If Brother Davis were honest he would tell you that he also considers all of us who are members of the church of Christ, including those of our brethren that use instruments in the worship, to be just as sectarian and denominational as are the denominations around us.

Yes, you are exactly right. Thank you for stating my position accurately for once!

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

E. Lee,

I need to add that not only do I think those of the Restoration persuasion (all three branches or more) are just as sectarian and denominational as the other denominational groups, I actually believe that some of our churches are MORE SECTARIAN than most denominational groups. You would be a case in point. Rather than stressing the unity of all believers, which would be the true non-denominational position, you stress the unity of all who think exactly like you do, worship in a church with the same name as yours, and support only the same ministries that you do. In fact, you are probably the most sectarian person I have ever come across.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

Brother Davis:

You have said:

“E. Lee, I need to add that not only do I think those of the Restoration persuasion (all three branches or more) are just as sectarian and denominational as the other denominational groups, I actually believe that some of our churches are MORE SECTARIAN than most denominational groups.”

Well, that is a fine assertion but what evidence do you offer that it is the truth.

Originally you claimed that the church of Christ was a denomination and we deny that such is the case and now you are talking about those of the “restoration persuasion”. The church of Christ is not a denomination according to the word of God and all those who are Christians only are members of the church of Christ and nothing else. (Col. 1:18; 24; Eph. 1:22,23; Eph. 4:4; 1 Cor. 1:10). And this is what all Christians are. But the denominations of which you speak are made up for the most part of those who have never obeyed the gospel of Christ and therefore are not Christians at all and are therefore not in the body of Christ which is the church of Christ. And the two are not the same at all. For one is a group of Christians and the other is a group of people who are not Christians at all.

Now it is nothing more than your mere assertion, which you cannot prove to be true, that the church of Christ (Matt. 16:16-18) is a denomination or a sect. So, why not make some effort from the word of God to prove that the church of Christ is a denomination like all of the others?

Then you say:

“ You would be a case in point.”

Another fine assertion that you offer no evidence to prove that it is true.

Then you say:

“Rather than stressing the unity of all believers, which would be the true non-denominational position, you stress the unity of all who think exactly like you do, worship in a church with the same name as yours, and support only the same ministries that you do.”

Can you show anything that I have said that is against the “unity of all believers”? We believe firmly in the unity of all Christians in Christ. WE have quoted several passages often in support of this truth. And we have often stressed this unity. (John 17). Then you say that we stress the “unity of all who think like we do”. And this is also an assertion that you cannot prove. All we have ever done is stressed unity with Christ through believing and obeying the true doctrine of Christ as found in the word of God. For this is the only true unity. We have said on several occasions that we cannot have unity with one another until we are all united with Christ and agree with that which is taught in His word. And we do not expect anyone to “think like we do”. We urge everyone to follow the doctrine of Christ. And we call upon them to correct us when we are ourselves found to be in opposition to the doctrine of Christ. But in order to do that they must state wherein we have erred and show from the word of God that we are in error. When they do that we will correct ourselves to come into harmony with the truth of the doctrine of Christ. No one is expected to “think as we do but rather to accept the truth taught in the doctrine of Christ found in the New Testament. For this reason we seek to have authority for all that we do in the worship and service of Christ from the word of God. For we can all agree on what Christ tells us to do. This is the only hope for unity among those who are Christians. And we strive ever for it. In fact, our opposition to your false doctrines is because we know that it is the false doctrines of men that cause divisions contrary to the doctrine we have received. (Romans 16:17) and for that reason we do and Christ commanded us to do. We mark those who teach such things and avoid them. For it is Christ that tells us to do so.

Then you say:

“ In fact, you are probably the most sectarian person I have ever come across.”

Well, that is a fine assertion but where is the specific evidence that proves it to be true. For we all can see that this is all you are able to do. You can do nothing more than assert such nonsense but you have demonstrated that you are pathetically incapable of proving your assertions. And even you are not very certain of your own assertion for you say “you are probably the mast sectarian”. But you cannot even prove that there is any probability of such much less that it is without doubt the truth. So, we wait for you to give evidence of such.

And anyone can notice that we have spent almost two years in fellowship with our brethren here in this forum with whom everyone knows that we disagree with completely about this issue of authorization and instrumental music and other things. But we call them our brethren and fellowship with them in the defense of the truth of the gospel of Christ and we have even on occasion agreed to worship together when the opportunity presents itself by worshipping in a way wherein no one’s conscience would be deliberately violated. Our efforts in this forum have shown a great absence of the sectarian spirit of which you falsely charge us. We have said it often that all who have obeyed the gospel of Christ are our brothers and sisters in Christ where ever they are and by whatever name they call themselves. And we have never insisted in any place that every one must “worship in a church with the same name as ours”. And you cannot find a single word in this forum where we have ever said any such thing. WE do not believe that we are authorized to call ourselves anything other than what God named us such as Christian. And we have said on several occasions that the church of Christ does not have a name. There are many scriptural designations of the church that shows various important concepts of the body of Christ and our relationship to God. All of those are acceptable to God and we do not reject any of them. But names made up by men that indicate ideas and concepts that are contrary to the truth we naturally object to. But the reason is not that we expect others to use the same designation that we use but rather that we are guided by the word of God in all such things. But you cannot find a single statement from us, which indicates that we demand that others bear the same designation for the church that we bear. For we believe no such thing. So, again you are woefully wrong and misinformed about us. It seems as if you are basing these conclusions on some others that you have met out there who might believe these things but we have never believed them nor have we ever said anything in this forum to advocate such ideas as you unjustly ascribe to us. And you do so without offering any evidence that your assertions are even remotely related to the truth.

Beware of such men Brethren.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

One can be denominational in government (i.e. Southern Baptist, United Methodist, et. al.) or one can be denominational in attitude. I would have to agree, at least in principle, that many of our "restoration" congregations are denominational in attitude.

For instance: MOST (I'm sure not all, but I'm sure most) of the restoration congregations would be happy to support OUR missionaries, OUR Bible colleges, OUR ministries. If a Southern Baptist missionary came to most of the restoration congregations looking for financial support, most of them would reject the offer. If a high school student wanted to study for the ministry at Bob Jones University, or any other denominational university, most of our congregations would not offer financial support. But if they attended Cinn, FCC, Johnson, etc. they might be willing to help.

Now understand this -- I'm not saying that is a bad thing. I'm just saying that we are sectarian in nature, by the use of the word "OUR." OUR Bible collegs, OUR ministries, OUR missionaries. There are, I am sure, some exceptions, but that is certainly the general rule in the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ.

Again, I'm not suggesting we send our finances to support groups/people/institutions we don't believe in, or whom we truly believe don't preach a complete gospel. But I do believe we need to be honest and admit that we do separate ourselves. Or, as some would say, the "other" denominations separate themselves from our "un- denominational-denomination."

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

Brother Duane:

You have said:

“(note from Duane: E. Lee, I deleted the phone numbers for your safety... there are a lot of sickos out there in cyperspace who have nothing better to do than deluge you with phone calls, and some who would even look up your address with your phone number and mail stuff or even visit. I would suggest if they are interested that they begin with an email and you proceed from there)”

I appreciate your kindness and your concern for my safety, especially in view of the current situation which our nation now faces. I am seldom really concerned about my safety and therefore did not give thought to the things that you wisely took the time to consider. Your care and concern is greatly appreciated, Brother. I thank you. And I pray that our Lord will abundantly bless you in your work and service to him. Please express my Christian love to your faithful Christian wife, Teresa. For a good wife is indeed a great blessing from the Lord, is she not?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

Brethren:

Brother Davis has accurately quoted my words as follows:

“E. Lee said: If Brother Davis were honest he would tell you that he also considers all of us who are members of the church of Christ, including those of our brethren that use instruments in the worship, to be just as sectarian and denominational as are the denominations around us.”

TO which he responded by admitting that we have accurately represented him as follows: “Yes, you are exactly right. Thank you for stating my position accurately for once!”

So, he cannot now come back and say that we have misrepresented him on this issue now can he? And we have never misrepresented him in this forum and this is therefore not the only time that we have accurately represented his views and he has failed miserably to show any place where he has been misrepresented by us in this forum. Even though we have asked him often to prove that we have misrepresented him by quoting our words which he claims to have been a misrepresentation and proving conclusively that they were contrary to what he had said with his own words. And he has failed to ever show that we have in any way ever misrepresented his position. Yet he implies it again but again he offers absolutely no evidence to sustain his false implication, now doesn’t he?

And we also correctly represented him when we referred to his assertion that it was not derogatory for him to accuse the church of Christ of sectarianism as follows:

“And he clearly thinks that such is “not derogatory” because he believes that there is nothing wrong with sectarianism.”

For if there were something wrong with sectarianism in his view it would clearly be derogatory for him to accuse us of something sinful without proving that we are actually guilty of such. In fact, he has, without realizing it accused himself of being sectarian and implied that there is nothing wrong with being such

But Paul condemned the sectarian spirit. He said, “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them [which are of the house] of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:10-13).

And Christ our Lord prayed that we would be one instead of sectarian. He said, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.” (John 17:20-24).

And the church of Christ is indeed ONE body. For Christ promised to build only One. “And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:16-18). Thus Christ did not build “our Church” or “your church” but rather HIS church. Therefore we do not have a “church of our own” that “belongs to us”. Instead all those who have obeyed the gospel of Christ and have thereby become Christians (1 Peter 4:16-18; 2Thess. 1:8,9) are members of the precious “body of Christ (Col. 1:18) which is the church of Christ (Col. 1:24) and that body is ONE (Eph. 1:22,23; Eph. 4:4). Thus all who have become Christians by repenting and being baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) are automatically and by the same process ADDED to the church of Christ (Acts 2:41-47). They cannot and do not “join the church of their choice” but are rather added to the only church that belongs to Christ. God has one house or family and it is the church. “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Tim. 2:15). The church of the living God is the house of God. And this is not a denomination nor is it sectarian and we defy anyone to show that it is a sect or a denomination. Now, if we are Christians and we are therefore members of God’s house or the church of the living God then we are not members of any denomination or sect. And this is what we are and anyone that wants to claim that we are not Christians let him prove it. If anyone wants to claim that we are not members of the church of Christ let him prove it. And if anyone wants to assert that the church of Christ is a denomination or a sect let him go the scriptures and PROVE that it is such.

Now, we do not doubt that there are many that have never obeyed the gospel and they are outside of Christ and cannot be in “God’s house” (1 Peter 4:16-18). And we know that there are those who have obeyed the gospel of Christ and have never heard of any of those of us who are a part of the effort to restore New Testament Christianity. Those persons are members of the church of Christ and they are one with us as we are one with Christ our Lord. This is true even though they do not know us and have never heard of us. And there are those who just cannot shake the idea of sectarianism and must have "party" loyalties etc.

