This may prove to be one of our most productive and life-changing debates in this Forum.

Many of you know it has been discussed before.

There will be TWO main debaters, with two or more propostitions to affirm or deny.

There will be a spirit of love and unity as were often evident in other brotherhood debates of the past.

There will be rules and guidelines, with at least one moderator (me), but another if one volunteers.

There will be guidelines as to the rest of us "lurkers" who may have the freedom to "add" points to their "favorite contender", but the TWO primary debators will be the only ones addressing each other and will be under no obligation to respond to "bystanders".

If a debater appreciates a point well made by a "bystander" he/she may then add it into his own argument. At that point only will it be fair game for the "opponent" to be obligated to respond to.

Lee Saffold has agreed to contend for the denial of the use of instrumental music in worship. Lee, please repost your original affirm/deny statements.

So far No one has accepted the challenge to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered.

Look, I know most of you guys. I know that YOU know others who are quite capable of entering this debate in defense of instrumental music, however, they may not be aware of this Forum. Please contact them, and we can set it up.

If any one of you has any further concerns, feel free to call me anytime, toll-free, at 888 265 7288.

YODA

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2000

Answers

Duane....

To suggest that "It Is Time to Have A Serious Debate"....is rather presumptuous....don't you think??

It's not like this hasn't been "seriously debated" now for 200 years.

Chances are.....just like all the other debates...including Dewelt's "Unity Forums"....the same arguments will be bantered around. As Solomon said..."There is nothing new under the sun."

The Christian faith is tough enough right now in the world we live in. There are issues of homosexuality....single parenthood on the rise....an eroding Constitution....the "spirit of tolerance"...the use of fetal tissue for medical research.....bio medical advances that require tough ethical questions....an increasingly biblically illiterate pew.....an educational system that has become a seedbed for teen violence.....et. al.

To be honest.....the piano is way down on my list of "brotherhood" and "world" concerns.

I'd rather conserve my energies for the important stuff.

Like I told Lee months ago......he's welcome to worship with us anytime. I've already told the congregation about it. They would be glad to put away the piano anytime he or any other non-instrumental brother wants to join us in worship.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2000

BTW....

Brother Benjamin was right. Jude 3 is a poor choice of Scripture to use in this case. I really don't see any correlation between the Docetic Gnostic heresy.....and the piano.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2000

Duane....

To equate the soteriological debates of the beginning of the movement with the debate over the piano is a classic example of mixing "apples and oranges."

The fact that you have "not seen many of those issues" of which I have mentioned is one of the very reasons this forum has not been deserving of much of my time lately. (In fact, I believe your records will show that my number of posts have drastically gone down.)

Also....I'm not sure that the way you quoted Darrell....was what he meant. My guess is....Darrell doesn't have much interest in the "piano debate" either. If I understood Darrell....he was looking for a forum of ideas on more practical issues.

Duane...you know better than to accuse me of shying away from debate. However, I refuse to debate an issue.....that I see as a non-issue.

I find it interesting....you want to debate this issue....but I found it to be like pulling teeth to get you into some of the weightier issues that have been on this forum...i.e., the "sinless perfection" issue.

Inerrancy of Scripture? I'll debate that. Women in leadership? I'll debate that. P.K. attendance? I'll debate that.

But the piano in worship? Hardly.

Don't you find it interesting.....that none of the early "reformers" debated the issue?

Campbell...although a "non" readily worshipped among both groups...as was the habit of most of the churches until....the Civil War.

I'm perfectly comfortable in saying...the "One Body Ministries" has accomlished little. If the truth hurts....so be it.

What barriers that are breaking down between the two groups is not breaking down because of "One Body" or any debate...it is breaking down because the old hard liners of the "nons" are dying out and being replaced by those with who it is a non-issue. In fact, many have ended up in the churches I have preached it for years.

Just to show you how much of a non issue it is with me....my daughter now attends a "non" church because the Christian Churches in her area don't have the doctrinal consistency of yesterday's oatmeal.

Debate it if you wish....but I think you are dreadfully off the mark to insinuate that those of us who chose not to participate as being "fearful of debate."

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2000

Where does "the debate" stand??? I've not heard one way or the other......whether or not it is going to happen or not.

I'm crazy for doing this.....I'm teaching one college course now.....and will be teaching two more in the fall....in addtion to my ministry.....BUT.....

.......if Jack has not accepted the challenge to debate Lee....then.....I will do it.

If for no other reason....but to at least be able to hear Lee say he was given a fair hearing.

Just let me know what the status of things is......and.....if I'm going to be involved in it.....let me know the ground rules.

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

Ben.....

Abileen Univeristy in Texas is the same way (at least to some degree in the past).

They sing hymns.....then someone announces that "the worship service will now begin"......at which time the piano is then rolled off the stage.

Brother Lee, at least appears to be showing some consistency. He points out that singing hymns at any time with accompaniment is.....wrong.

I've seen very little of that same consistency in the "non" churches.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2000

Lee.....

Your rhetoric fully endorsed everything Ben has said.

In sweeping strokes (hiding under the guise of "Brother Ben")....you have condemned all in the Christian Church of deceiving those they teach (including myself). Don't try to explain that away. You did it.

You have created a "straw man" that does not exist. You have misrepresented the Christian Church position.....and to boot....you have committed historical malpractice.

I have two regrets.....one which leads to the other. First....that I didn't accept the invitation....because if I did (now my second regret) we would have already been going at it.

This has taken way too long.

In my opinion Lee....your real heart came out in this last post. ("What cometh out of a man's heart.") You do make it a test of fellowship and consider anyone who does otherwise to be "sinning against the Lord."

You crossed the line from your personal conscience to a blazing condemnation of everyone who does not see it your way.

As I thought....your arguments will reveal "nothing new under the sun."

Like the Scripture commands that we do....."for the sake of the weaker brother"......we'll put the instrument away anytime you want to come to Indiana.

I hope Brother Jack reads your latest post and sees where your heart really is.

Very disappointing Lee. At the very least....a vengeful spirit is unbecoming.

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2000

This is to say that I am seriously considering such an endeavor, as it has been many years since I have done so. I am concerned about the wordage of the proposition Lee will make. I well recognize the Talent I would be up against.However, The Spirit of Christ, prevailing through it all would be refreshing to all. Will the definition of important words in the proposition be part of the package? For Christ and His Church. Bro. Jack

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2000

Duane,

You said,

"So far No one has accepted the challenge to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered."

Are you sure you are happy with what quoting that verse would seem to imply?

Jude says, "... I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the Saints." (That's the NIV rendering; the KJV says, "once delivered.") Continuing: "For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord."

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2000

My personal hope is that no-one will accept the challenge and that this might encourage Lee to re-think his position and agree to "discuss" the question without an actual debate. I am interested in this question and would like to "discuss" various aspects of it, but, as I've said elsewhere, because of the adversarial nature of a debate, I do not think it is appropriate to have an actual "debate" on this particular question. Therefore, my conscience will not allow me to be one of the protagonists.

I understand that in the format you propose, I would be able to make comments, but it would still be part of a debate. I would really prefer not to even "collaborate" or participate or otherwise condone a debate that I think is inappropriate. What I would actually do if it came about, I haven't decided yet. My conscience is "uneasy" about it.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2000

Danny. You and Ben are right. To me "the faith once delivered" has always meant (in my mind) the "Non-denominational, New Testament Restorational Instrumental Christian. Bad analogy.

However, Let us not confuse the false god of "prioritization" or "triage" with the important issues which divide our brotherhood.

The fact that there are lesbian bikers on Ophrah makes our desire to investigate the instrumental question no less important. And I have not seen "much" of those "more important" issues you referred to in this Forum anyway...

And remember, as Darrell said, THAT is what this Forum is for.... to earnestly contend for the faith (as we see it!) amongst those of us who share the same heritage.

Ben, I love your spirit, and would remind you that words change meanings and connotations. Think of the change in the word "gay" in just 50 years....This has also happened with another "good" word = debate.

Let's not shy away from debate, done in the proper spirit. I promise, as moderator, I will DELETE anything I DETERMINE to be put forth in an ADVERSERIAL nature. I also respect your past posts and unique perception of our plea, therefore I am coveting your "lurking" through this debate, and your occasional comments to help us keep us on track. JUST BECAUSE IT HAS NOT ALWAYS SUCCEEDED in the past DOES NOT mean it cannot be of benefit now. Come on preachers. Of all people, take some of the medicine you feed your "flock"

So, let's not shy away from the word "debate" If so, we are shying away from a LARGE part of the reason for the phenomenal growth in the movement a hundred years ago...and I think Danny will agree with that.

Yes, "debate" does not claim the audience it did a hundred years ago before the media barrage..... But this Forum is a starting point for those of us pioneers, who, (if anyone) can initiate the dialogue.

Danny, my pal, Be careful when you intimate that "One Body" ministries and others have not succeeded (completely, at least, much has been accomplished.)

Because when you do, you begin to sound like the 90 year old pew warmers who say "we've never done it that way before."

The debate (let's call it dialogue) will continue.

First we will have agreed upon guidelines.

Those of you who will be either lurkers, occasional commenters, or "concientious objectors" (but still reading, we know. :) )

We ask that you interject your comments with one or two sentence limits.

Longer ones can be emailed to me directly As far as the same issues being discussed; baptism, Lord's Supper ect. There are new people that view and are added to this forum monthly. Maybe they need to become more solid in the Word and this forum helps them. Why? Because many of "our" churches are not teaching anything anymore.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2000

Lee's email address should be gdragon@mindspring.com, not gdagon@mindspring.com. He has been typoing recently. =)

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2000

Thanks for that correction on the email address. I will add the R next time. Looking forward to sharing together with Brother Lee and the lurkers. Speaking of Lurkers, I am going need all the help I can get so let me solicit your help, pro or con. Bro. Jack

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2000

Brother Jack:

I apologize to you for my typographical error in my e-mail address. I thank brother John for correcting it for me. He is right when he says that I have been "typoing" lately. I have recently started a new job in Atlanta with AT&T. I have been in the telecom business for some time now and this is an excellent opportunity for me. I have therefore been working very hard and when I have time to participate in this forum my responses have to be written rather quickly and often I have made many errors in my typing and grammar. I do apologize for the problem. My e-mail address is gdragon@mindspring.com I look forward to hearing from you. I will spend some time this evening to formulate my thoughts concerning this debate. An send it to you. I explain about my job because I want you to understand the reason that my responses lately have been less than ususal and I have made errors in the typing. I will work to improve my concentration.