Christians loyal to Christ our Lord for he is the head of THE CHURCH, which is his body (Col. 1:18). And that body is the church (Col. 1:24; Eph. 1:22,23) and there was then, is now and ever will be but ONE BODY and one spirit even as we are called in one hope of our calling. One Lord, one faith and ONE baptism”. (Eph. 4:4,5) Therefore there is but one church. And all who are members of it cannot be sectarians unless they refuse to follow the doctrine of Christ, which is the only rule of faith and practice in the church of Christ. And those who do so sin when they do.

Now, we defy anyone to prove from the word of God that the church of Christ is a denomination. For this church is the Kingdom of God that Christ our Lord established himself. And there is but ONE kingdom of God on this earth and it is the church of Christ (Matt. 16:16-19). And there is not a person living that can show that the Kingdom of God, the House of God, the church of the living God or the church of Christ (Romans 16:16) is nothing more than a weak and pathetic sectarian denomination. They cannot prove that it is a sect, which follows their preferred doctrines of men and rejects the doctrine of Christ. There is nothing sectarian about he church of Christ. The church of which the apostles were members with Christ himself being both the head and the chief cornerstone. Now that, Brethren is the church of Christ to which all Christians belong and it is all that we have ever been. We, as Christians are nothing more and nothing less that this. We are, as Christians, the body of Christ. And no one can show that she is a denomination or a sect. And in order to prove that we are sectarians they must prove that though we are Christians we are not members of this precious body, the church. Or that even though we are Christians and are members of this body that we have so departed from the teaching of Christ that we have left the faith. For that is the ONLY way that any Christian can be a sectarian or belong to a denomination. And there it is not possible that a Christian can be a sectarian or belong to a denomination and be acceptable in the sight of God.

So, let us see anyone prove from the scriptures that the church of Christ is a denomination or a sect. We can assure our readers that there is not a human being either in this forum or out of it that can prove that the precious body of Christ is a sect. For Christ is not divided. And anyone who wishes to affirm in a formal debate that the scriptures teach that the church of Christ is a denomination and a sect we will be willing to meet and deny that proposition and refute it without fail. So, where is the man that is willing to affirm such in a formal debate? You will not find him in this forum and if you did he would be completely unable to succeed to sustain such a false doctrine. So, we now have more false doctrine that we lay to the charge of our Brother Davis.

There is much wrong about sectarianism and denominationalism and when Brother Davis charges anyone with such you can rest assured that he either does not believe that sectarianism is wrong. Or he is definitely speaking something that he knows to be derogatory when he accuses anyone of being guilty of what the scriptures clearly teaches is a sin. And if this is the case his claim that his words were not derogatory was nothing short of a deliberate lie. So, which is it? Does he claim that the charge of sectarianism is nothing derogatory because he believes that it is not a sin? Or does he believe it is a sin and he knew when he charged it against his brothers in the body of Christ that he was speaking something that was surely derogatory while lying through his teeth with his false and pretentious statement that his charge was nothing “derogatory”. WE will let him decide which of the two is in fact the truth and tell us if he cares to do so. But in either case he is wrong. If he does not believe that sectarianism is sinful. Then he denies the truth taught by Christ concerning it. And if he believes that it is sinful then he lied when he claimed that his false charge of sectarianism against his brothers was not derogatory, now didn’t he? You see Brother Davis can say anything derogatory that he wants to say and receive no rebuke for doing such so long as he states a disclaimer by falsely claiming that his words are not derogatory. Ha! The legs of the lame are indeed unequal aren’t they?

Beware of such men, Brethren.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

Big Brother,

Of course you, myself, all of us are called to love God and our neighbors. We all are to be faithful until death, and to keep free from sin. And here in this point you have made is where the rubber meets the road so-to-speak. This is the issue we are talking about… What is love of God?

I John 5:2-3 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.

I John 2:3-5 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him.

Loving God and others IS OBEDIENCE to God. That is how we know that we are IN HIM. So we study, we seek Godly counsel, we search the scriptures daily to see if these things are so. If some of our brothers and sisters in Christ believe it is WRONG to do something that they have no authorization for, for them to do it would be a sin: Rom 14:23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. And that in and of itself makes the authorization issue not a ludicrous one, but one to be looked more deeply into, an issue that we should try and determine God’s teaching on the subject. This is an issue that has divided the household of God, to the point that we have separated ourselves from one another. God is absolutely not happy with that fact. I do not believe it is a waste of time to try to study the subject by debate in an effort to understand one another, and in an effort to unite with one another. The reason I asked for a debate, is because of what is happening here: statements are made, but NO real effort is made to answer Biblically WHY for this certain belief that is held by most here in this forum. Too many times a person can dodge a question, ignore a question, or not even read the question. Yet, still when an issue comes up, come in and throw darts and then run. I do not believe that you personally have done this.

I too see responses from E. Lee that would take me hours to write, and they do take him hours to write. I am one of those that appreciates the time and effort he puts in in the reading, studying, and writing in the forum. I realize there are folks who do not read Lee’s post, but there are those that do, and have benefited greatly from them.

As to whether a debate would work or not…that depends upon the results a person is expecting. I would like to see FROM THE WORD why both sides hold to the beliefs they have concerning this subject. I believe it is an important one to understand the “why” and to be able to logically prove that from the Word. I understand that you do not think a debate would work because you believe most minds on the forum are all ready made up. That may be true, but not all minds are made up yet. Some of us have not had the opportunity to look deeply into the subject, which is why I asked for the debate in the first place. I need a logical step-by-step layout of both sides so that I can consider what has been said with what the Bible says. Big brother, I know you believe that this is Pharisaical legalism at its best, but please consider that those who TRULY believe differently than you do not. Obedience of God’s will is not being legalistic but the adding to of God’s word is. In this case our brothers and sisters on the opposite side of this issue believe they are being obedient while we are adding.

I do see that your stance is typical of you. And I KNOW that you “will err to the side of grace most every time as opposed to law and judgements.” But we must remember that grace does not come without law and judgments.

You say: “Pardon my stance little Sis, but I do see where a debate would do more good than just stating opinions on this forum. Actually I have never seen and I may have missed if it happened, someone on this forum actually having a change of heart and/or mind.”

No need to pardon your stance big brother, we have been on opposite sides of issues before, and I am sure this will not be the last time. I know that both of us are doing our best to live in GOD’S WILL and not our own. The only way I personally know how to do that, is to get ALL the information I can regarding ANY issue that I am not sure of, STUDY, STUDY, STUDY and than proceed from there.

Your little Sis,

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

Barry,

I don’t know about others, but I have only seen for the last 2 years E. Lee being consistent. In fact there are not many who could match his consistency. As to not having authorization for pews, sound systems, etc. I have not heard E. Lee’s argument on this matter so I don’t know what he points he would bring out.

You say: “They choose what they want to be "authorized" and what they don't based on their own legalistic and unbiblical assumptions. A debate is a complete waste of time.”

I have not seen E. Lee arbitrarily choose what he wants to be authorized, nor have I seen him base anything on unbiblical assumptions. I have seen E. Lee search the word for God’s will, not his own or any other. If E. Lee believes that something is wrong, you can be sure his reasoning is because he has searched out the Word and is basing his beliefs upon what he believes God’s will is.

Now having said that, I many times have searched God’s will to find that I have erred in a belief I have previously held, but those beliefs were based on my understanding of the scripture and not something completely unbiblical. If we do believe we hold a correct view of a subject, but later through more study, come to find that that view was in error – it does NOT necessarily mean that our beliefs were based on unbiblical assumptions.

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

Robin,

You said: “A debate probably would not accomplish anything.... that time could well be spent on a deeper study of the Word. I believe fully that E. Lee would agree with me here as I know he is now working on the beginnings of an exposition on the Word as he indicated he would.”

I believe it would accomplish something. As I have said above. And I don’t understand why people are not “getting it”?? This is time that would be spent on a deeper study of the Word. We don’t want a debate on an issue where the debaters would not be using the Word for ALL of their beliefs, but a debate that would show WHAT is believed, and WHY based completely on God’s Word.

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

Barry,

For someone who says they do not read E. Lee’s posts, you seem to know a lot about them. Robin is not mistaking quantity for substance.

AND: E. Lee did not call for a debate. I ASKED FOR A DEBATE. I asked if there was anyone willing to debate this subject with E. Lee, assuming that he would debate the issue. He has said that he will debate the issue with anyone willing to debate formally. Of course the reason I mentioned E. Lee as one of the debaters is because as far as I know he is our only brother in the forum that does not use instruments in the worship of God. I am also assuming by the responses this thread has generated that no one who uses instruments is willing.

Why would you expect E. Lee to explain what you believe are the inconsistencies in this belief? One, he is out numbered (of course if anyone knows Lee, they know it is not the out-numbering in and of itself that is the problem, it is more like having so many questions at once from many sources, answering them only to find that his questions are not answered.) Two, is it fair to expect something of him when what he most often gets is NO answer to his questions? Hence the reason I ASKED FOR A FORMAL DEBATE…so that rules and guidelines could be laid down so that both debaters could ask, form a response to the other, and be answered by the other.

You said: “His call for a formal debate is just a dodge as he knows none of us want to waste our time debating such nonsense”

How you figure that his call for a formal debate is a dodge I do not understand. I ASKED for the debate NOT E. Lee. He was willing to debate. As to the “dodge” I don’t know how it would be possible to “dodge” in a debate with strict guidelines and rules. Such a debate would eliminate dodging. A waste of time? I believe it would be a waste of time for Lee to explain when there were no assurances that anyone else would.

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

Come on guys…

About the wordiness of Lee’s posts. Or even about the shortness of others, or others that are “just right”. WHAT IS THE POINT?? So you don’t like long posts, don’t read them. Others don’t like posts because they are too short. GET OVER IT. Is this something we NEED to continually bring up? So what if I write long and you short??? You have your way I have mine. Can we please quit bellyaching about it? Some get a lot out of the long posts of E. Lee’s, I do. Some get a lot out of shorter posts, I do. Is one right and the other wrong? Talk about a waste of time.

Darrell: assimilated into the collective? NO. Feeling like I am in the twilight zone over this too long, too short, and just right business? YES!

-- Anonymous, November 10, 2001

Danny, Duane…

are we limited to how long or short a post can or should be or how many times we can post in a thread?

The next thing you know someone will be crying because I have posted too many times in this thread.

Well, I am not done yet, so read on or not as you like.

-- Anonymous, November 10, 2001

Darrell,

We are supposed to separate ourselves….

Ps 1:1-2 Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful; But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and in His law he meditates day and night.

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven saying, "Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues.

2 Cor 6:14-18 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will dwell in them and walk among them. I will be their God, and they shall be My people." Therefore "Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you." "I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty."

And if we do not separate ourselves in the here and now, God will do it for us later…

Matt 25:31-34 "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. "All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. "And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. "Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Matt 13:49-50 "So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, "and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

-- Anonymous, November 10, 2001

Brother E. Lee,

Thank you for consenting to a debate on the authorization issue. I am sorry that no one is willing to debate this subject with you. I know myself and others could have learned greatly from the in-depth studying of God’s Word that would have gone on during a debate like this. I do understand your reasoning behind not discussing certain things without the format that a formal debate would bring. If I were capable, I would undertake the task myself. Sadly I am not.

To All:

I am sorry about all the junk that went with this thread. My attempt was to really see what E. Lee and another could teach us, to look, really look for ourselves (yes, maybe even again for most of you – but for some for the first time) at an issue that has so divided us.

I find it hard to believe that God will allow us to all live TOGETHER in eternity worshiping him when we as His children cannot live TOGETHER nor worship Him together here.

-- Anonymous, November 10, 2001

D. Lee,

If you haven't noticed, E. Lee is only willing to debate this issue if it is on his terms. Yet we are already here on this board willing to debate the issue here. I posted the following some time ago with no response from E. Lee. I'll post it again, hoping that he will come out of his hiding place and actually deal with the issue:

1. God's true New Testament Church is admonished to use musical instruments The following scriptures contain hidden truths that we easily could miss if we were to simply read over them: a) (Col 3:16-17) Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. {17} And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

b) (Eph 5:18-20) Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. {19} Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, {20} always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

c) (James 5:13) Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise.

In both (a) and (b) it is speaking about a gathering of at least two people -- "one another" -- and is almost certainly describing a worship servie of the NT church.

In addtion, there is a distinct difference between a psalm, a hymn, and a spiritual song. It is important to know that one class of song, namely a psalm, is always sung in conjunction with musical instruments. The definition of a psalm, and comparative definitions of a hymn and spiritual song (taken from a Bible concordance and dictionary), is as follows:

psalm - a set piece of music, i.e. a sacred ode accompanied with the voice, harp, or other instrument. To sing accompanied by stringed instruments. To touch, twitch, pluck, twang; strike the cords.

hymn - A religious ode. A festive song praise to God, or to a hero, or to a conqueror. A sacred song.

spiritual song - a song, chant, lay, or ode. Any kind of song; of battle, or harvest, festal or hymeneal. Songs that were composed by spiritual men, or that related to spiritual things.

We are admonished at least three different times in the New Testament to sing psalms. If it were worldly to use musical instruments, as some have supposed, why were psalms included with the list of other types of singing? Ever since The Book Of Psalms was written in the Old Testament, these psalms were always accompanied with musical instruments when they were sung. In fact, some historians believe that the word "Selah", a word found frequently throughout the Psalms of David, signified a pause in the vocal music while an instrument interlude or finale was rendered. If God has since changed His mind about the use of instruments, surely He would have given us explicit instructions to stop using them since they were so clearly connected to the singing of Psalms. However, such in not the case. In fact, the Word tells us that "whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus". As long as we are glorifying God when we sing, whether we use instruments or not, we are within the Biblical guidelines.

2. Musical instruments are used in heaven in the worshipping of God - The Book of Revelation, while certainly very symbolic in nature, reveals that the angels use instruments in praising and worshipping God and doing His divine will (Revelation 8:2,6) Also, many times throughout the Word of God, angels are described as trumpet players. Each of the seven seals, or ages of time since Pentecost, were opened by the sounding of a trumpet by an angel. The scriptures reveal that the second coming of Christ will be preceded by the sounding of a trumpet (1 Cor 15:52). If angels play musical instruments in heaven and are described as always doing the will of God, then we can scripturally conclude that it is God's will that instruments be played here on earth for Jesus prayed "Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven" Matthew 6:10.

3. The New Testament saints are symbolically described as musicians - In the following scriptures, we have three separate accounts of where the New Testament saints are portrayed as being musicians:

a) Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

b) Revelation 14:2-3 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

c) Revelation 15:2-3 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.

If it were "worldly" to use musical instruments, as some believe, why would God portray His saints as being musicians? Would God portray His saint as being worldly?

1 John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

The songs being sung here were songs that only saints could sing and it is obvious that the saints new song was accompanied with harps. I don't believe that God would have characterized His saints as being worldly since it is His requirement for saints to be separate from the world and the things of the world. If musical instruments, and the playing of them, were even remotely worldly, He would not have portrayed His saints that way because He admonishes us to "abstain from all appearance of evil" 1 Thessalonians 5:22. He would have not set such an example as a stumbling-block before us if the playing of instruments were indeed worldly.

4. Babylon, the false church and/or place of confusion, is characterized as a city void of musical instruments - Finally, as in the Old Testament, the New Testament characterizes Babylon, or false religion, as being a place void of musical instruments. I don't believe that this is a mere coincidence.

Revelation 18:21-22 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee.

Babylon has nothing to sing about, hence the noticeable absence of the use of musical instruments. She can't truly praise and worship God with sin and worldliness in her heart, because God doesn't waste His time listening. Also, God's captive people in Babylon can't sing Zion's songs in the Spirit down there because they are in a strange land. Most Babylonian churches would not tolerate the singing of a Church of God, Holy Ghost anointed song. It would, and should, bring them under conviction.

There is a distinct difference between false Babylon and the Church of God. One of those differences is in the use of musical instruments. Babylon cannot use musical instruments for the glory of God. God's Church uses them to glorify Him. She is instructed to. Those who do not use them are in direct disobedience to God's command.

IHS,

Barry (Claims of Christ

-- Anonymous, November 10, 2001

Barry,

You did indeed make that same argument in another thread... and here is Danny's response from that thread:

Barry.... My dear man!!! Your whole argument is based on assumption and silence....THE VERY SAME ARGUMENT USED BY THE "NONS."

You have not produced a single verse commanding instrumental music....in the same way in which Acts 2:38 clearly teaches baptism.

Your whole line from the book of Revelation....is worthless....as the language itself is "apocalyptic" and "highly symbolic."

You failed to produce one quote from the any of the Church Fathers or later.....that demands the playing of instruments in worship.

You have yet to show this was to be done "in worship." Those words were added by you.

Hopefully I'll get you to wake up an retract this ridiculous line of thinking before E. Lee cleans your clock.

You made a ridiculous statement about the narrow definition of false teachers....you were shown where you were wrong....and now you are reducing your argument to the absurd in order to try and define E. Lee as a false teacher.

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (KentChrCh@cs.com), August 17, 2001.

-- Anonymous, November 10, 2001

Robin,

Why don't you refute the argument instead of relying on Danny? In fact, Danny never refuted anything at all, he just dismissed it out of hand. Maybe you (or perhaps E. Lee) could do a better job of it :).

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 10, 2001

Fact - The New Testament does not command the use of instruments Fact - The New Testament does not forbid the use of instruments Fact - Instruments were used in the OT Fact - Symbolic or not - God reveals the use of instruments in Heaven Fact - Psamlmos means to pluck

Summation - musical instruments are neither commanded nor forbidden in the New Testament. They were used to worship God in the OT and in the book of Revelation. God did not condemn it in either place. Therefore - my belief by inference is that God can be honored with musical instrumentation

Further Fact - No where are Church buildings commanded in the NT Fact - No where in the NT are hymnals, pitch pipes, or Sunday School commanded

Summation - the same logic that says it is sin to use musical instruments must be applied to these other issues other wise it becomes a hypocritical smorgasbord of accepting what one likes.

On a non documented historical note - (I learned this in restoration history and can't find my notes to document - can I be proven wrong? if so give me the documentation that shows I am wrong)- the musical issue was not an issue 150 years ago. It became an issue when after the war, the poorer churches in the south could not afford instrumentation, therefore giving rise to the issue that using such is sinful. Theat was when this doctrine is first made evident. Aside from instruments, there is no other difference that of which I am aware between the two groups. Other groups outside of our brotherhood do accept baptism by immersion for forgiveness of sins, but I do not beleive there is any other group that holds to a non- instrumental belief outside of the non instrumental brethren.

One last thing bothers me. In Paul's lists of sinful practices, he talks about murderers, homosexuals and liars and such. But never condemns users of musical instruments. How come? IT makes no sense whatsoever, that if this issue is so damnable, then why doesn't God specifically condemn it?

However, the biggest sin of all is the separation of brothers in a brotherhood that calls for unity of the body.

-- Anonymous, November 10, 2001

Great post, Bill... awesome.

I have "scanned" this thread, and I love it!.

We're all big boys and girls here. I love long and short posts. To each his own.

Darrell, good comments about the word sectarian. Anyone have a dictionary? If it means "separate" than so be it--we should be sectarian.

D. Lee, I love your comments and spirit.

I have been rooting for an instrument debate for a long time. I would find it useful. As long as we have two opposing sides willing to do it, and a moderator, there is no limit to space in this Forum.

E. Lee can be lengthy in his posts. I usually scan through and slow down for what I think is good meaty stuff.

Let's all remember that word "context" in this Forum too; meaning we intentionally make our words more forceful in print because we don't have the convenience of voice inflection. Two folks who appear to be worst enemies in print would probably have the best time together in person.

We should never apologize for debate, albeit heated. Or was it Welshimer who said to never apologize for your position, but do be gracious with your disposition.

Keep up the good work, all of you. Thanks Danny, for always seeming to know when to interject with reason and wisdom.

And yes, Lee, my wife is definitely a pearl whom I continue to thank God for.

-- Anonymous, November 10, 2001

Bill -- the instrument is only part of the division. There is division even between many of the "non" brothers and sisters.

Here in Indiana County there are three "non" church of Christ's. The largest is in town, runs around 115--125 on Sunday AM. Some of the worship leaders use pitch-pipes. They use "mini-cups" for communion.

The second largest is between the town of Indiana and another town nearby. They refuse to use the pitch-pipe (not authorized for worship) but do us the "mini-cups" for communion.

The smallest (they run about 12-15 on Sunday AM) won't use the pitch- pipe either, but they are a "one-cup" congregation for communion, and will not fellowship with the other two congregations, even for weekday evening revivals, etc.

So, there are some other differences than just the instrument issue. re: communion cups, most instrumental congregations would say that it's okay to use one cup, mini-cups, etc., with no worry about who they would fellowship with.

Also -- re: Sunday School. MOST people from "non" congregations that I know say Sunday School is cool, because it is not "worship." In other words, congregations can do things OUTSIDE of worship that are not specifically mentioned in the NT, since it is not worship. They question using any "non-authoritized" things in worship.