I do look forward to our discussion for the same reasons that you mention and it is my hope that this will give us the opportunity to seek the truth together with love in our hearts for our Lord Jesus Christ who is the "way, the truth and the Life". Doing His will in all things must be our utmost concern for in this we demonstrate our love for Him who died for us. He said, " If ye love me keep my commandments". I know that it is your desire as well as the sincere desire of my brethren in the Christian Church to do just that for I do not question in the least the love that all of the faithful among you have for the Lord. I hope that you can see in me that same desire to love Christ by being obedient to all that he has commanded and for that reason we seek to know the truth that we may ever follow it in all that we say and do.

I am reminded of something that I often heard from the faithful saints I have knowed and loved for so long. They often said, "In matters of faith unity, in matters of opinion liberty, and in all things CHARITY. Our discussion we seek to determine just where this issue belongs in relation to this scriptural statement but through all of it I seek to remember that in all things I sincerely love all of my brethren in Christ. I do sincerely hope that such is evident to all who have so graciously consented to give me this opportunity to have my say concerning this subject in a fair and reasonable format.

I thank you for seriously considering participating so that such a discussion might be possible and I promise that I will do all that is in my power to sincerely understand all that you will put forth for us to consider and that I will give it all the very best examination possible and if I see an argument that I believe has genuine merit I will acknowledge it as having such and if I cannot find any error in it I will, with God's help, readily accept it as the truth. For no discussion among Christians should ever involve a deliberate effort to reject anything that is the truth beyond any doubt. I will listen intently to you for you are my brother in Christ and I am willing to hear all that you have to say. I will do this whether such is reciprocated or not. I do not expect however that you will do any less to give a fair hearing of the arguments that I will make as well.

I look forward to the time we will spend together in this endeavor and I hope that we will both profit from our mutual efforts and that those who read our words profit as well but most importantly I pray fervently that our Lord Jesus Christ will be glorified, honored , and pleased with our efforts and that he will bless our endeavors to "keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace".

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2000

I hope the following works as I'm intending it to. I don't have much experience in using HTML. The following is a website that I found interesting, humourous, and relevant to the proposed debate.

You can either

Click Here (if this works as I think it should).

Or you can "cut and paste" or copy the following URL: .

Be sure to read the whole thing, including the explanations at the beginning.

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2000

Well, the URL *was* there when I submitted it. At least the link works all right in my browser. If it doesn't work in yours, try cutting and pasting the following: "http://www.sheepcomics.com/strips/always/always.htm".

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2000

Thanks, Benjamin.

This site you've linked is relevant in lots of ways.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Brother Ben:

I read the site that you mention as being appropriate to this debate and while I found it humorous I did not find it to have any real connection or significance to this debate. I can assure you and all that though I am going to affirm a proposition that I believe to be true in this debate I do not think that I am always right and have on occassion changed my views after viewing all of the evidence in a fair and reasonable debate with someone who differed with me. I will do the same in this debate.

If you would like to take up any of the positions put forth in this website you reference and affirm them as a proposition I would be glad to deny them in a formal debate. If not, then I will wait to meet brother Jack's arguments and listen intently to them with the utmost desire to understand and accept all that I can determine to be the truth according to God's word. I sincerely hope that others will give the arguments that I will make a fair hearing and judge them on their merits and accept them only if they comform to the truth as taught by Christ, our Lord, through the Holy Spirit who spoke once for all to us through the apostles and other inspired writers of the New Testament.

All I am asking for in this debate is a fair and equitable hearing of arguments from both sides of this issue and for the readers to judge all that is said in the light of THe Doctrine of Christ, our Lord.

I cannot see anything wrong with this request and it is my intent to do all that I can to arrange for this debate to occur. I believe it is right and just to at least try to resolve this serious difference between us that has for too long now kept us divided from each other which we all know is contrary to the will of Christ. And the responsibility of this division rest with both parties and we must all do what we can to remove this obstacle to unity. THis is my desire sincerely and I pray fervently that we may at least come to understand this subject better from both sides.

This little website that you refer us to does little to promote the spirit of honest investigation of this subject that I would like to promote through this debate wherein both sides offer their arguments in a fair enviornment where all that they wish to present is given and reasonably evaluated by all. TO leave the impression that because both proponents hold a current view of what they believe to be true does not by any means imply that either side believes that they are "always right" and could never be wrong or mistaken. There could be information that I have never seen or had access to that would cause me to view this matter in a different light altogether. This could be true with those who hold the oposite view from mine. Your attempt to paint this debate as being closed minded and adversarial in nature is not helpful to the promotion of the genuine good purpose of an honest investigation of the facts. Brother Jack and I are the ones who will determine the attitude and demeanor that will be displayed in this debate. Since you are unwilling to participate yourself and you appear to be so concerned about the "advasarial nature" of things then it does not become you to attempt to create an adversarial atmosphere that currently does not exist simply because we are agreeing to debate this subject contrary to your wishes. You are making me wonder if you are genuinely interested in a fair and honest investigation of this subject or if that is the very thing you are trying your best to prevent at all cost.

If Brother Jack and I agree to this discussion we will have it and we will conduct ourselves in a way that befits a honest search for the truth rather than "adversarial" "Christian gladiators" seeking to defeat one another and raise our prestige among those who agree with us already. This is not our purpose nor our intent and it will not be what we will do regardless of how much effort you put into making it into such a "contest".

Why not wait until the debate begins before you try to characterize it's nature and purpose and determine what is relevant to the discussion? You do not even know yet what the propositions are that we both intend to prove and neither do you know much of the guidlines we will follow. You have very little information on which to decide what is, in fact, appropriate for this debate. If you were to agree to participate in a debate on this subject you would be justified in trying to set the tone for the discussion. But your unwillingness to do so and your opposition to anyone else doing so disqualifies you from being allowed to set the tone and determine in advance the attitudes with which we will approach this subject. Your intent to produce the very atmosphere that you pretend to dislike about debates is evidence that you have little aversion to things of an "adversarial" nature when you appear to be trying to create and promote that very attitude in refering us to a sight that leaves the implication that when to parties disagree they think always that they are "always right" when nothing could be further form the truth in relation to Brother Jack and myself who will be conducting this debate. It certianly does not apply to Brother Duane who will be moderating for us. And it most certianly does not apply to our readers in general who are waiting to hear both of us fairly and honestly present the scriptural reasons in support of our propositions and will judge them fairly in the light of God's word.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Lee,

Lighten up! And quit taking everything so personally! Did I say that you had the "always right" approach yourself? What I said was, I found this web site "interesting, humourous, and relevant to the proposed debate."

I found the lengthy opening comments about the cartoonist's own experiences with two very different approaches to worship to be very "interesting." He also includes "links" to a couple of other sites -- one on each side, incidentally -- that I also found interesting.

I found the cartoons "humourous" -- and I was trying to inject a little humour into these proceedings, which I feel have become overly serious and definitely "adversarial" already (and I would strongly dispute the suggestion that this is primarily my fault).

I have myself encountered people from the "a-capella side of the fence" who had precisely the "always right" approach that is depicted in the cartoons. If you have never encountered anyone on "your side" (or on either side) with that approach to this question, I'm very surprised. That fact alone, to my mind, makes it "relevant" to this debate, whether you personally take that approach or not. And the links provided, if you had bothered to follow them, are VERY relevant. In fact, one of them could provide you additional "ammunition" for your side of the debate -- though I have already forwarded the URL, separately, to Bro. Jack, to help him in his preparation in case you raise the same arguments.

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2000

Brother Ben:

I understand your point made in your last post and accept it. I am also happy to notice your willingness to now participate in this debate, however indirectly, by assisting Brother Jack in his preparation. In fact it even appears that your recommendation of this website was intended by you to even assist me in my preparation! Ha! I sincerely am happy that your conscience is no longer offended by this debate. I also hope that you as well as others will benefit from it. For it is not my desire to cause any wounds or open any old ones caused in the past. I am certain that I will benefit as much as anyone. But most importantly it is my sincere prayer that the truth will shine brightly and that the cause of Christ our Lord will benefit greatly from this debate.

I sincerely appreciate your suggestion that I "lighten up" a little bit. I think you are right about that matter. I do enjoy good humor though I am not often capable of producing very much of it myself. You are correct in your judgement that I have been a bit too serious about this matter. Though it may be far more important to me than it would to those who support instruments in the worship for they have often said that they could have it or not and it would not matter to them. I do not have this attitude so it is natural that I would be a bit more serious about the matter. Nevertheless, your suggestion is well taken and I will do my best to follow your advice and make a concerted effort to be less serious than I have been to this point.

I do now see why you thought the web site was "relevant" and agree with you about it. Yes,I have encountered those with the attitude you describe of being "always right" among those who support vocal music only in the worship of God and those who support the use of instruments in the worship. I was only concerned however that we not begin this debate with the attitude that either proponent in this debate nor any of our readers have such an attitude. It is best to enter such a debate with the "investigative spirit" and all of us agree to search for the truth on this matter. Just because we have opposing propositions does not prevent us from searching the word of God to see if either of those propositions are correct and be open to the possibility that neither of them is correct. We may find the truth and it turn out to be completely different than anything we may have expected in the begining. In order to aproach the subject in this way we cannot begin with the idea that either proposition is "always right" and the other always wrong. We must begin with a desire to determine what it is that our Lord wants us to do in these matters and looking to Him as our Lord with a ready willingness to submit and surrender our stubborn wills solely to His will in ALL things including this one. For this issue is not about the "restoration movement". It is not about a "historic controversy". It is not about WHO is right on one side or the other. It is not about any person and it has no impact upon any person's pride or position or intellegence or motives or ambitions and there is therefore no place for pride and arrogance. It is not about what we want and our own personal "worship preferences" or what makes our worship the most pleasant experience for us. It is about what pleases our Lord. It is about what God wants in the worship. It is about the will of God and what causes Him to be be pleased. It is about surrendering our will to God's will. It is about understanding what the will of God is in the matter and nothing more. I hope from these words you can see that I have good reasons for being concerned that we not begin with the assumption that this is a "CONTEST" between two "Christian Gladiators" performing before an audience of "Christian Sports fans" who are gathering to watch the "game" and having the strong desire for their "SIDE" to "win" because they are of the opinion that their "side" is the best and is "always right". I sincerely seek to avoid this attitude and debates were not designed to be a sport or a contest but rather a means of reaching resolutions of differences between opposing parties so that they could unite in agreement with each other on some position acceptable to all. Only in this case we are seeking to unite our wills with the Lord's will and in doing so we will naturally be united with each other on the matter.