That is why I asked an earlier question ... is there such a thing in the NT as "official worship" or is worship something we as Christians do all the time, just coming together corporatly on occasion?

-- Anonymous, November 11, 2001

Sister D. Lee and Brethren:

Brother Davis has said:

“D. Lee, If you haven't noticed, E. Lee is only willing to debate this issue if it is on his terms.”

E. Lee has said noting about debating this issue solely on “his terms”. What he has actually said is that he will debate it formally under terms upon which both parties agree and with a moderator to ensure that those agreed upon terms are strictly followed. What he has ever sought was the opportunity to debate this issue in a situation wherein his arguments must be noticed and addressed and he not only must answer all questions asked of him but he can also expect the questions that he might ask to be properly addressed also. Now there is nothing in the world wrong with trying to ensure that the discussion of this matter be done in an organized way, with ONE opponent at a time. Who is required to respond to all arguments made and questions just as much as E. Lee is required to do. But what Brother Davis wants is for E. Lee Saffold to be in a position where he is required and expected to answer all arguments and questions asked while he simply ignores everything that E. Lee might put to him. And he also would like to be in a position where E. Lee is required to respond to not only to Brother Davis but also every other person who might want to discuss this issue while he only has to respond to E. Lee Saffold and not one else. What E. Lee Saffold is seeking is a debate of this subject on EQUAL terms. Brother Davis knows this but he surely appears to have some fear of a formal debate that would require him to comply with equal terms and wherein he cannot simply ignore arguments and questions that are contrary to his position.

Then he says:

“Yet we are already here on this board willing to debate the issue here.”

Yes, Brother Davis is on this board but he is not willing to debate this issue in a formal debate on equal terms with E. Lee Saffold on this forum, now is he? He is not willing to engage in a one on one debate with guidelines which both parties have agreed upon, now is he? If he really is willing to debate this issue on this forum then why does he not agree to our request for a formal debate with guidelines to follow and moderators who will ensure that they are followed? If he is really willing to debate the issue why is he not willing to do so formally? For the only real difference between a formal debate and one that is not formal is that there is no way for either proponent to avoid responding to the arguments and questions asked of the other. And this is something that Brother Davis must avoid at all cost, isn’t it?

Then he says:

“ I posted the following some time ago with no response from E. Lee.”

Everyone in this forum, including Brother Davis knows that E. Lee has promised to debate this subject formally in this forum and only in that way with anyone willing to engage him in such. And if Brother Davis wishes to see E. Lee Saffold thoroughly answer his extremely weak arguments. Then all he needs to do is agree to bring them into a formal debate and he will not only see our answers to his arguments but he will receive some arguments from us that he will not be allowed to simply ignore. Now, either Brother Davis has the courage to bring those arguments into a formal debate or he doesn’t. If he is so confident that we cannot answer them then why doesn’t he engage in a formal debate and bring those arguments into it and PROVE that we cannot answer them? The reason is obvious. He knows full well that we can answer them and he does not want to allow us the opportunity to respond to them in a situation where he and he alone must reply. He prefers to fight with us in a circumstance where only E. Lee Saffold must respond while he is free to simply ignore everything in our response. So, we challenge Brother Davis to bring those arguments to the formal debate with him if he is so confident that there is no answer to them.

Then he says:

“ I'll post it again, hoping that he will come out of his hiding place and actually deal with the issue:”

Now, it is Brother Davis that is “hiding” isn’t it? He wants to throw out his arguments and then hide under a rock so that he does not have to face the reply and deal with it. And just how he thinks we are hiding when we have accepted Sister Muse’s request to debate this formally, in this forum, out in the open for all to see. And when we have agreed to do so with guidelines that is fair and reasonable for both parties that require both to respond and prevents both from being allowed to just run away and hide. WE have offered numerous arguments to him on other subject and we have asked him many questions and he simply ignored them all. We are out in the open and offering to debate this subject with anyone, including Brother Davis, when they agree that they will respond to all of our arguments and questions as well. And we are asking for a formal debate so that we can be assured that he, or anyone else who might be willing to discuss the matter, will be required to respond and not allowed to simply ignore our arguments.

So, it is clear to our readers that Brother Davis is the one “hiding”. And if he will come out of his hiding place and engage us in a formal debate where equity and fairness is ensured he will receive a response to his every word. But he must know that we will EXPECT a respond to every argument that we make as well.

We are seeking an organized discussion of this issue with clearly stated propositions that both parties will either affirm or deny. Those affirming will be required to prove and those denying will be required to respond. Now Brother Davis is definitely HIDING from this format, isn’t he? And we cannot know his real reasons for avoiding such. We suspect, but cannot prove that he fears it. We suspect, but cannot prove that he is unwilling to commit to the effort such would require of him. We suspect but cannot prove that he imagines that a fair debate is in some way WRONG but an unfair one is GOOD. If this is his view nothing could be more absurd. But the one thing we know is that thus far he has been RUNNING as fast as he can and hiding in every place to avoid a fair, equitable, organized and formal debate of this issue in this forum. Now that is a fact that all of our readers can easily see. In fact, it is so apparent that Brother Davis has been compelled to attempt to make it appear that we are “hiding” in a feeble and pathetic attempt to distract our readers from the glaringly obvious truth that he is running from a formal debate of this issue. But he forgets that our readers are far more intelligent than he gives them credit for being, aren’t they?

If none of you wish to apply your time and energies to a formal debate that is fine. And it is your prerogative and we have not claimed, as some would, that you have proven that you cannot answer our arguments because you avoid this debate because we know that you do not believe any such thing and that such is not your reasons for avoiding it. But when one like Brother Davis comes in here, as if he is speaking for you, and actually tries to make it appear that we are hiding by calling for a formal and PUBLIC debate because we cannot answer your arguments. He makes everyone who supports instrumental music in the worship look extremely foolish. For there is no way to hide when you call for a FORMAL and PUBLIC debate of an issue. For all it takes is for anyone to accept that challenge and you are clearly on the spot and out in the open for all to see. It is impossible to be HIDING by calling for a fair and equitable public debate of an issue and only a fool would think that such behavior is the actions of one who has the intent to keep a “low profile” and hide his inability to answer the arguments. We can only hope that our readers will know that you are not as STUPID as Brother Davis makes you appear to be. Especially when he is leaving the impression that you agree with him that E. lee Saffold is “hiding” by coming out in public to challenge anyone to formally debate this issue with him.

He falsely claims that E. Lee Saffold knows that no one in this forum wants to engage in a formal debate and that our request for such is nothing more than a “dodge”. But, he deliberately ignores and hopes that you will fail to realize that when we first accepted Sister Muse’s request that we agree to debate this issue formally in this forum we did not know any such thing. In fact, we sincerely believed just the opposite of what he claims, but cannot prove, that we knew. And, in this thread, we are not the ones who suggested a debate on the subject of authorization. And we had no such idea in our minds. But instead, Sister D. Lee Muse requested this formal debate and asked us to correct her if she had assumed incorrectly that E. Lee Saffold would be willing to engage in a formal debate concerning this issue. WE told her that she assumed correctly and that we were willing to do so. Now how on earth could someone imagine that we were “dodging” by responding to accept the request that we engage in a formal debate of this subject made by someone other than ourselves? Sister Muse has asked if we would do this and we have agreed that we would and all brother Davis can do is attempt to make it appear that we are “hiding” and “dodging” by accepting Sister Muse’s request that we engage in a very public debate! Such pathetic and deliberate misrepresentations of the truth and facts in this matter are inexcusable among a people who lay claim to a belief in honesty, integrity and love for truth. And such cowardice in the face of a request for public debate, as demonstrated by Brother Davis, is unparalleled in the history of the restoration movement. Everyone of you who agree with Brother Davis and are unwilling to formally debate this issue yet seek to turn the facts around and charge E. Lee Saffold with “hiding” and “dodging” by accepting someone else’s call for a formal debate should rightly be very ashamed of yourselves. For you are surely not of the caliber of men who began and led this great movement to restore New Testament Christianity.

You are more than willing to “state your arguments here” but you are not willing to bring them into a formal debate where E. Lee Saffold is allowed to respond to one person and also make counter arguments that you are REQUIRED to respond to and not ignore. You are willing to discuss this issue so long as you can maintain an unfair advantage of being able at any time you chose to simply ignore all arguments to the contrary of your position. And so long as you know that many others can rush to your aid and confuse the issue and put up smoke screens to allow you time to escape any difficulties you might encounter. But a fair and equitable discussion where you must respond or accept the truthfulness of an argument you must avoid at all cost. The great restoration leaders who were champions of the formal debate would be sorely ashamed and they would issue a stern rebuke to your embarrassing response to Sister Muse’s reasonable request for a formal debate on this issue.

And to those of you, which are most of my Brethren in this forum, who do not agree with Brother Davis’ pathetic attempt to make it appear that we are dodging the issue. And that we are doing so simply by agreeing to formally debate it at the request of one who holds to the opposite position from his own. To you we will only say, “beware of such men as Brother Davis shows himself to be in this forum”.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 11, 2001

Brethren:

Brother Umstetter has said:

“Fact - The New Testament does not command the use of instruments Fact”

This is the truth and we would not seek to deny it.

Then he says:

“The New Testament does not forbid the use of instruments”

We will affirm that it does if Brother Umstetter will deny it in a formal debate. If Brother Umstetter would like to state the New Testament authorizes instrumental music in the worship of God as a proposition and affirms it in a formal debate we would be more than willing to deny it. If it is a fact where is the proof of it? Are we to believe it just because brother Umstetter says it is a FACT? This is not enough for us we would like to see him prove it to be the truth. So, will he engage in a formal debate of the things, which he is so willing to assert outside of a debate? We will see, won’t we?

Then he says:

“ Fact - Instruments were used in the OT Fact - Symbolic or not - God reveals the use of instruments in Heaven”

This is true and has not bearing on the subject of the use of instruments in the worship of the church and if Brother Umstetter wishes to affirm that it does in a formal debate we will be more than willing to deny it.

Then he says:

“Fact - Psamlmos means to pluck”

There is far more to the meaning of the word “Psalmos” than simply to “pluck”. And The meaning of this word underwent several changes in the various periods of the history of the Greek language. And what must be understood is just what was its meaning and how was it used in the New Testament Period. And we have heard this oversimplification concerning the meaning and use of the word Psalmos often in this forum. And if anyone will engage us in a formal debate where we will be allowed to discuss this matter in detail. And our opponent will be required to respond to all that we point out about this word we will be happy to make everyone aware of the simple fact that this argument is not as simple as Brother Umstetter wants you to believe that it is. And we can also show that the meaning and use of this word in the New Testament is far from what he would need for it to be in order for him to find authorization for the use of instruments in the worship. But, Brethren, these men do not want to allow these facts to be scrutinized in a fair and equitable discussion. Ask yourself why? If these arguments that Brother Umstetter makes are so powerful why is he unwilling to allow them to be brought into a fair, honest, equitable debate? Why would he fear their being brought into such an arena? If he is so confident that they settle the matter beyond all doubt them why not allow them to be examined in a format where he must hear all of the facts related to them?

Be all of that as it may, we challenge him to bring this argument concerning the Greek word "Psalmos” into a formal debate and we will answer it. And our readers really would like to see our answer. And they have the right to have all of the information on this word given to them. And they should hear even the things that those of us who disagree with Brother Umstetter have to say about it in a format where Brother Umstetter is required to respond and is not allowed to simply ignore it.

Then he says:

“Summation - musical instruments are neither commanded nor forbidden in the New Testament.”

If he will affirm this as a proposition in a formal debate we will deny it.

Then he says:

“ They were used to worship God in the OT and in the book of Revelation. God did not condemn it in either place.”

“Therefore - my belief by inference is that God can be honored with musical instrumentation”

Are you willing to affirm this in a formal debate and allow us to respond and require that you respond to us? If so we will be happy to deny it.

“Further Fact - No where are Church buildings commanded in the NT”

We are willing to affirm, in a formal debate that Church Buildings are authorized in the New Testament if anyone is willing to deny it.

“ Fact - No where in the NT are hymnals, pitch pipes, or Sunday School commanded”

We are more than willing to affirm that “hymnals (song books), Pitch Pipes and Bible Schools are authorized in the New Testament if anyone is willing to deny it.

Then he summarized:

“Summation - the same logic that says it is sin to use musical instruments must be applied to these other issues other wise it becomes a hypocritical smorgasbord of accepting what one likes.”

If you are willing, Brother Umstetter, to affirm this general summation in a formal debate we be more than willing to deny it.

So, most of the things that Brother Umstetter stated as “facts” in his above comments he failed miserably to demonstrate from any reliable evidence that they were indeed FACTS. WE have challenged him on most of them to debate them formally with us in this forum. For we surely deny that they are facts as he merely asserts. So, we wait to see if he is willing to allow us to formally debate these matters.

And based upon his assumptions which he did nothing more than affirm that they were “facts” he accuses those of us who do not use instruments of music of being hypocrites who merely “accepting what we like”. When the truth is that we are willing only to practice in the worship and service of God the things which we can PROVE that God has authorized or that God wants. For it is God’s will that we want to do. In fact, we very much LIKE music. We enjoy it as much as anyone does. But we deny ourselves this “pleasure” in the worship because we are there to do what we know God’s authorizes us to do for we seek to please him rather than pleasure ourselves without any regard to what is pleasing to him.

But, If Brother Umstetter wishes to affirm from the scriptures that those who do not use mechanical instruments of music in their worship of God are hypocrites for making that choice then we will be willing to deny it in a formal debate.

So, Brethren, we wait to see if anyone is willing to take up these matters in a formal debate on the subject of authorization as Sister Muse requested. If not, we hope that you will remember that all of these mere assertions which are offered without one ounce of proof that they are true are simply assertions that these men are only willing to assert as facts. And they hope that you will accept them as such before and completely without their being required to demonstrate from the scriptures that they are indeed facts. So, do ask yourself why they are unwilling to engage in a formal debate of these things that they are unwilling to prove to be actual FACTS. Is it because they know that they are unable to prove them to be facts in the presence of one that just might be able to show that their arguments are flawed? Why is it that they are unwilling to have these things examined in a honorable fair debate where both sides have an equal opportunity and all are held equally responsible for their assertions? Ask yourself WHY? It is a good question, brethren. Indeed it is a good one.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 11, 2001

E. Lee,

Where are you? What are you hiding for? Obviously you don't have any support for your position. Thanks for making that loud and clear for us all.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 11, 2001

Barry: You have said "Obviously you don't have any support for your position. Thanks for making that loud and clear for us all."

That statement that you made is incorrect. I support E. Lee 100% in his views and I believe that the Bible does also. It seems to me that you are the one that is hiding especially since you reject the idea of a formal debate where both sides of the issue will be presented and it will be up to the readers to judge which is correct according to the Bible.

-- Anonymous, November 11, 2001

Kevin,

How am I hiding? I'm the only one willing to post anything of substance on this issue. Where are your arguments? You're lurking in the background and not offering anything to the discussion. You say you agree with E. Lee 100%. How do you know that as he has not made any argument?

I guess we've just exposed another non-instrumentalist, sectarian, denominationlist, hiding in the shadows.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 11, 2001

Barry,

Is the practice of instrumental music in the worship a teaching of God or a teaching of men?

If it is a teaching of God, then you will have to be able to find somewhere in the New Testament where God has authorized it.

There is not a single passage in all the New Testament mentioning instruments of music in the worship of God, let alone commanding that we use it in worship.

Therefore, instruments of music in the public worship is a teaching of the doctrines and commandments of men. “But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:9)

-- Anonymous, November 11, 2001

Brethren:

Brother Davis has asked:

“E. Lee, Where are you?”

Brother Davis, you know where we are. We are right here on the podium in response to Sister D. Lee Muse’s request to debate this subject of Authorization formally with anyone who is willing to do so in this forum. She is one who currently believes in the use of instruments in the worship by the way. So, one who agrees with your position has asked me to debate this issue with anyone in this forum that is willing to do so. We are honoring her request and waiting at the podium for anyone, including you, to take up her challenge to debate this issue with us. And we just keep on waiting. Because none, so far, least of all you, has the courage to debate this issue in a fair and equitable setting.

Then you say:

“ What are you hiding for?”

Every one knows that we are not hiding Brother Davis. And no matter how often you wish to delude yourself concerning this matter the people who read this forum know better, don’t they?

Then you say:

“ Obviously you don't have any support for your position.”

Now if that were really so obvious, Brother Davis, you would immediately agree to debate this with us in a formal debate as Sister Muse has requested. But the fact that you are not willing to engage in a formal debate with us on this issue is sufficient evidence that even you do not believe that we have no support for our position, isn’t it. The truth is that you are certain that we can support our position. In fact, it is because you are certain of it that you do not want to enter a formal debate of the issue. Because a formal debate between us on this issue would settle that matter once and for all and you do not want that now do you? So, if you are so certain that we cannot support our position at all then agree to debate this issue as Sister Muse requested and PROVE that your above pathetic assertion is true, if you think you can.

Then you say:

“Thanks for making that loud and clear for us all.”

The truth of this matter is indeed “loud and clear”. No one in this forum is willing to engage in a formal debate of the authorization issue except E. Lee Saffold who is confident such a debate would do much good for the cause of truth. Everyone else, especially Brother Davis does not have that much confidence in his or her position. That much is quite clear. If these men really believed the false doctrines that they teach could be sustained by the New Testament they would easily be willing to debate the matter in a fair and equal way. But Brother Davis will not debate this issue with us formally because he knows that his position is false to the very core.

Brethren:

We are here at the request of our good sister D. Lee Muse who asked us to agree to a formal debate of this issue in this forum with anyone willing to engage us in such. And we cannot find one person who holds to the position that Sister Muse currently favors who is willing to engage in the formal debate that she requested. Now that ought to tell Sister Muse and our readers much about the real lack of confidence that these men have in their position, shouldn’t it.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 11, 2001

Kevin,

The fact of the matter is, we don't need authorization! Who says that we do?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 11, 2001

E. Lee;

Here are three issues for you to consider:

1 - I have opened a thread for us to debate. The ball is now in your court to respond.

2 - You wrote:

Then he says: “The New Testament does not forbid the use of instruments” We will affirm that it does if Brother Umstetter will deny it in a formal debate. If Brother Umstetter would like to state the New Testament authorizes instrumental music in the worship of God as a proposition and affirms it in a formal debate we would be more than willing to deny it. If it is a fact where is the proof of it? Are we to believe it just because brother Umstetter says it is a FACT? This is not enough for us we would like to see him prove it to be the truth. So, will he engage in a formal debate of the things, which he is so willing to assert outside of a debate? We will see, won’t we?

I say: I never said the NT authorizes instrumental music. But if I say it does not forbid it, I am saying there is no scripture that says anything to the effect of: the Lord forbids the use of musical instruments in worship. If you disagree - you must show proof of such a verse.

3 - You say:

But, If Brother Umstetter wishes to affirm from the scriptures that those who do not use mechanical instruments of music in their worship of God are hypocrites for making that choice then we will be willing to deny it in a formal debate.

I did not say this!!!!

What I said was: Summation - the same logic that says it is sin to use musical instruments must be applied to these other issues other wise it becomes a hypocritical smorgasbord of accepting what one likes.

Unlike you sir, I attacked the argument, not the person(s) invovled. One can have a hypocritical conundrum without purposely being a hypocrite. Therefore, I did not call anyone a hypocrite.

And as I have tried to respect you as a person, I again call on you to take a higher path - no more personal slams or put downs. Just say I disagree and it works better for all involved

-- Anonymous, November 11, 2001

Barry,

You said: The fact of the matter is, we don't need authorization! Who says that we do?

In the New Testament we are taught that we need God's expressed authorization for all that we do or say in religion. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for teaching as doctrines the commandments of men, Matthew 15:7-13, and warned that every religious "plant" that did not come from God would be uprooted. In Acts 15:23-24 the apostles write in condemnation of certain teachers, "...to whom we gave no such commandment." Paul rebukes the Corinthian brethren for being led astray by human reason and teaches them "....not to exceed what is written," 1 Corinthians 4:6.

We are taught again and again to use the scriptures as our guide for truth, proper worship, and righteous living. See such passages as 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Timothy 3:14-15, 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

To introduce mechanical instruments into the worship assembly requires that we go beyond the scriptures, and in that case we would not be relying upon them. We are taught in the NT to do all things "in the name of the Lord", Colossians 3:17. To do something in another's name means to do it with their approval. To say we are acting in the name of the Lord and then practice things which He has not authorized is to act presumptuously and to risk His disfavor, Matthew 7:21-23.

We are told to reject "different" doctrines, Galatians 1:6-8, 1 Timothy 6:3-5. These are defined as anything other than what had been taught by the apostles of the NT. The Apostles did not teach the church to use instruments. Their use is therefore a "different" doctrine, and I reject it.

If we want to please God and not just ourselves, then our approach should be to seek out those forms of worship that we know meet with His approval.

-- Anonymous, November 11, 2001

Kevin,

For the sake of argument, I accept your statement that we must have authorization for everything we do in worship. With that in mind, please provide me with book, chapter and verse for the following that exists in most non-instrumental churches (if your church does not offer one of the following, please say so):

1) Pews and/or chairs.