Now I admit that debates have been abused in the past so much that many have drawn the conclusion that they must ALWAYS be adversarial in nature. I also admit that our colleges and high schools have turned debates into "competition" that teaches young men and women to reason. But this does not mean that the original purpose and design of debate has been lost and that debates can no longer be used effectively as a means of reaching a resolution to serious issues between good and honest people. It can be done but all involved must be willing to strive toward resolution and put away the "adversarial" spirit from their minds. I do not pretend that such is easy or that we can avoid it entirely but it is surely worthy of our best efforts to do so, is it not?

I hope that you understand what I have tried to express in this post. I believe that we all can learn much from this debate if we are sincere, honest, and willing from the outset to humbly approach the subject with a complete willingness to yeild and surrender to the will of God who hath "spoken to us through His son whom he made heir of all things and by whom he also made the worlds" (Heb. 1:1). If we can yeild to Christ who has spoke through the Holy Spirit who spoke through the apostles and the inspired writers of the New Testament (John 16:13; 14:16-26)having lead them into "all truth" we can be in harmony with Him and in the very process of doing so we will be in harmony with each other. For there is no other way for Christians to be in harmony. We can never be united upon the opinions of men but we can and therefore should be united with Christ by surrendering our opinions and our own desires and wills to His will and His will alone and therefore unity in Christ can be achieved. If we cannot acheive it in this way we have no hope of ever achieving such in this life.

Your Brother in submission to Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2000

Mind if I ask a quick question? I emailed this question to Lee but its likely that (a) I got the email address wrong or (b) he's been too busy to respond.

Are "acapella" churches against any use of instruments in relating to God, or just using instruments in "corporate" worship (Nelta: meant as the root suggests [corpus = body] not as a business concern ... although I'm not too keen on the word either because of its modern connotations). What is the "non-instrumental" Church of Christ's position on, say, symphonies and orchestrations in praise to God (i.e. Bach, Handel, etc.)? Or contemporary gospel music on the radio? Multimedia gospel presentations? I am not trying to be flip or anything in asking this; I honestly would like to know their position on the matter. Are all musical instruments verboten all the time? Or just in certain circumstances?

-- Anonymous, June 05, 2000

This doesn't answer your question across the board, and DOES NOT REPRESENT THE BODY OF THINKING AMONG THE NON-INSTRUMENTAL CHURCHES as far as I know, but . . .

When I was a child, my family lived for a time in Lovington, New Mexico. There was a non-instrumental church there. Their thing seemed to be that no piano could be used in the church building at any time, but . . . when they had a wedding at the church building, they would put an upright piano in the back of a pickup truck, back it up to an open window, and play away.

I swear, I am not making this up.

-- Anonymous, June 05, 2000

John,

As a recent CoCer who always "liberal" on his thinking on instrumental music (thought now go to a Christian Church), I can say the opinions on that are all over the board.

One church of Christ I used to attend in Dallas once hosted a concert by Avalon, who in 1997 had the most popular Christian Contemporary song in the world ("Testify to Love"). Yes, Avalon uses instruments. An elder I know there loves Southern Gospel.

But I also know of those who go to the extreme of protesting instrumental Christian concerts. I once walked past some church of Christ members picketing to get to an Amy Grant concert in Jacksonville Florida. Around the same time (mid 1980s) at a youth workers only portion of a rally I chaparoned some youth to, there was a discussion about the appropriateness of letting the youth listen to instrumental praise music at youth gatherings, in cars and buses transporting kids to events, etc.

My examination of scripture has led me to conclude that IF instruments are inappropriate in corporate worship, then they are inappropriate in any kind of worship or assembly. The argument used to exclude instruments in corporate worship, when scrutinized to its bare bones, really argues to exclude instruments any time we are involved in singing anything remotely spiritual. Moreover, just listening to Christian music involving instruments may be a sin if scripture is to be interpretted to say instruments are forbidden in corporate worship, because in listening I might "sing [a] psalm, hymn, or spiritual song with gratitude in my heart to God" while doing that (and I confess I have -- can't help it listening to Hillsong Music Australia or Wow Worship Orange or even some Rich Mullins songs like "Hold Me Jesus").

I will be interested in what Lee has to say.

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

John, Mark, And Sam:

Your questions are aknowledged and I do not wish to discuss them in detail until after the debate but in order to avoid ignoring your question completely I will give a brief answer and will discuss it further after I have had the opportunity to express what I believe to be the teaching of New Testament on the matter in full in the debate.

I sincerely hope that you can understand my reasons for doing it this way. If not I will just have to avoid all questions completely until after the debate.

My answer is simple and I will give the details in the debate which I hope you will attend. Our Lord Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, who spoke to us through the apostles and the other inspired writers of the New Testament has authorized vocal music accompanied only by the specified accompaniment of the heart in worship to God. In the New Testament "worship" is no longer a matter of "place" but a matter spirit and truth (John 4:23,24). It is no longer, "where" we worship but "how" we worship when we do so. We are not authorized to worship God in any manner other than according to the truth that he has revealed. Instrumental music is no part of this truth therefore it has no place in the worship of the Christian at any time or place.

Now that is nothing more than an answer to your question. I have not offered any evidence to support that view for I will do so in the debate as I have now clearly stated numerous times that I will do. But you have not asked me to prove anything you have only asked me what position I take. I cannot speak for all of the independent congregations of the church of Christ throughout the land nor can I even speak for all those who do not use instruments in the worsip. I can only speak for Christ our Lord on this matter for I know what he has told us through the apostles and inspired writers of the New Testament who were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I might point out that neither of you have offered any evidence for your position from the New Testament either. You were simply asking for clarification of my position on this matter. I am saying to you that I take no position different from my Lord Jesus Christ concerning this matter. He has not authorized instruments of music in any worship to God by Christians.

SO simply because some like the beautiful music of Bach and Hendel and the country gospel songs and some use instruments at weddings because they do not perceive that God is worshipped in such ceremonies ( though I may not agree) and some cannot resist listening in on a "spiritual" song on the radio and joining in, ect. does not prove anything about what Christ has said about the matter. It only shows how inconsistent some may be in following what he commanded or it shows how some simply care more about what they enjoy so much that they cannot resist even if the Lord has not authorized them to do it. Just because one cannot resist doing a thing does not make the doing of it acceptable to God.

I will only worship God in the way in which our Lord Jesus Christ has clearly prescribed using the accompaniment (the heart) that he has specified and no other because He is the Lord and I am His servant. His will has become my will and I will not do anything other than what He has commanded me to do when I worship God.

Again, this is only a statement intended merely to answer your questions, John and Mark, but it is not the begining of a lengthy discussion of the matter which,as I have now said so often that it should not bear repeating, I am reserving for the debate itself.

After the debate is over, I will entertain more questions and will engage happily in full detailed discussions of them. So there is not need for anyone to "feel' that they have been treated unfairly. You have asked a question and rather than ignore them I offer a simple answer. My refusal to get ito the details is not in any way whatsoever to be understaood as a lack of willingness to discuss the matter. It is only a desire to ensure that I have the forum of a fair and honorable debate to express in full what I believe to be the truth on this matter before I am engaged in a freewheeling discussion that can go any number of directions with little or no cohesive or coherent statement of the case for vocal music in the worship of the church of Christ. I do hope that you can understand my reasons for doing it this way. If you cannot understand that is fine as well for that is exactly how I intend to do it and I will not be detered from that intention by anyone whether they understand my reasons or not.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000

At the current time We are working on definitions of certain key words in the proposition postulated and to assure that we both have a positive proposition in opposition to each other. We re also waiting for the rules from our fearless leader. At which time I am sure our leader will be updating everyone on the next step in the process. Brother Lee and I take this situation very seriously and want to give it out best strictly from a Scriptural stand point. You all please be patient with us both, perhaps new ground will be covered and maby not, but at least all we can do is the best we can as obedient servants of the Lord. And that is part of the key in this as I see it. My prayer is that we will clarify and not mystify, Reveal and not conceal, and above all to know the Will of God in these mattters, and do so in a manner that is pleasing to our Lord and edifying for all. Bro Jack

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2000

Before I say anything else, I think I'd better say one thing for the benefit of Lee Saffold, who seems to have gotten it into his head that all that I have said about musical instruments and about debates in the "Peanut Butter Sandwiches" thread, plus one minor off-hand reference to musical instruments in the "Women helping in the church" thread is part of some dastardly calculated plot on my part, intended to "goad" him into a "freewheeling discussion" about something that he has long said he is only willing to deal with if he can do it in the context of a formal debate.

For the record, my original comment in the "Women Helping in the Church" thread was INTENDED as a bit of FRIENDLY "joshing." (Friends do sometimes tease each other about their known differences and I had thought, at that time, that we were beginning to become friends. So I tried treating him like one.) I was, for a while, trying to PERSUADE Lee to change his mind and "discuss" the matter in the open forum rather than insisting on a formal debate. But I long ago gave up that attempt. All of the things I have been saying to him recently, in the "Peanut Butter Sandwiches" thread, have been said (a) in response to his attacks on me, and (b) to protest at the way he was "proof-texting" and distorting things I had said to give a completely erroneous impression of what my position and views are. (Whether he has done that deliberately or because his prejudices prevent him from understanding my true meaning, I can't say. I don't know his heart.)

Anyway, for the record, what I am about to say is NOT addressed to Lee Saffold. If he wants to read it and respond to it, that is his prerogative. He has as much right to do so as any other reader of this forum. But I would appreciate it if he does not try to use it as another purported example of an attempt by that sneaky Benjamin Rees to "goad" him to abandon his resolution concerning debates. It is, simply and entirely, in response to John's question and the stories Sam and Mark have said about their experiences.

I can't say what the general attitude of the a-capella Churches of Christ is about Bach and Handel, but I can tell how their views have been translated into action in a couple of cases.

Both of my two children have attended Harding University, which is a Church of Christ (a-capella) university in Searcy, AR. My son graduated last year (Summa Cum Laude -- I'm proud of him, as you can probably tell!) My daughter will be a Junior there this fall. (She made the Dean's List last semester.) They have told me the following about Harding's practices.

The university has a daily chapel service which all students are required to attend. Although, as befits a "chapel" service, they always have some devotional content, they also have announcements and various other presentations, some of them not particularly religious in nature. Whenever any of these "secular" portions of the "chapel" time includes instrumental music, they draw an early and very clear-cut end to the "devotional" part so that they can then have the instrumental music with a clear conscience -- although it is the same "captive audience" that was required to come for "chapel". From what I've heard, they don't seem to feel this distinct cut-off is necessary if the secular part does not include instrumental music.

Since the Benson Auditorium on the Harding campus is the largest auditorium in Arkansas (or so I've been told), it is in considerable demand for a variety of other functions. And though they will hire it out for a wide variety of other musical events which include or feature musical instruments (some of them decidedly secular in nature), they will not allow any Christian group to perform there if they use musical instruments in performing Christian music. So these Christian groups must turn to much smaller auditoria for their performances of Christian music, while secular groups can freely use the large Benson auditorium for their secular performances.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2000

This one is addressed to Lee Saffold:

Lee, did you really mean these sentences the way they sound?

"I can only speak for Christ our Lord on this matter ...."

"I am saying to you that I take no position different from my Lord Jesus Christ concerning this matter."

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2000

Lee,

I applaud your apparent consistency on instrumental music (spirituals, hymns, etc).

Consistency in general is sadly missing in most CoCs IMO, and not just in instrumental music. Years ago I reached a point where I realized I was either going to end up with the "anti-'s" among the churches of Christ or affiliated with what is typically called the independent Christian Churches. But this is starting to sound like a post inappropriate for this thread, so I'll stop there with that thought.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2000

You have asked:

This one is addressed to Lee Saffold: Lee, did you really mean these sentences the way they sound? "I can only speak for Christ our Lord on this matter ...." "I am saying to you that I take no position different from my Lord Jesus Christ concerning this matter."

I do not know what these statements sound like to you. I mean exactly what I said. I said that I could not speak for every local congregation, all of which is independent and are to follow the Lord in all that they do. I could only speak what Christ our Lord has told us when he spoke through the Holy Spirit to the apostles and the other inspired writers of the New Testament. All Christians are a royal priest hood (1 Pet. 2:9) and we are to speak as the oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11). Therefore it is possible for those who give a thus saith the Lord for all that they say and do (Col. 3:17) to be speaking for Christ. That is exactly what I am doing. If I cannot give a thus saith the Lord for all that I say I would not be speaking for the Lord but rather for myself. I am contending for what I am convinced the Lord has spoken. Thus I am speaking for him. Now if what I said sounds different to you I cannot do much about it.

When I say that I hold no position different that my Lord in this matter it should be clear that I am claiming that Jesus Christ is the author of the doctrine that I am teaching concerning instrumental music. And I do not hold a position concerning this matter that is opposite of that which is found in the doctrine of Christ. I am asserting that Christ has commanded and we follow his command for us to worship him in song accompanied by playing upon the instrument of His choice, which is the heart. He has chosen that instrument only to accompany our singing. This is the doctrine of Christ. It is not the doctrine of Lee Saffold. That is what I meant by what I said. If you wish to make something else out of that it is your privilege to do so but that will not make it the truth. The position that I am taking on this matter comes from Christ our Lord and if it did not I would not teach it as the truth.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you but if it does not I do not intend to be side tracked from my purpose by any one attempting to read more into this than what I have actually said.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2000

Brethren:

I want to say something concerning consistency. I am aware, as much as anyone that among my brethren there is a lack of consistency. This lack of consistency is in many ways the real cause of division among us. When I say, my brethren I am including all that are Christians in obedience to the gospel of Christ. This includes my brethren who not only are half way in support of instruments of music in situations that they consider to not be involving worship but also my brethren who are in full support of instrumental music in what they do consider to be worship.

This lack of consistency does not in any way whatsoever negate the truth taught by Christ our Lord through the Holy Spirit speaking in and through the apostles and other inspired writers of the New Testament. It only demonstrates how confusing the doctrines, commandments and opinions of men can be. It does not negate the truth that is taught by Christ. If we follow His teaching consistently and do not have any need imposed by human desires and ambition, to deviate in the least from it we would not be divided. We would have the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. If we cannot unit upon the doctrine of Christ it is impossible that we will ever be united. The Spirit revealed the will of God to the apostles and inspired writers of the New Testament. If we follow HIS WILL in all things we can all walk in the light together in perfect harmony.

Therefore, all of the comments thus far, depicting the fact that there are inconsistencies among those who do not use instruments of music and ignoring the numerous inconsistencies that exist among those who use instruments in their worship are useless in deciding the truth on this question. All who claim to follow Christ but do not do as he has commanded them are extremely inconsistent and it does not matter who they are whether they are among my brethren who use instruments in the worship or those who do not use instruments in worship to God. This lack of harmony with the teaching of Christ is the cause of the lack of harmony among those who claim to be following Him. None can follow one person down different paths simultaneously. Therefore we cannot all follow Christ down different paths at the same time. For when Christ is going down a certain path and we chose another we are no longer following Christ. If we follow Christ we are no longer going in different directions but rather in the same direction as Christ our Lord is leading.

Thus, the pointing to inconsistencies does not point toward the path that Christ has told us to follow. It in fact has nothing to do with the commands of Christ. If we want to know which way to go we must look to the captain of our souls and follow His commands and go in the direction that He has chosen for us. Those who are going different directions cannot lead us to the truth. Only by looking to Christ will we find the truth on this or any other subject.

Now the pretense that such inconsistencies exist solely among those who do not use instruments in the worship is purely false. All who seek to follow various and shifting opinions as opposed to the clearly stated commands of Christ will forever be inconsistent with themselves and without harmony with each other. But those willing to humbly submit completely to the will of Christ and practice only those things for which they have a thus satin the Lord can walk in harmony. There is no other way to be united in harmony than to submit to the will of God in all things.

Jesus said,  why call ye me Lord, Lord and do not the things which I say? Now that is a good question. It is a better to contemplate it than pointing to your brethren and condemning in them inconsistencies that exist in a different form within yourselves. So let us turn to the inspired New Testament which Christ gave through the Holy Spirit speaking in the apostles (John 16:13; John 14:23-26). God has spoken through His Son (Heb. 1:1). Peter quoted Moses who spoke concerning Christ thus:  A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up from among your brethren, like unto me, unto Him shall ye harken in all things WHATSOEVER HE SHALL SPEAK UNTO YOU. (Acts 3:22). We must harken to all that the has spoken including those things that he spoke through the Holy Spirit who spoke through the apostles and inspired writers of the New Testament. So let us turn to Christ and humbly submit and surrender our will to His in this and all matters. Rather than pointing to inconsistencies that exist among all of us in our failure to follow what our Lord has commanded.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2000

Brother Mark:

I appreciate your recognition of my apparent consistency. It is my intent to in fact be consistent in obedience to all that our Lord has commanded.

You said:

Years ago I reached a point where I realized I was either going to end up with the "anti-'s" among the churches of Christ or affiliated with what is typically called the independent Christian Churches. I have long since decided that I would be a Christian and the only way I could do so was to follow Christ in all things that he has commanded. In doing this I have found that I am often found to be liberal where Christ is liberal and radical as Christ is radical but I have never sought to join any sect among my brethren so that I could be recognized as liberal or as radical as any group among us would applaud me for being. For being a man I dare not attempt to direct my own steps rather I strive to walk in the steps of Christ. In fact, I have found that it is best to be neither liberal nor radical but rather in all things to be faithful to Christ who is our Lord in all things. Therefore, I recommend to you that you not be concerned about ending up with the antis, which is a word that I suppose everyone could be called for some reason since we are all against something, or being affiliated with what is typically (albeit unscriptural) called Independent Christian Churches. If you follow the doctrine of Christ you will end up with Christ at all times it may someday be said, and they took knowledge of him that he had been with Jesus. This is not to say that you do not try to follow Christ. For I sincerely believe that you do. It is to say that if we are not careful we will be caught up in these squabbles among brethren and lose sight of our savior and Lord and stray dangerously off course. This is nothing more than some kind Christian advice. You may find that in following Christ you do not fit with either of the extreme groups that you mention. For the truth is often extreme and it is often not extreme but it is never always extreme on one side or the other but it is as often found upon the straight and narrow path which few will ever find for they are following each other and not following Christ. If the blind lead the blind they shall both fall into the ditch. If the liberals lead the liberals and the radicals lead the radicals then we will have ditches full of both liberals and radicals. But those who follow the Lord will walk on the safe and high ground and have only time to pity those who prefer to wander in darkness when He who is the light is so near to them all. In all things there is a way that is right and cannot be wrong and there is a way that could be right but could just as well be wrong and there is a way that is wrong and cannot be right. If we understand the danger in trusting our own wisdom we will look to our Lord to find the infallibly safe course which is the way that is right and cannot be wrong. We dare not, if we are wise, take chances with our eternal destiny. This is not a game that we all enjoy playing. Our souls are at stake and we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against the powers of darkness in high places. We cannot find our own way and if we thought that we had found it we could not trust it. For we are told, there is a way that seemeth right unto man but the end thereof is the way of death. Let us therefore be careful to follow our Lord for we can trust Him to lead us to safety. He is our shepherd and we are the SHEEP of HIS pasture. Let us learn and know HIS VOICE and follow Him and no other. Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2000

Lee,

When I said I would "end up", I didn't mean "joining". I meant that is who I would find myself walking my journey through this life with. In other words, years ago I realized as I follow Jesus I knew one day I would look around and see my self in either one of those two "camps". Not by my choice, but just with me on life's journey. I never decided to pick one or the other. For example, when I went through the process of picking a church here in Cary, I prayed for guidance, identified all churches in the targeted geographic zone (commutes undermine working with a church) that were non-denominational, CoC, Christian Church or the like. I threw out the non-denoms that obviously taught falsely the plan of salvation. Next, I looked among those for one that had an emphasises on effective evangelism and real intimate fellowship (regular fellowship activities that really let you get to know others, like small groups) as well as a profile that suggests that we could integrate quickly into the congregation. Crosspointe came up high on the list. Crosspointe happens to be a church plant by some Cincinnati Bible Seminary graduates and could be most closely identified with independent Christian Church/churches of Christ (instrumental).