2) Carpeting

3) Sound System

4) Pitch Pipe

5) Communion trays, cups

6) Store bought grape juice rather than homemade

7) Store bought crackers rather than real unleavened bread

8) Hymnals

9) Fellowship Dinners

10) Revival meetings/Lecturships

11) Sunday School

These will do for now. Since you are "authorized" for all these things, surely you can back them up, one by one, with Scripture. I await your documentation.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Barry & Kevin --

Many times, at least in the discussions I have had with "non" folks on the authorizatino issue, it comes down to authorization for worship. So, Sunday School, dinners, etc. would be okay, since they are not "worship" in the technical sense ... at least that is what I've been told.

But, this all breaks down with the items Barry mentions when it comes to worship ... pitch pipe, pews, specialized buildings, etc.

I use a guitar to facilitate the worship ... helps to keep in tune, keep time, etc. The church of Christ here in Indiana, PA uses a pitch pipe to help set the tune ... what's the difference!?!?!?!?!

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Hi All,

I just read this on another board and found it compelling:

Synagogue worship came into being during the period of exile in about 600BC. It was never authorized in the Torah or Talmud, yet Jesus participated in this event weekly, and we have no evidence of him denouncing it. In fact, he used this gathering of Jews to announce that he was the Messiah.

In addition, Paul made it a point to worship with and preach at the synagogues where they would accept him.

IHS, Barry

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Barry,

There is quite a difference between Aids and Additions.

Christ wants us to sing. He gives the commandment to sing. He specified the type of music. What would constitute an aid and an addition?

Commandment Aid Addition Sing Song books, Notes Play

If we sing with a song book which has notes, the specified music would be heard by God and nothing else. If another type of music were added, it would not be that which the Lord commanded.

The instrument is not an aid. It is an addition! Therefore, it is not acceptable as an aid. It was never an aid. In the Old Testament, it was considered worship by David (Ps 150).

The same thing concerning aids and additions can easily be demonstrated in the matter of church buildings, baptisteries, ETC. Nothing is done with them that is not within the scope of God's will concerning the worship service. They do not set up actions in worship separate and apart from that which God has ordained, such as is involved in the use of instrumental music.

God has commanded Christians to meet (Heb 10:25). He has not specified where to meet. They can meet under a tree, by a riverside, in a large building, in a private dwelling, in the daytime, at night, etc. No matter where they meet, when they meet to worship God according to the activities that He has designated (singing, praying, etc.), they are doing no more nor less than God's will. They have not added anything; the building just aids them as a convenient place to meet. They have added nothing to the Lord's command to meet.

When Christ commanded the church to baptize, He implied everything that was necessary to carry out the command. He did not say "Go to the water," but in executing the Lord's command, we find the apostles going to the water. In using a baptistery, Christians do not baptize and do something else at the same time. If one baptizes a penitent believer in a baptistery, a river, a lake, or a pond, he is doing no more nor less than is required in the command to baptize.

Perhaps the following chart can help to further distinguish between aids to worship and unscriptural additions to worship:

God's Command Aid or Addition? Man's Response Conclusion Baptize Baptistery Baptize Aid Meet Church building Meet Aid Sing Song books Sing Aid Sing Piano Play Addition

This list is not all inclusive, but you get the picture. God commanded the church to baptize, meet, and sing; but, nowhere did He command the church to play. When one baptizes in a baptistery, he is not baptizing and doing something else at the same time. When one sings with a song book, he is not singing and doing something else at the same time. But when one sings and plays the piano or other instrument, he is singing and playing at the same time.

Christ affirmed that the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms are written (Luke 24:44). Therefore, it is obviously permissible to have a written psalm book. He has also commanded us to sing hymns and spiritual songs. So it is obviously permissible for us to have books containing hymns and spiritual songs.

What About the Tuning Fork or Pitch Pipe? In the first place, musical instruments and pitch pipes are not one and the same. Music, properly defined, is a succession of tones in an orderly, melodic pattern. The pitch pipe or tuning fork is not designed to produce a succession of tones in an orderly, melodic pattern. Its sole purpose is to secure the pitch for the singing.

It is impossible to sing without pitch; therefore, pitch is a necessary part of the command to sing. God has not specified how to secure the pitch, which is a necessary part of the command to sing; therefore, those who sing can secure the pitch by any orderly, convenient means.

After the pitch pipe or tuning fork has been used to secure the pitch, it becomes silent and the worship in song takes place. Nothing has been added to God's plan of worship. The tuning fork or pitch pipe introduces no independent kind of musical activity in the worship service as do the instruments of music.

I am still waiting for the answer to my question: Is the practice of instrumental music in the worship a teaching of God or a teaching of men? Please provide Book, Chapter and Verse from the New Testament where this is authorized.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

I apologize for my charts not coming out as I intended. Hopefully this will work out correctly.

Commandment Aid Addition

Sing Song books, Notes Play

God's Command Aid or Addition? Man's Response Conclusion

Baptize Baptistery Baptize Aid

Meet Church building Meet Aid

Sing Song books Sing Aid

Sing Piano Play Addition

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Kevin wrote: I am still waiting for the answer to my question: Is the practice of instrumental music in the worship a teaching of God or a teaching of men? Please provide Book, Chapter and Verse from the New Testament where this is authorized.

I'll be glad to answer your question as soon as you answer mine. Where does the Bible talk about the difference between "aids" and "additions". I asked you to show me the authorization for the list of items I've given from the Bible. You haven't provided ONE verse. It seems that if this was such a clear command God would have given us at least ONE instruction, doesn't it?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Barry,

If you look back on this thread, I was the one that asked the first question to which you have never responded. I at least made an attempt to answer your questions, but as has been seen in previous threads you just pick and choose which questions to answer and most of the time you don't even answer them at all.

How is an “addition” distinguished from an “aid”? An addition occurs when a particular action has been altered, or the fundamental composition or substance of a thing has been changed. An aid alters nothing; it merely facilitates the implementation of the action or substance, without changing anything.

Perhaps several examples will help us focus on this.

A cane may aid one in taking a walk, but with or without this device, one is just walking. But if one walks for a while, and then rides a bicycle, he is no longer just walking; something has been added to his mode of travel. Now, he’s both walking and riding.

A mother sends her son to the market to buy a loaf of bread. He brings the bread home in a bag. The bag is merely an aid. Should he purchase a candy bar as well, he has disregarded the instruction of his mother by an addition.

A man takes his automobile to the service center for an oil change. The attendant may use a wrench and funnel to aid in his replacement of the oil. There is no problem with that. But we all understand that if he changes the sparks plugs as well, he has augmented the original instructions.

Jesus taught that the communion supper is to consist of bread and fruit of the vine. A table, plates, and cups facilitate (aid) the implementation of those commands. But to garnish the bread with peanut butter, and “punch up” the fruit of the vine with ginger ale, is to be guilty of addition.

Christians are obligated to preach the gospel everywhere to the extent of their ability. In order to accomplish this, it is acceptable to use aids (e.g., tracts, television, the world wide web, or a building). But if one combines something with that gospel (as the Judaizers did in the first century when they taught that circumcision, an element of the Mosaic law, is also necessary to receive salvation — Acts 15:1), that is an offense.

When the church commences the musical portion of its service, the saints may “sing,” for such is enjoined by God (Eph. 5:18-19; Col. 3:16). Christians may employ song books, a projection screen, or a tuning fork (to determine the appropriate “pitch”). Still, though, in the final analysis, they would be singing only.

On the other hand, if the church sings to the accompaniment of an organ, those thus participating have added something to what the Lord prescribed. There now are two types of music — vocal and instrumental. The nature of the original command has been supplemented.

Additions are wrong.

And so, the serious Bible student must conclude that the use of a mere aid only accommodates obedience to God’s will. Such expediencies may fluctuate from time-to-time and from place-to-place.

On the other hand, those who respect the authority of the sacred Scriptures will not tamper with the divine prescriptions for worship by the clutterment of additions. They will not add to sacred instruction, for to do so is to invite the wrath of God ultimately.

One needs to remember what happened to those who put God’s Ark of the Covenant on a “new” cart (2 Sam. 6:3), instead of transporting the sacred chest as the law had required (Ex. 25:12-14). David later admitted that this addition was “not according to the [divine] ordinance” (1 Chron. 15:16). It pays to know the difference between an “aid” and an “addition.”

To many, such matters perhaps seem rather trivial. This is because they have never fathomed the concept of the necessity of absolute obedience to the sovereign Creator.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Kevin: To many, such matters perhaps seem rather trivial. This is because they have never fathomed the concept of the necessity of absolute obedience to the sovereign Creator.

Barry: Actually, the reason they appear trivial is because they are trivial. Worse than that, they are ridiculous attempts to put God in a box of your own making. God loves musical instruments. There's absolutely no doubt about it. He commanded that we use them in worship (Ps. 150).

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Barry,

The Old Testament truly did authorize playing and dancing as musical praise to God. But this tells us nothing about what God wants today. Today we follow the New Testament.

Hebrews 7:12 - The law was changed.

Hebrews 7:18 - The law was annulled.

Hebrews 10:9,10 - The first covenant was taken away by Jesus, so He could establish the second covenant.

Galatians 3:24,25 - The law was a tutor to bring us to Christ. We are no longer under that tutor.

Galatians 4:21; 5:1-4 - Those who desire to be under the law are entangled in a yoke of bondage, Christ profits them nothing, they are severed from Christ and fallen from grace.

Galatians 5:18 - We are not under the law.

Galatians 2:4,5 - Those who believe we should follow the law are false brethren to whom we should not submit even for an hour.

Romans 7:1-7 - We are dead to the law (v4), and discharged from the law (v6). To follow it today would be like a woman whose husband dies, then she remarries; but she still obeys the will of her dead husband instead of her living husband!

Colossians 2:14,16 - Christ blotted out the handwriting of ordinances which were against us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross. No man should judge us on the basis of its commands.

To follow the law is to contradict Christ, who died to remove it!

[Cf. Eph. 2:14-16; Matt. 5:17,18; 2 Cor. 3:6-11; Acts 15:5,10; Heb. 8:13.]

B. Galatians 5:3 - The Law Is a "Whole."

We Cannot Take Part and Leave Part.

If we seek to follow part of the law, then we are bound to keep the whole thing. Either all of it is binding, or none of it is binding.

Consider some examples of Old Testament practices. On what Scriptural basis may we practice some. but leave off the others?