And my previous church really defied classification. For example, we mixed acapella and instrumental accompianied music. The reasoning was that while we didn't see anything wrong with either scripturally, the unchurched we were targetting could relate better to instrumental accompianed singing yet being practiced in acapella allowed us to comfortably sing to one another at meetings, ministry activities, etc even if no one brought a guitar.

I do appreciate your comments, though.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2000

Mark:

I understand now that you did not mean that you were "joining" either of the two groups that you mention. I did not intend to "preach" as it seems but your words set mind mind onto the important issue that we follow Christ in all things and do what He has commanded us regardless of where such may lead us on our "journey".

I do apologize if it appeared that I was attempting to critisize any or your choices that you have made. I believe that you took my point the way I intended which was that we should be guided in all of our choices in this life by what the Lord wills that we should do rather than what we think is best for us.

I appreciate your kind response to my words, which could have easily been misunderstood. I am not always as clear in my writting as I would like to be. But I labor to benefit others without doing any harm whatsoever to any one. For our eternal salvation depends upon our following Christ and being obedient to him in all things. ( Heb 5:8,9; Luke 6:46; COl. 3:17).

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2000

Lee Saffold,

I took about a week's "vacation" from the forum (not even any "lurking") to try to catch up on some other things I was getting behind on and also to try to regain a clearer perspective on some of the "conversations" that had been taking place. As a result it wasn't until last night that I finally saw your June 7 response to my note to you earlier on the same day -- the one asking if you really meant what it sounded like you had said when you said that your position on musical instruments (etc.) was the same as Christ's.

At the risk of you calling me "sanctimonious" again, may I make a small suggestion? I searched through both your response to my note, and in your earlier, June 6, posting which had prompted my questions. I was hoping to find some explanatory phrase, e.g. "I will only worship God in the way in which I BELIEVE our Lord Jesus Christ has clearly prescribed ...." or "I can only speak for WHAT I THINK IS THE POSITION OF Christ our Lord on this matter ...." or "I am saying to you that I take no position different from WHAT I UNDERSTAND TO HAVE BEEN THAT OF my Lord Jesus Christ concerning this matter."

You had said in other places that you were willing to change your position on musical instruments if the debate or its follow-up convinced you that your position was in error. I had therefore hoped for some acknowledgement of that fact -- that you MIGHT possibly be the one in error and not the "other side." But there was none.

Given that there is no DIRECT "thus saith the Lord" on this matter -- that your conclusions with regard to musical instruments are a matter of inference on something that is not said "in so many words", and given that this is a conclusion about which there is a great deal of controversy, it would seem to me more appropriate for you to acknowledge that fact. As it stands, it sounds as though you are claiming some kind of gift of infallible interpretation -- and on a controversial matter of interpretation, at that. I doubt if that's really what you mean -- I hope it isn't what you mean -- but that's the way it sounds.

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2000

Brother Ben:

You have said:

Given that there is no DIRECT "thus saith the Lord" on this matter -- that your conclusions with regard to musical instruments are a matter of inference on something that is not said "in so many words", and given that this is a conclusion about which there is a great deal of controversy, it would seem to me more appropriate for you to acknowledge that fact. As it stands, it sounds as though you are claiming some kind of gift of infallible interpretation -- and on a controversial matter of interpretation, at that. I doubt if that's really what you mean -- I hope it isn't what you mean -- but that's the way it sounds.

You assume that there is no Direct thus saith the Lord on this matter. I do not agree and I intend to show from the New Testament in the upcoming debate that there is very much a DIRECT thus saith the Lord concerning the music that he wants in the worship of the church. Having a direct thus saith the Lord allows me to confidently affirm that I will be speaking for the Lord on this matter.

You claim to know what my arguments will be with these words: that your conclusions with regard to musical instruments are a matter of inference on something that is not said in so many words. I do not know who told you that my conclusions are based upon inference and upon something not said in so many words. I have not made any such statements in any place whatsoever. Those are arguments that you have heard from someone else but you have not heard them from me. My position is not based upon inference and it is most certainly not based upon something not said in so many words as you falsely claim. My position is based upon exactly what the Lord clearly stated through the Holy Spirit who spoke to us in the apostles and other inspired writers of the New Testament.

You would do better, and certainly would be more fair and reasonable if you would wait until I make my arguments before trying to answer them or in any way characterize them. You are not willing to debate the subject but you appear more than willing to try to prejudice the people in this forum against what I will say before I have said it. I have not now nor will I argue from mere inference in the debate. I will argue from a clear thus saith the Lord. It may be your experience that those who use instruments in the worship argue from inference and things not said in so many words. And it may be that most of those opposed to instruments that you are familiar with have not referred to a clear thus saith the Lord but I have not made my arguments yet and you are therefore not justified in characterizing those arguments as mere inference and based upon "something not said in so many words" before I have even made them.

Then you say that it sounds as though I am claiming some kind of infallible interpretation and you also claim to doubt if that is really what I mean. Now, Brother Ben, I have said nothing whatsoever to leave anyone who knows me from my writing in this forum or anyone who is fair and reasonable with the impression that I am claiming some kind of gift of infallible interpretation. And if you sincerely doubt if that is what I mean why do you suggest that I mean such? why you even doubt it yourself and no one else has even hinted that they perceived me as saying such a thing. Do you see how you say things but avoid responsibility for them at the same time that you say them. This is hypocrisy, Brother Ben. You either believe that I am making such a claim or you do not. No one has shown any concern that I am making such a claim and you even doubt it yourself but you still seek to invoke that perception of me. Such behavior is unbecoming of anyone who calls themselves Christian. You should be ashamed! To create a perception and seek to impose it upon me when none have indicated that they have thought such a thing and you sincerely doubt it to be the truth yourself is absurd! You are being completely ridiculous in suggesting that I sound that way. What is worse your words indicate that you know better!

I have affirmed my position with confidence because I have a thus saith the Lord to support it. This does not imply infallibility in any way whatsoever. For if brother Jack is able to demonstrate and convince me that I am mistaken in my understanding of what the Lord said then I would have to admit that my confidence in my position was misplaced for I had misunderstood. But there is nothing wrong with confidently affirming the truth and making corrections if you are found to be in error. We do not have to act as if we half believe something before we can discuss it. I am fully and confidently convinced that our Lord Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit speaking in the apostles and the other inspired writers of the New Testament specified vocal music accompanied by the melody played upon the cords of our heart in the worship. That is what he commanded and we do not obey that command unless we do exactly what he said for us to do. I will establish such in the debate. I am confident that it is the truth of Gods word and since Christ is the author of it I will be speaking for the Lord. Now Brother Jack will take the responsibility of showing that I am mistaken about it but until he proves such to be the case I have no reason to pretend that I think my position is wrong. It may be but I do not think that it is and it would be nothing short of hypocrisy for me to act as if I believe it to be wrong. I am willing to be taught and convinced that it is wrong but I do not intend, for the sake of appearances, to pretend that I half believe it myself for that would be a lie. Now you might be willing to pretend such and therefore think that I should do the same but that is not what I am willing to do. My confidence that what I am affirming is the truth does not in any way PREVENT me from being convinced that I am in error. It is not necessary therefore for me to work without a sure foundation of faith in order to be open to the possibility that I could be wrong. I could be wrong there is no doubt, but I must be convinced of it, I do not need to pretend that I sincerely do not have confidence that my position is the truth. For that would be a lie. Now you do not want me to LIE, do you Brother Ben?

I have said that I am willing to admit that I am wrong when the evidence is clear that such is the case. But I have not seen any such evidence from anyone yet. All I have seen thus far is that only ONE man was willing to engage in a fair and reasonable debate of this subject. Only ONE MAN was willing to allow me a fair opportunity to discuss the issue in an orderly and fair arrangement that allowed me to respond to only one person one argument at a time. I have not seen, other than in Brother Jack Prentice, any real CONFIDENCE demonstrated by those who use instruments in their worship to debate this subject fairly. So just because you do not have very much confidence in your position and therefore are willing to say that it is just a matter of "mere inference" with no clear "thus saith the Lord" in support of your position does not mean that I must pretend that I have just as little confidence in mine. For such is clearly not the case. There is a clear "thus saith the Lord" in this matter and it is not based in the least upon "something not said in so many words". So I will be arguing from a "thus saith the Lord" while you would prefer that I argue from "mere inference" and "something not said in so many words" but I am not obligated to follow your preference. Nor am I responsible for your imaginary illusion that I will argue from mere inference. I have made no such asertion. I will argue from a clear "thus saith the Lord'. Therefore I will speack confidently that it is from the Lord for I cannot do other wise and still be speaking the truth.

I do not have to approach this matter in a manner that suits you, Brother Ben. I have said that I do not hold a position opposite of my Lord Jesus Christ in this matter. I believe that to be the truth and I intend to prove it in the debate. Now how you derive from that that I am claiming some special gift of infallibility I just cannot comprehend! If I ever think that I have any special gift of infallibility or any other, I will boldly state such to be the case and offer evidence to prove it to be true. I do not believe that the miraculous gifts of the spirit are continuing to this day. And all who have read my writing in this forum know that such is my position on that subject and therefore they know full well that I am the absolute LAST PERSON in this forum that would ever claim to have any of those gifts of the spirit. And even those gifts of the spirit did not make anyone infallible. It only made the words they were inspired to write infallible. I have no such gift and I have made no such claim and your suggestion that I have done so is nothing more than a cheap underhanded effort on your part to prejudice others against me before I have had the opportunity to make my case in the upcoming debate.

Now you really do not want a fair hearing of this issue, do you Brother Ben? You have been resisting it from the very beginning, havent you? You are unwilling to debate the matter yourself and are completely unwilling that anyone else should debate it either. Since Brother Jack has agreed to debate the matter you are unwilling to allow our readers to wait for the debate to hear my case made without prejudice and without interference. You are unwilling for them to hear what I have to say and make their own judgements without any preconceived ideas to guide their thinking.

In this last post you have clearly sought to depict me as one who thinks he is infallible though I have made no such claim, and you pretend to doubt that such was the meaning of my words in the first place. You have sought to depict me as one who is claiming some kind of special "gift of "interpretation" though I have made no such claim. You have sought to depict me as one who would never change his mind regardless of what evidence he might hear to the contrary of his position. You do this without any reason other than your objection to the confident manner in which I affirm the truthfulness of the position that I hold. You are upset because I hold the position as if it came from Christ. If I did not believe that Christ was the source of the things that I believe I would not contend for them in any way. For if it were nothing more than a human opinion I would not care about it in the least. For all of those are equal in my mind. But I believe that Christ is the one that has specified the music in the church and that it is vocal music that he has specifically commanded. I believe that with all of my heart and until I see clear evidence from the New Testament to the contrary, I will continue to believe it. And I will continue to confidently affirm that I am speaking for Christ when I teach it as the truth received from Him through the Holy Spirit who spoke through the apostles and other inspired writers of the New Testament.

You would have to know a lot more about me than you currently appear to know before you could assume that I think of myself as one who is so infallible that he would never admit that he is wrong and change his mind about something. I believe that there are, if they are willing to do so, persons in this forum who can testify that I have on occasion admitted that I was wrong. Or that I needed to reexamine some of my former beliefs because of new evidence that has come to my attention of which I was not aware. I did this even though I had confidently affirmed my former position to be true. If you were honest about this matter you could even give an example yourself of my doing such a thing in some of our discussions. But you do not now appear to be interested in presenting a fair depiction of me before this debate occurs.

None in this forum has sought to derail this debate and submerge it into a battle between adversaries except you, Brother Ben. And you are the one pretending to be interested in avoiding this adversarial nature of debate. You seem to be all too much aware that this particular debate will not have any adversarial nature unless you inject it before the debate begins with such prejudicial language as is found in your last post. You claim to be against our being adversarial yet you are the ONLY ONE seeking to stir up such adversarial spirit with these unjustified comments seeking to characterize arguments that have not even been made yet.

Brother Ben, no matter what, this debate will go forward whether you like it or not. The arguments will be made even though you seek to anticipate just what they will be and characterize them in advance of their being made. But the people in this forum are more honest and fair- minded than you give them credit for being. They will wait until they hear the arguments before they seek to evaluate them. I have received e-mails from several that are looking forward with a sincere open mind to this debate and they are seeking to hear and then judge. You are the only one thus far that has sought to judge and then hear.

So I say again:

I speak for Christ on this subject and that remains to be proven but that is my intention. I say again that I hold no position on this matter that is opposite of what our lord Jesus Christ has clearly spoken through the Holy Spirit who spoke through the apostles and the other inspired writers of the New Testament. I affirm that to be the case and will prove it to be the truth.

If I am wrong about the matter, Brother Jack is more than capable to teach me and I am more than willing to learn. But I will not pretend that I do not confidently believe that the position I hold comes from the Lord Jesus Christ, for to do so would be a lie. When I said that I could be convinced that I am wrong I spoke the truth. But it will take the words of Christ to change my mind. The opinions of men will roll off me like water off a ducks back. But the word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword pericing asunder of soul and spirit and the joints and the marrow and is a descerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart( Heb. 4:12). Now the Lord Jesus Christ speaking through His inspired word is the only thing that can change my mind about this matter.

It is interesting to note just at the point that you at least appear to be unwilling to affirm that your practice of using instrumental music in the worship comes from the Lord. You appear to be unwilling to affirm that you speak for the Lord when you encourage others to use instruments of music in worship to him. You appear to be saying that your arguments are based upon mere inference and are based upon things "not said in so many words". Are you, in fact saying that those who teach us to use instruments in our worship do so without a "thus saith the Lord"? If this is your approach to the matter you are without doubt admiting that the practice of using instruments of music in the worship comes from man and not God. Is that your position? I believe you do not have a "thus saith the Lord" for the use of instruments in the worship of the church. And that may be the reason you think that I do not have a "thus saith the Lord". But I am arguing that I do in fact have a thus saith the Lord concerning this subject and that is what I want to demonstrate in the debate. If you want to argue that point with me the offer of a debate on the subject still stands.

Now you speak as if we should come together in this debate in the spirit of compromise. I do not intend any such thing. Instead, as Christians we should come together in the spirit of unconditional surrender to the will of God in Christ our Lord. We all should be prepared to yield in complete surrender to the will of Christ in this matter. If that turns out to be that Christ has willed instrumental music into the worship then I will have to surrender my opposition to it and yield to the will of Christ. If, on the other hand, I am able to demonstrate that vocal music accompanied by the plucking on the strings or chords of our hearts is the will of Christ then you and others should be willing to surrender your instruments to His will.

So your desire for me to speak in the language of compromise misses the spirit in which we meet in this debate. We come not in the spirit of compromise with each other but in the spirit of surrender to the will of Christ our LORD and nothing else. We do not come to yield to each other or to devise a human compromise with each other but rather for all of us to willingly surrender to the will of Christ. If Christ has no will in this matter then we cannot seek to establish our own will concerning it. It is that simple. But your requirement that I speak in the language of compromise is not a requirement that I have any need to be concerned about.

I hope that you will try to be patient and wait until you hear the debate and the arguments before you attempt to characterize arguments you have not heard. But if you just must prejudge the matter that is between you and God. I will be disappointed and lose all respect for you, but that will not matter to you. For I will not pretend to respect anyone who is deliberately deceptive and adversarial while pretending to be otherwise. I do not intend to argue with you perpetually about it. It is vain and foolish for you to do such a thing and I have made my response.

We will have this debate whether you like it or not. If you want to be adversarial after claiming to avoid debates because they are adversarial then enjoy your hypocrisy. But I will not participate in such foolishness. You just cannot accept the fact that you avoided this debate and have not given a good reason for doing so. You claimed that you did not like the adversarial nature of debates but then you set out at every opportunity outside of a debate to create an adversarial spirit before the debate begins. The legs of the lame are so unequal! You are thus far the only one that has demonstrated the adversarial spirit that you pretend to abhor. The truth appears to be that you do not really object to the adversarial spirit you only object to it in debates where such a spirit has consequences that you do not want to face.

So, Brother Ben, you can cry all that you want. I have made my affirmation in confidence that I can show that I speak for the Lord on the matter because I have a thus saith the Lord concerning it. I do not hold any view of this matter that is contrary to Christ our Lord. That is what I have said. That is what I meant. And I will not change it until someone can show me a thus saith the Lord contrary to what I affirm. I have given every person in this forum the opportunity to correct me in the forum of a formal debate. None but Brother Jack has demonstrated any will to even attempt to engage in a fair and honorable debate on this issue. There are many that have been wondering just why none have been willing to affirm your position in debate. The reasons you have given for your refusal have thus far proven to be self-contradictory. Others have not even sought to make an excuse. They are simply glad that Brother Jack has been willing to do it. But you are not satisfied with that but seek on every hand to influence in every way possible a debate that you pretend to avoid because it is adversarial in nature. All of this while at the same time you stand outside of that debate and seek to stir up the adversarial spirit that you pretend to avoid in debates in the first place. The legs of the lame are indeed unequal.

So make of my words whatever you will. This debate will happen and if it does not those who seek the truth will hear the truth. I will see to it. Those who have written me will hear from me even if it is through e-mail. I will give them the opportunity to hear what the Lord says about this subject. I have sought the debate so that they could see the arguments and how those who use instruments would deal with them in the spirit of fairness and allowing them to hear all of the evidence and decide for themselves. I could have just taught them without allowing opposing view to be heard. But I want it to be heard.

You seek to hinder a fair hearing of this matter in a formal debate. You are failing miserably. It will be heard Brother Ben. You may as well accept that fact. All that is left for you to do now is to seek to influence the debate from the outside by efforts such as those you have shown in your last post to prejudice the case in advance. This too will fail. People are going to begin to wonder just what it is you are trying to hide about this subject. What is it that causes you to so adamantly resist a fair and honorable debate of this subject? You do not want to do it yourself and you do not want to allow anyone else to do it without your having set the stage in advance and depicting your Brother Saffold in the worst possible light before the debate begins. Such efforts are wasted, Brother Ben, for most in this forum know me already. They have been fair to me in the past and they will do so during this debate. There is just nothing you can do to stop this debate and little you can do to hinder it. So why not just settle down and listen to the arguments as they are made and judge them on their own merit instead of trying to decide in advance just what they will be and characterize them without even knowing what they are?

I do pray for you Brother Ben. I pray that our Lord will bless you in your work and that he will open your eyes that you will see that there is no harm in allowing a fair hearing of this matter in a formal debate.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2000

Lee, you said,

"In this last post you have clearly sought to depict me as one who thinks he is infallible though I have made no such claim, and you pretend to doubt that such was the meaning of my words in the first place. You have sought to depict me as one who is claiming some kind of special "gift of "interpretation" though I have made no such claim."

Did I say that you think you are "infallible"? -- in EITHER of my postings about this subject? If I had wanted to say so, I think I could have made as strong a case as you think you have made for some of the things you claim are my ideas, positions, etc. You are very good at wrenching things out of context to make it look as though someone has said something they haven't. I could have done the same. But I didn't! I resisted that temptation and simply pointed out that your words, as they stood, could be used that way.

I asked if that was the impression you wanted to leave with people. I could equally well have asked if you wanted to take the risk of having someone use them out of context (as you frequently use words of mine) to say that you did think you were infallible and had said so yourself! Perhaps you might have understood it better if I had spelled it out that way. Or perhaps it would not have helped. I did not expect your current antipathy toward me to cause you to misinterpret what I said to this extent.

Later you said,

"I will not pretend that I do not confidently believe that the position I hold comes from the Lord Jesus Christ, for to do so would be a lie."

I understand that and accept that. All I was suggesting was that you might find it expedient to rephrase your positions in words something like you did here -- that you "confidently believe" that this is the position of Christ, rather than that you KNOW that it is, which could be taken to imply that you think you are an infallible interpreter of the teachings of Christ.

Further on, you say,

"Now you speak as if we should come together in this debate in the spirit of compromise. I do not intend any such thing. Instead, as Christians we should come together in the spirit of unconditional surrender to the will of God in Christ our Lord."