1) Seventh-day sabbath (including the death penalty) 2) Animal sacrifices 3) Levitical priesthood 4) Circumcision 5) Holy days 6) *Roast lamb (in the Lord's supper?) 7) *Incense 8) *Infant membership 9) *Dancing 10) *Instrumental music

If you reject any of these practices for today, how can you accept instruments? If you accept instruments, how can you reject any of the others? If you accept any of it, you are bound to accept the rest.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

It was not required under the law either to play instruments or to dance. It was encouraged, and it was spontaneous, but it was not a requirement. Therefore just because it is mentioned as having been practiced in the OT, to say that it can no longer be performed because it was only recorded as having happened under the law is painting with too broad a brush.

Jesus did indeed condemn those Pharisees who taught for doctrine the commandments of men. But in my opinion this rather condemns the non- instrumentalists than those who accept instrumental worship. For what were the Pharisees doing? They were trying so hard to keep the Torah that they were adding their own commandments, not explicitly or implicitly found in the Torah, so that they might not "accidentally" do something that God forbade but had not specifically pointed out. Now no one in the instrumental camp would say that having instruments was a command, but those in the non-instrumental camp would make this a requirement, even a test of fellowship. Since it is clear that there is no explicit (or even implicit) "thus saith the Lord" in the NT concerning instruments, aren't non-instrumentalists doing exactly what the Pharisees were condemned for doing by making it a hard-and- fast doctrine?

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

John -- amen, and amen.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Kevin, Numbers 1-8 had a direct connection to the Law. Numbers 9-10 did not. Where are 9-10 commanded as Law-keeping? They are universal principles of worship. They are not connected to either covenant.

Are you saying that God enjoyed instrumental worship in the OT, will enjoy it again in heaven, but for the church age, He despises it?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Barry,

You said: Are you saying that God enjoyed instrumental worship in the OT, will enjoy it again in heaven, but for the church age, He despises it?

My Reply: As for showing disapproval of instruments, where in the Scriptures do we see that God must show approval or disapproval of practices to make them right/wrong? We see in Matthew 19:7-8 that God allowed the Jews to divorce their wives, even though God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). God disapproved of the practice, yet it was allowed. Furthermore, do we read anywhere of God showing disapproval of the Sabbath under the Law of Moses? By no means! Yet we do not observe the Sabbath today, not because God disapproves of it, but because the covenant has changed, and the Sabbath rest is now the hope laid up in Heaven (Hebrews 4). Likewise, God does not need to show that He disapproves of instrumental music for it to not be practiced by His children today.

Every example of music practiced by Christians was vocal. (Matthew 26:30, Acts 16:25, Romans 15:9, I Corinthians 14:15, Hebrews 2:12)

Every command concerning Christians and music was a command to practice vocal music instead of instrumental music. (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16) The only music commanded in the New Testament is vocal.

It is a specific command, therefore it excludes all other kinds of music.

No where in the New Testament does Christ, or an inspired man command the use of instruments of music. There is no command for its use in the church, there is no example of it being used by the church, there is no hint that it was used.

If we truly love the Lord the positive command to sing would be sufficient to exclude instrumental music from the worship.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

John,

You said: Jesus did indeed condemn those Pharisees who taught for doctrine the commandments of men. But in my opinion this rather condemns the non- instrumentalists than those who accept instrumental worship. For what were the Pharisees doing? They were trying so hard to keep the Torah that they were adding their own commandments, not explicitly or implicitly found in the Torah, so that they might not "accidentally" do something that God forbade but had not specifically pointed out. Now no one in the instrumental camp would say that having instruments was a command, but those in the non- instrumental camp would make this a requirement, even a test of fellowship. Since it is clear that there is no explicit (or even implicit) "thus saith the Lord" in the NT concerning instruments, aren't non-instrumentalists doing exactly what the Pharisees were condemned for doing by making it a hard-and- fast doctrine?

My Reply: When Nadab and Abihu went beyond what God commanded, they were devoured with fire sent from God! Is this not enough to indicate that we should do only what is commanded, and not go beyond? The Pharisees and Sadducees claimed to be loyal to God's Word, but time and again Jesus would call them back to Scripture with such statements as, "Have ye not read?" and "Go and see what this means" were direct challenges to them to study the Word of God and correctly interpret it. The problem with the Pharisees attitude toward God's Word was not their claim of strict allegiance to it, but their lack of knowledge of it. The prophet Hosea said "my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." (Hosea 4:6)

Plain and simple, the Bible corrects men's lives, whether they are wrong morally or doctrinally. Sadly, many today refuse to heed correction. Like the spoiled brat, they will hold their breath, stamp their feet, pitch a fit, and throw a tantrum if confronted with their error. Correction simply indicates a returning to the right way.

Obedience to God is required of his servants. (See Romans 16:26). How different is this from people who say that we don't have to keep any law. The Bible says that we are under law, "the perfect law of liberty" (James 1:25) and the New Testament writers obviously thought that we could keep it. Paul told Timothy that the Scriptures make the man of God "perfect." This word indicates the child of God is made complete by the Word. One will never be complete spiritually by heeding man's doctrines, creeds, and opinions. Paul then says the man of God will be "thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:17) That is, he will be equipped with what he needs to serve God faithfully. He knows what his Father requires of him, and he gladly performs it with gratitude for the mercy and grace shown to him.

If we simply follow that which God has revealed, we will use only singing by the whole church in our worship in Him. No other kind of music is commanded. To add mechanical instruments or choirs or solos is to "go beyond the things which are written" (1 Corinthians 4:6). It is to "transgress the doctrine of Christ" (2 John 9). It is to be guilty of adding to the Word of God (Revelation 22:18,19). It makes our worship vain [empty, useless] (Matthew 15:9).

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Kevin -- why is it okay to go to the OT (account of Nadab and Abihu) to explain what God does when "proper" worship practices aren't followed, but it's not okay to go to the OT for explanations about worship? If we are a NT church and we are only going to use the NT for our authorization for worship practices, then let's just stay away from the OT completely and drop the Nadab and Abihu stuff.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Darrell,

The reason that I used the OT to explain what God does when "proper" worship practices aren't followed is because Barry made the following comment in attempting to justify instrumental music in worship. He said: "He commanded that we use them in worship (Ps. 150)."

So if it is okay for Barry to use the OT to attempt to justify the use of instrumental music, then it is okay for me to use the OT to condemn those practices which aren't commanded by God.

I have on several occasions asked for his answer to the following question to which I have received no reply: Is the practice of instrumental music in the worship a teaching of God or a teaching of men? Please provide Book, Chapter and Verse from the New Testament where this is authorized.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

From another thread:

"Inference to use instruments in worship: Ephesians 5:19 & Colossians 3:16. My translation uses the word "psalms" from the word psalmos. Not being a greek scholar, I consulted Vines: PSALMOS primarily denoted a striking or twitching with the fingers (on musical strings); then, a sacred song, sung to musical accompaniment, a psalm.

Quite a bit of inference here, I would guess. I have heard some say these two verses denote COMMANDS to use instruments??????"

Now, I'm not so sure I would go so far as to say these denote a specific command to use instruments, but the inference is certainly there, unless one wants to dredge up the tired argument that the word PSALMOS does not mean to pluck a stringed instrument. That was an arguement used some time ago, but most folks I know, from either side of the instrument issue, agree on the meaning of the word.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Darrell,

You said: "Inference to use instruments in worship: Ephesians 5:19 & Colossians 3:16. My translation uses the word "psalms" from the word psalmos. Not being a greek scholar, I consulted Vines: PSALMOS primarily denoted a striking or twitching with the fingers (on musical strings); then, a sacred song, sung to musical accompaniment, a psalm. Quite a bit of inference here, I would guess. I have heard some say these two verses denote COMMANDS to use instruments??????"

My Reply: The Greek language is a very precise language, and if "play" were indicated, it would have plainly stated so. What then may accompany the singing? Both of these passages tell us: the heart. Shall we pluck the strings of an instrument with our hearts? Shall we snap strings, pull hair or shoot arrow with our hearts? Or, shall we make melody with (in) our hearts?

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

If these passages literally meant the heart ... the muscle in our chest, then yes. But of course it doesn't mean that. It means to do all of the above "with our heart ... with our inner being ... with our minds" or something along those lines.

Which can certainly be done not only with our voice, but with hour hands plucking the strings of a guitar, or ??? Certainly infers the use of instruments ... at least stringed instruments that are plucked or strummed.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Darrell,

The truth of the matter is psallo does not necessarily mean "sing with musical accompaniment." Psallo conveys the action of twitching or twanging. However, the instrument when intended was specified. The instrument is specified in Ephesians 5:19. The stated instrument is the human heart, "…making melody in your heart to the Lord." The heart is the antitype to the material harp (compare Ps. 33:2 with Eph. 5:19).

If God had wanted to be praised today by mechanical devices of music, why did he not simply say so?

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Perhaps what God really wants is facial tics and twitching and singing with a nasal twang. Please, the gymnastics you are going through are absurd.

If God had not wanted to be praised today by mechanical devices of music, why did he not simply say so?

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Worship that pleases God must be according to truth, that is, based on the word of God. Specifically, true worship must be based on the teaching of Christ that is found in the New Testament.

Is the use of mechanical instruments in the worship of the church according to Jesus' truth? If so, where is the passage?

Jesus instructed His apostles to teach men to observe all things that He commanded them (Matthew 28:20).

Is the use of such instruments in worship to God part of what Jesus commanded the apostles? If so, where is it written?

Does the Lord command us to use mechanical instruments of music when singing spiritual songs?

No.

Does God give us a direct statement that shows that such instruments are allowed?

No.

Is there an approved example of such in the New Testament?

No.

Is there any implication in Jesus' doctrine that shows that the church has the right to worship God with mechanical instruments of music?

No.

Thus, the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship to God is not part of Jesus' doctrine. If that is so, then using them in the worship of the church did not come from Jesus, but from men.

Do you remember Jesus' question to the Jewish leaders about John the Baptizer's baptism? "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men" (Matthew 21:25)? If you will substitute in that question the words "the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship of the church" for "the baptism of John," then you will have the question that we need to answer. Is it (mechanical instruments in the worship of the church) from heaven or men?

From men.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Kevin,

In light of your comments about "Aids" vs. "Additions" I was wondering where the Christian Music Group Acappella would fit into your chart? They do not use instruments, but make muscial sounds vocally. Would that be an Aid or an Addition and why?

IHS,

Barry Claims of Christ Website

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Great question Barry!!

I might add....they also use CD's...tapes....synthesizers...voice reproductions...etc...etc.

In all fairness, however, Accappella has been "disfellowshipped" by a number of "nons."

It does, however, bring up the continued inconsistencies of such a hermeneutic.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Barry,

You said: "In light of your comments about "Aids" vs. "Additions" I was wondering where the Christian Music Group Acappella would fit into your chart? They do not use instruments, but make muscial sounds vocally. Would that be an Aid or an Addition and why?"