Will you show me where I have suggested "compromise" on this issue? You are yet again putting words into my mouth and ascribing to me a position I do not hold. I strongly agree with you that we must come together in a spirit of "unconditional surrender to the will of God in Christ." But I think your presuppositions are clouding your thinking and preventing you from seeing what the real Scriptural alternatives on this issue are.

Continuing on, you also said,

"We will have this debate whether you like it or not. If you want to be adversarial after claiming to avoid debates because they are adversarial then enjoy your hypocrisy. But I will not participate in such foolishness. You just cannot accept the fact that you avoided this debate and have not given a good reason for doing so. You claimed that you did not like the adversarial nature of debates but then you set out at every opportunity outside of a debate to create an adversarial spirit before the debate begins. The legs of the lame are so unequal! You are thus far the only one that has demonstrated the adversarial spirit that you pretend to abhor. The truth appears to be that you do not really object to the adversarial spirit you only object to it in debates where such a spirit has consequences that you do not want to face."

(1) I have never said that I avoid all debates. I think there is a place for debates. For 8th time (or more), I do not think that this subject is an appropriate one for debate. If you really still don't understand why, read what I have already said at least 3 or 4 times!

(2) As for being adversarial, I agree that this particular "conversation" has become deplorably adversarial -- which is why I took a complete break (did not even "lurk") for a week in the hopes that things would calm down. I do not want it, but it seems that the only way to avoid it is to let you say whatever you like about me and my beliefs -- twisting things I say almost beyond recognition -- and make no attempt to answer them. Whenever the "temperature" has gone up yet another degree in this discussion, I think you are the one who has raised it. Your diatribe against me as a result of me trying to simply point out how your own words "sounded" when taken at face value is another example. So is your similar diatribe in the "Debate/discussion" thread in response to my attempt to once again explain and defend a belief of mine that you have attacked at great length in the past. I have TRIED and am still TRYING to avoid responding "in kind", but I am finding it increasingly difficult.

(3) As for this debate having consequences that I do not want to face, please see the first couple of paragraphs of my next posting, specifically on the instrumental music question.

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2000

Lee,

This is not an attempt to "debate" the subject outside of the formal "debate". You have made certain claims in the open forum, not merely answering but actually attacking things I said. I think I have a right to answer them. It is not intended to "provoke" you into doing what you profess you do not want to do. (So DO NOT say it is!) Whether you answer these now, later, or not at all is up to you.

If you can show me a verse in the New Testament (or even in the Old Testament that tells how things will be in the future in the church) that says, "Only vocal music is allowed in Christian worship" or "the use of mechanical instruments of music in Christian worship is not acceptable to God" -- or any of the various formulations that a-capella churches use in their tracts and lesson materials to teach and promote this doctrine -- I will stop using the musical instrument and will urge others to also stop.

As it is, there are only a handfull of verses in the New Testament that say anything at all about music. (Unlike the Old Testament where there are many references to music in praise of God, and a great many of them are commandments to use instruments in worship to God. But then that's the Old Testament, and though it was given to us to point us towards Christ, there are some things in it which do not apply to us today in the church. The instrument MIGHT be one of them.)

Several of the verses just say that various people "sang". Whether they used instruments when they sang or not is a matter of inference, which you can only base on the circumstances in which the people were when they sang (could Paul and Silas have used instruments in prison even if they had wanted to?), and on whatever your preconceptions are as to whether or not Christians are permitted to use musical instruments in worship.

There are TWO verses (ONLY, as far as I know) that have a direct bearing on this subject. One, in Ephesians, commands Christians to "speak" to each other through various kinds of songs, "singing and making melody in/with your heart". The other, in Colossians, tells Christians to "let the word of Christ dwill in you richly" as you teach and as you "sing" various types of songs.

There is some question as to whether either of these verses has anything directly to do with "worship" as such. Beyond that, musical instruments are nowhere mentioned (unless, as some contend and as is possible, PSALMOI still had its original meaning of specifically accompanied songs -- but that would go against your argument, Lee). Since there is no specific clarification as to whether the singing (both "out loud" and "in the heart") is accompanied or unaccompanied by musical instruments, it is a matter of INFERENCE (for BOTH sides, actually) to say whether instruments may be used or not.

I sing; you sing. I "make melody in my heart to God"; I assume you do the same. As far as I can see, we are both being EQUALLY faithful in obeying the commands that are given. I have no interest in "forcing" you or even "persuading" you that you should use instruments when you worship, if that makes you uncomfortable or if you, personally, do not feel it is right. I do resent it when you say you speak with God's voice in saying it is wrong to use instruments. There is NO clear "thus saith the Lord" on this subject! Your conclusion that it is wrong is based on INFERENCE, not on a clear command.

Inference is not a bad word. Much of what we do has to be based on inference -- deriving, through reason, how commands and principles enunciated in the 1st century apply in the 20th century -- but inference is NOT the same as a direct, clear and unequivocal command and does not carry the force of a direct command.

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2000

TO All:

Be sure to attend the debate if you would like to know if Brother Ben is correct in his assumption that there is no "thus saith the Lord" concerning this subject. I have stated more than once that I speak for Christ on this matter because I do in fact have a "thus saith the Lord" concerning the issue. It is a "thus saith the Lord" that Brother Ben is obviously unaware. So if you wish to accept what Brother Ben has told you without any question because it fits perfectly your current view then you may want to avoid the debate as Brother Ben is doing, for that will help you if you are seeking to avoid the truth.

But if you are interested in what the Lord has to say about this matter you will see a "thus saith the Lord" presented from the inspired word of God in that debate.

I do encourage you to participate and read the upcoming debate because these perpetual misrepresentations of the view of those of us who do not use instruments in the worship of God are the reason for our not having unity on the matter. The Lord Jesus Christ has clearly spoken through the Holy Spirit who inspired the writers of the New Testament to reveal His will to us concerning this matter.

Therefore if you would like to see what the "will of the Lord" is in this matter I cordially invite you to the debate where It will be presented in a manner in which the clear contrast between truth and error can be best be made obvious.

So Brother Ben's arguments are interesting and I recommend that you examine them in the light of God's word and can assure you that doing so you will find them very much lacking. And I invite you to attend the debate and hear the "thus saith the Lord" that Brother Ben pretends does not exist.

In the mean time I pray that our Lord will abundantly bless all of you with joy and peace and more importantly a love for the truth.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2000

Dear Brother Lee,

It is one thing to claim that something is a matter of "necessary inference" as many do, not only about the matter of musical instruments but also about many of the other things some or all of us in the Restoration Movement insist on. It is quite another to claim that there is a passage in Scripture that is so clear on the issue of musical instruments that it shows, without needing to rely on inference at all, that musical instruments are forbidden in Christian worship. It makes me wonder if you know what the word "inference" means, or know the difference between something that is said directly and something that is only inferred from what is said.

As you know, I feel that an actual debate on this subject is not appropriate and will be harmful rather than helpful to the cause of Christian unity. But since it seems doomed to take place, I will "attend", as you put it. I'm still not sure if I will contribute, but I will be reading the arguments that are made. I look forward to seeing just what it is that you think is so clear and conclusive on the subject that no inference is needed.

The human side of me feels that if you make a fool of yourself (as you are bound to if you claim to have proved your case without relying on inference), it will only "serve you right." The spiritual side of me says that that's not a very Christian attitude. I have tried to warn you that you will harm your own case if you overstate it as you have been doing recently. If you don't "get the point", there's no use me arguing it any further. On your own head be the results!

Sincerely, in Christ,

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2000

Brother Ben you have said:

It is quite another to claim that there is a passage in Scripture that is so clear on the issue of musical instruments that it shows, without needing to rely on inference at all, that musical instruments are forbidden in Christian worship. It makes me wonder if you know what the word "inference" means, or know the difference between something that is said directly and something that is only inferred from what is said.

I agree with you Brother Ben. I know very well the difference. I also know the meaning of the word inference and I know that you would prefer that I take that approach for that would fit your preconceived notions about this subject quite well. But that is not what I will do. Now if you were to attempt to prove that instruments of music are authorized by Christ our Lord you would not even find an inference to support it. But there is a clear thus saith the Lord for use of vocal music in the church and I will be more than happy to show them in this debate for all who are interested.

Then you pretend to be looking forward to seeing this thus saith the Lord with these words:

I look forward to seeing just what it is that you think is so clear and conclusive on the subject that no inference is needed.

Now I know that this is not the truth. For later in your post you tell us exactly what you are looking forward to seeing. You are looking forward to seeing E. Lee Saffold make a fool out of himself with the following words:

The human side of me feels that if you make a fool of yourself (as you are bound to if you claim to have proved your case without relying on inference), it will only "serve you right." The spiritual side of me says that that's not a very Christian attitude.

We can see that the human side has gotten the best of you since that is the only one you have expressed. Since the spiritual side of you has told you that making such a statement is not a very Christian attitude maybe you could bring yourself to tell us just what the spiritual side has to say about this matter.

If you don't "get the point", there's no use me arguing it any further. On your own head be the results!

Brother Ben, the results of all that I do will always come upon my own head! Ha! I take full responsibility for all my actions and I will stand before our Lord Jesus Christ in the last day to give an account of the deeds done in the body whether they be good or bad. I have said nothing at all that would leave the impression that I would blame you or anyone else for my choice of argument in this debate. You insist that if I do not argue this case, as you would prefer that I argue it that I am bound to make a fool out of myself! Ha! Now why you cannot see that I have no concern for myself in this matter. I am concerned that the truth has a fair hearing. Once I have accomplished that purpose if you wish to depict me as a fool that is your responsibility and, just like me, you will be held accountable for such behavior before God and your deeds will fall upon your head as surely as will mine. I have not and will not call you a fool even if you cannot see the truthfulness of my argument. You will remain my brother in Christ even if you forever conceive that I am nothing but a fool. Your opinions in that regard are your prerogatives and your responsibility before God. Now those things will come upon your head. SO you chose which side of you wish to follow. The human side that is adverse to the will of God or the spiritual side that is willing to obey Him in all things. In this post you have chosen the human side and that too will come upon your head and God will judge you concerning it as surely as he will judge me concerning this debate and the attitude with which I seek to speak the truth of His word. So we both, brother Ben, have much that will come upon our heads it is best it we sincerely try to help one another. But you have chosen to suggest that I am a fool because I intend to argue from a thus saith the Lord and you are convinced, without hearing what I have to say that I cannot do so. Why not just wait and see? You complain that I misrepresent your words. Brother Ben you have a habit of insinuating rather than clearly stating what you mean. You have a habit of suggesting instead of affirming confidently your assertions. I am responding to what you have suggested and implied by the words that you have said and I have not misunderstood you yet and I have not misrepresented the implications that you surely were trying to make. In fact you do not like the fact that I can perceive and respond to you slippery tactic of insinuating and suggesting and leaving impressions so that you can always withdraw into the safety of accusing those who respond to your implications with the charge that they have misrepresented you. I will not stop responding to your implications regardless of how often you cry that you have been misrepresented for the truth is that your implications have been dealt with and that is exactly what I intended to do and will continue to do so long as you use that tactic. I do not care if you like it or not that is the way it will be until you learn to say exactly what you mean and mean exactly what you say. If you are tired of being misrepresented then consider the possibility that you have not been CLEAR. That could happen even to one as highly educated as you appear to be. But I will chose my words and you chose yours but do not come hear trying to help me say what I am trying to say when you have absolutely no idea what I intend to argue in this debate. Your help in that regard is not needed. I will make my arguments as I see fit. If you are convince that such makes me a fool then you are welcome to hold that opinion as far as I am concerned but you may want to consider the Lords admonition against such.

I get the point Brother Ben, I simply do not agree with it! Now who appears to be speaking with infallibility? You are so sure, without even hearing what I have to say about this subject that you KNOW without any doubt whatsoever that I will be making a fool out of myself! Ha! Now I know that you will attend the debate if for no other reason than to enjoy watching me make a fool out of myself! Ha! Well, you can do that if you are so determined to see such. And since you have your mind already made up to see such I do not doubt that you will see what you came looking for. But those who come with honest and sincere hearts looking for the truth will find it as well. Those who come with their minds prejudiced in advance, as you plan to do, will find nothing more than that poor FOOL E. Lee Saffold who cannot even comprehend what an inference is because he is so uneducated and without credentials that he cannot possibly understand the WILL OF GOD when he reads it.

So brethren, you can come looking for the truth or you can come to find a fool as Brother Ben intends to do. That is up to you. But I will be speaking for Christ by telling you exactly what he has clearly said through the Holy Spirit speaking through the apostles and the other inspired writers of the New Testament. If you are interested in what our Lord has to say it will be presented for your consideration. If you are looking for a fool you will find one for that is exactly what I am willing to become for Christ sake so that those who seek the truth will have the opportunity to hear it even though men like Brother Ben have already decided to just call me a FOOL because I do not argue as they prefer that I should argue in language that they are familiar with and a path they have gone down before many times. They do not want to even consider the possibility that I just may have a thus saith the Lord concerning this subject that they have overlooked and they do not come hoping to hear it. They come with their minds clearly set that such does not exist and they have already begun to depict the man that claims that it does exist is just a fool. I wonder if Brother Ben has even considered the admonition of our Lord against calling his Brother a fool? Well if he ignores the Lord at this point choosing to follow his human side instead of the word of God I suppose we could easily see just why he has chosen the human instruments of music over the God ordained instrument for his praise to God. It is just that he has allowed his human side to get the best of him. But a faithful Christian will follow the Lord in all that he commands without adding to them or taking away from them regardless of how much his human side calls for him to fulfill their own desires instead of the will of God.

Be all of that as it may, whether you attend to see me make a fool out of myself or you attend to see if it is just possible that Brother Saffold does in fact have a clear thus saith the Lord on this subject I will be thankful that you have attended and will appreciate very much your giving audience to the things that I will speak in the NAME OF CHRIST.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 17, 2000

To all:

This is just a brief note to encourage all of you to attend and participate in this debate. For I have promised to show you what our Lord has clearly SAID about this subject. I have said before and I repeat it to you now that I am speaking for Christ in this matter and I do not have hold any view contrary to Our Lord Jesus Christ in this matter. This I intend to demonstrate in the upcoming debate. So I invite all of you to be there and examine the words we have received from our Lord through the Hoy Spirit who spoke in the apostles and other inspired writers of the New Testament concerning this important subject.

You have been told by Brother Ben:

As it is, there are only a handfull of verses in the New Testament that say anything at all about music.

This is true and all of them refer to vocal music. There is not one single verse in the New Testament that says anything at all about instrumental music in the praise of God and the teaching and admonishing one another in the church of Christ. None! Zip! Zero! So our Brother Ben cannot be convinced by a small handful of passages from the word of God but is overwhelmingly persuaded by an empty hand without any passages at all in the New Testament teaching him to use instruments of music in the praise of God. Now that type of reasoning is absolutely what he has presented to you for your serious consideration. Again I urge you to read his interesting arguments and examine them in the light of the words that Christ gave the Holy Spirit who delivered them to the apostles and other inspired writers of the New Testament and see if you can find any passage that teaches you to use a mechanical instrument of music in the praise of God and the teaching and admonishing of your Brethren in the church of Christ. You will not even find a handful to support that view. In fact, you will find NONE. If you find any you may want to forward them to brother Jack for his preparation for this debate. I am sure that he would appreciate it.

But there is definitely a handful of scriptures in the New Testament, twelve to be exact that specifically command vocal music to be used in the praise of God and the teaching and admonishing one another. There is a clear thus saith the Lord concerning the instrument of Gods choice to be used for this purpose and it is not a mechanical one.

Now, I do not know about the rest of you but ONE passage from the word of God is sufficient to establish the truth yet it has been suggested to you that a handful is not enough for that purpose. Now that suggestion should cause all who are interested in the truth to SIT UP and take notice. It was Satan who first suggested the idea to our mother, Eve, that God may not have said what he did in fact say. She did not even have a handful of passages but one simple command from God. He convinced her that God did not mean exactly what he said. Be careful brethren. These suggestions that a small number of passages from the word of God are not sufficient for us to know his will have a source and that source is from the father of lies. The one who deceived our mother, Eve and plunged the world into sin.

But a single word from God is sufficient for all who are willing to obey Him. So if a handful of passages from the word of God are not enough for you then you have a problem that is far greater than instrumental music in the praise of God. You have a problem with your faith in the word of God. But if you are unwilling to follow even a handful of passages from the word of God on what basis do you HEARTILY follow a practice for which you do not even have a as much a single passage much less a handful to indicate that Christ desires or authorizes such a practice. Now Christianity comes from Christ and anything that does not come from Him is no part of Christianity.

Now even our Brother Ben admits that he does not have a thus saith the Lord for His practice and therefore he pretends that I do not have a thus saith the Lord for my practice. Now just think of that, Brethren. You have been told, by men like Brother Ben, to use instruments of music in your praise to God even though there is no thus saith the Lord for the practice. So according to Him you do not use instruments in your worship because God has commanded you to do it. You do not do it because you KNOW that it PLEASES GOD. You do it without having any evidence from Christ that he is pleased with it or even that he desires it. You do it with no concern whatsoever that the head of the church wants it or not. You will practice this even if he does not like it or want it. Now you may deny this but think about it. If you do not know if he is PLEASED with such and you practice it anyway you are saying that you do not care if he is PLEASED or not. You have no word from God that he wants you to do this thing but you do it anyway, whether he likes it or not does not concern you.

Are we not to continue steadfastly in the apostles doctrine since this is the doctrine of Christ? But by your own admission this does not form a part of the doctrine of Christ because there is no thus saith the Lord for instruments of music as our Brother Ben has admitted? Now he not only admits that there is no thus saith the Lord concerning instrumental music but since misery loves company he wants to make you believe that there is no thus saith the Lord concerning vocal music and the specific instrument that should accompany it. This is what I will show in the upcoming debate. You can read the scriptures till until the debate actually begins and you will soon find that clear thus saith the Lord for yourself. If you do not I will be giving an exposition of those words from Christ in the debate.

Instruments of music do not come from any thus saith the Lord. SO where do they come from? They must come from the imagination of men like Brother Ben who are more interested in their liberty than in UNITY under Christ that comes from insisting that we have a thus saith the Lord for all that we do in word or deed. (Col 3:17).

So if you want to see these handful of scriptures that give a clear thus saith the Lord for vocal music in the praise of God and the teaching and admonition of each other, I invite you to observe the debate for there you will see a clear thus saith the Lord in this matter. And when you see that clear thus saith the Lord remember that Brother Ben has already admitted that he does not have a thus saith the Lord for his precious instruments of music that he would introduce them whether God is PLEASED with it or not. For since he has no thus saith the Lord he cannot KNOW that God is PLEASED with their use.

I invite all of you to come to the debate and examine just what it is that our Lord Jesus Christ has clearly said about the kind of music that HE specified for us to use when we teach and admonish one another and when we offer up our praises to God.

Now I have sought to avoid talking too much prior to the debate but since Brother Ben wishes to discourage you from attending the debate by teaching you in advance just how wrong I am about the subject and depicting me in advance as a fool to be ignored, I wanted to respond by giving you an incentive to listen to the debate. I have promised to give you a clear thus saith the Lord concerning this matter. Brother Ben has already told you that he does not have a thus saith the Lord concerning this matter and he claims that I do not either. Well, I encourage you to read this debate and decide for yourself whether he was correct or not.

In the meantime I urge you to give close attention to what he has to say about this subject. Read it sincerely and give him your undivided attention. For I will not interrupt what he has to say any further. I only want you to know that you will have the opportunity in the debate to hear the other side in full without any interruptions and you will be able to see that position diligently and thoroughly examined by one with the high qualifications and sincere piety that we have in Brother Jack. I urge you to listen intently to his examination of what I have said. I will certainly listen closely to him.

I do sincerely seek to provide greater understanding that will help us to move toward the unity for which Christ prayed and for which we must ever strive to maintain in Christ.

Now Brother Ben would like for you to doubt that I am sincere and for he has suggest exactly that several times in his effort to ensure that this debate turns out as he predicted to be an adversarial encounter which would only deepen the division that exist between us. But I want you to know that I am sincere.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 17, 2000

After reading this whole debate, my head is spinning and I'm left wondering one thing: is this whole debate akin to arguing about pulling an ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath? Maybe we should spend our intellectual energy on prayer and trying to reach the lo

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2001