My Reply: The music group Acappella would not fit into the chart at all! A group, or a solo, or a choir, when not joined by ALL is not fulfilling the commandment to “sing and admonish one another”, or to be “speaking to one another.” (Eph 5:19) The group or soloist may be speaking to the audience, but unless the audience is also singing the interchange is non-existent.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Barry -- MOST (though not all) churches of Christ do not have anyone present "special music" or "musical offerings" or whatever the term of the day might be, for the reasons Kevin noted above. So, MOST 9though not all) churches of Christ would never have Acappella (or any other group) sing a "special" during the worship service.

Kevin -- what about their singing style at concerts and special events ... but not during a "worship service?"

I have asked in other threads, and never received an answer ... is there a difference 'tween a "worship service" and our everyday worship to God? Church of Christ preacher friend here in Indiana, PA sees no difference. He will not listen to instrumental Christian music in his car, at home, office,etc. as it might cause him to "go into worship mode" so to speak, and then he would be sinning.

Your thoughts?

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

I imagine God is grieving at this point. I have never heard such ludicrous legalistic nonsense in my life.

IHS, Barry

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Darrell,

You said: "Kevin -- what about their singing style at concerts and special events ... but not during a "worship service?"

My Reply: I personally wouldn't go and see them in concert. There is no problem with going to see them in concert or any other respectable group in concert. If we continue to "add" whatever feels good or whatever isn't specifically commanded to worship services when will it all end? We should always keep in mind that we are to worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). We should also remember that all things should be done decently and in order. (1 Cor. 14:40)

You also said: "I have asked in other threads, and never received an answer ... is there a difference 'tween a "worship service" and our everyday worship to God? Church of Christ preacher friend here in Indiana, PA sees no difference. He will not listen to instrumental Christian music in his car, at home, office,etc. as it might cause him to "go into worship mode" so to speak, and then he would be sinning.

My Reply: I need to study the Word of God more to be able to give a reasonable answer to your question.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Barry,

You said: "I imagine God is grieving at this point. I have never heard such ludicrous legalistic nonsense in my life."

My Reply: I would like to know how it is that you can say that God is grieving at this point with no proof whatsoever to your statement. You also offer no proof that what has been said is "legalistic nonsense". You would be taken more serious if you were to back up your words with something more than pure speculation.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Kevin, I'm sure you don't see it as legalistic nonsense as you are the one that holds to the position.

Let me ask you a question: Where does worship take place? Is it only in a church building. You said that it would be okay to listen to Acappela in concert, but not at worship. Can't we worship at a concert?

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Barry,

Paul says: "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service" (Rom. 12:1).

Does this mean that we are only to do this in "a church building"?

How about this next verse? "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God." (Rom. 12:2)

Can we only do this in "a church building"?

What does this mean? "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12)

Is this only to be put into practice during worship in "a church building"?

"Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's." (1 Cor. 6:19-20)

How can we only do this in "a church building"?

All that we do should be according to the will of God; therefore, we should present our bodies as a living sacrifice that is holy, acceptable to God. This is our reasonable service.

-- Anonymous, November 15, 2001

I dont post as much as I should anymore, but I thought I'd say a thing or two here.

The authorization issue gets to be very subjective imo, and what will happen, as has happened with those who use it, is division after division. I am not saying that my brother E. Lee or anyone else intends to divide, it just works out that way, even though the purpose sought was to unite.

As far as the musical instruments, there is one aspect of this I have yet to see anyone touch upon, and it's a point I brought up a few months ago. Paul told us to "speaking to one another in psalms (GR=psalmois) and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;" (Eph 5:19). We, as Christians, are told to sing the Psalms, and whatever defintion you wish to attach to the Greek word Psalmos, you cannot get away from the fact that we are told to sing them. Those very Psalms tell us to praise Him, no location given, with all kinds of musical instruments. THe only limitation to the praise is you must have breath.

And before anyone tries to say that Paul did not mean THE Psalms, the LXX calls the book of Psalms "Psalmoi." To have the Hebrew of Hebrews tell the Church to sing Psalms, but he didn't mean THE Psalms is off the deep end imho.

I do not have any problem with my brothers in the acapella Churches, as long as the issue is one of preference.

-- Anonymous, November 15, 2001

Brother Scott:

You have said:

“I dont post as much as I should anymore, but I thought I'd say a thing or two here.”

And we regret this fact for we would like very much to see more of the very good writing that we know you are capable of doing in the forum.

Then you say:

“The authorization issue gets to be very subjective imo, and what will happen, as has happened with those who use it, is division after division. I am not saying that my brother E. Lee or anyone else intends to divide, it just works out that way, even though the purpose sought was to unite.”

WE appreciate your recognition that we have no intent to divide. And we agree that those who actually misunderstand the “Authorization issue” can use it to be divisive. And we are certain that this must be what you have in mind with your above comments. For God is the one who authorizes things. And he is not intending to be divisive when he does so even though it would be a natural result that there would ensue a very natural division between those who want to accept God’s authority and obey Him and those who reject his authority and disobey Him. This result can never be avoided in a world filled with creatures that have been given the right and free do to chose.

And we sincerely think that you would agree with us that those who claim that there is no need for ANY authority from God for what we do are, by their belief, no more immune to the curse of divisiveness as are those who accept the authority of God.

Then you say:

“As far as the musical instruments, there is one aspect of this I have yet to see anyone touch upon, and it's a point I brought up a few months ago. Paul told us to "speaking to one another in psalms (GR=psalmois) and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;" (Eph 5:19). We, as Christians, are told to sing the Psalms, and whatever defintion you wish to attach to the Greek word Psalmos, you cannot get away from the fact that we are told to sing them. Those very Psalms tell us to praise Him, no location given, with all kinds of musical instruments. THe only limitation to the praise is you must have breath. And before anyone tries to say that Paul did not mean THE Psalms, the LXX calls the book of Psalms "Psalmoi." To have the Hebrew of Hebrews tell the Church to sing Psalms, but he didn't mean THE Psalms is off the deep end imho.”

WE agree with you that none have touched upon this “aspect” that you have brought up. And we find it an interesting one indeed. And we are certain that there is much to be considered about it because we need to understand the actual meaning of the Greek word, to which you refer (Psalmoi), in the period in which it is being used. And the actual nature of the instrument mentioned in Eph. 5:19, as well as other matters. But, as we have consistently said to others, we now repeat to you. We will be happy to “touch upon this aspect” of the issue of instrumental music in a formal debate on the matter should anyone like to bring such into it. We have offered to answer anyone’s questions about this matter in such a debate if anyone is interested enough in those matters to engage in such. And for that reason we have not thus far “touched” upon any of the various and contradictory arguments that everyone has offered outside of a formal debate of this matter. WE have good reasons for doing such. Not the least of which is that we are seeking, because we are in a forum where the majority is opposed to us on this matter. We seek to do this to ensure that what we have to say in response to these very good and reasonable questions heard and given a “fair” and objective hearing. Now, if you are willing to grant such a hearing to our answers we will be happy to give you our response in either a formal debate. We can discuss it via email so that we can discuss without interruptions and distractions if you like. But it is interesting. And we would enjoy discussing it with you in a way in which we would not be interrupted with senseless comments from those who cannot keep their emotions in check on this issue long enough to give every argument a fair and objective and serious consideration. But we are interested in considering what you have said because we know that you are fair, objective and reasonable. But, we will not, in this forum discuss the matter outside of a formal debate which would ensure fairness. WE sincerely hope that you can understand our reasons for this as we have explained them often.

Then you say:

“I do not have any problem with my brothers in the acapella Churches, as long as the issue is one of preference.”

We know that you do not have any “problem” with us and can attest to the fact that you are willing to be in fellowship with us. And you know that we do not believe that this issue of authorization and instrumental music is not merely a matter of personal preference with us. But we have still sought as much as possible to remain in the fellowship of those who do not agree with us as much as possible. And we continue to do so as long as they do not place us in a position wherein we must violate our conscience. “For whatsoever is not of faith is sin”. We cannot worship with the instrument without violating our consciences. And we are hopeful that our Brethren would see the good that could ensue if they respected our conscience in these things even if they could not agree with us concerning these matters. But we agree with you that the matter of authorization affects far more than instruments. And it should.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 15, 2001

I believe that we proceed under a false assumption that God commanded musical instruments be used in the OT. No where did he directly command their use. Of course we have the example of David in Psalm 150. He writes from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Instrumental music was a form of worship introduced by David. 1 Chron 6:31-32 "These are the men David put in charge of the music in the house of the LORD after the ark came to rest there. They ministered with music before the tabernacle, the Tent of Meeting, until Solomon built the temple of the LORD in Jerusalem. They performed their duties according to the regulations laid down for them." The word “regulations” is the Hebrew word mishpat (mish- pawt') this is translated “divine law” or “ordinance”. These men were appointed by David who had received instruction from God regarding their performance of duties before Him just as He had commanded men to be set apart as craftsmen to build His Tabernacle and as priests to serve in there. 1 Chron 25:1 David, together with the commanders of the army, set apart some of the sons of Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun for the ministry of prophesying, accompanied by harps, lyres and cymbals. 1 Chron 25:6-8 All these men were under the supervision of their fathers for the music of the temple of the LORD, with cymbals, lyres and harps, for the ministry at the house of God. Asaph, Jeduthun and Heman were under the supervision of the king. Along with their relatives-all of them trained and skilled in music for the LORD-they numbered 288. Young and old alike, teacher as well as student, cast lots for their duties. Notice that King David supervised the musicians. We all know that David was the composer of many Psalms. Many were vocalizations written for musical accompaniment. The temple musicians provided this accompaniment while the singers may have sung psalms composed by King David. David also delegated authority to the priests to appoint qualified men to serve the Lord with music. 1 Chron 15:16 David told the leaders of the Levites to appoint their brothers as singers to sing joyful songs, accompanied by musical instruments: lyres, harps and cymbals. Notice that nowhere is the word “performance” used to describe what took place in this worship. On the contrary the connotation is of service with the goal being to please the Lord, not entertain the worshippers. Even in the Old Testament form of worship the aim was the same as that in the new. 1) To give glory and praise to God. 2) To please Him with the service of worship. David, guided by the Holy Spirit wrote in Psalm 33:1-3 Sing joyfully to the LORD, you righteous; it is fitting for the upright to praise him. Praise the LORD with the harp; make music to him on the ten-stringed lyre. Sing to him a new song; play skillfully, and shout for joy. There is no where mentioned a direct command from the Lord regarding the use of instrumental music in Old Testament worship but it is fair to assume that since God gave the regulation regarding it’s use, and the Holy Spirit sanctioned this type of praise that it was approved by Him for that "form" of worship.

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001