I've waited long enough....let's discuss/debate the issue....whatever you want.

If Lee wants to participate....fine! If not....that's fine too.

There are plenty of you out there like Michael Demastus, through his fellowship with the non-instrumental church preachers, knows EXACTLY what the arguments are......maybe even better than Lee.

First....one of the things I've noticed through Lee's dicussion of this...(which has become quite lengthy for someone who doesn't want to discuss it)....is that he constantly mentions that the N.T. is very clear about what acceptable worship is.

Really???

Take for instance one of the "nons" favorite verses....Colossians 3:16...."Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, will all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.....singing with thankfulness in your heart."

Please tell me......where are the words, "In your worship service?"

In fact, the context has nothing to do with "a worship service." The whole of the passage is a discussion of the daily attitude of the Christian. It is a discussion of contrasts....the contrast between "the old self" (vss. 5-9).....and "the new self" (vss. 10-17).

The passage has NOTHING....ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a worship service.

In fact, I'll challenge the whole premise again.....where in the N.T.....is the OUTLINE FOR WORSHIP....i.e., the official bulletin that shows how worship was conducted in every church in every place???

We know some of what they did.....we know some of the elements of worship....but where is the approved, apostolic, worship format??

There....that ought to get the ball rolling.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Answers

Sammy Boy.....

Interesting comment.

You stated...."He (God) deals with attitudes and relationships."

Interesting comment because.....that is EXACTLY what the aforementioned passage in Colossians is dealing with....i.e., attitudes and relationships.

Speaking of attitudes and relationships.....I just 5 minutes ago finished reading Max Lucado's new book...."Just Like Jesus."

I made a commitment two weeks ago to think more about "WWJD."

The book was a good springboard of thought.

Anymore comments Sammy....others....on the outline for worship in the N.T.??

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Lee....

You are right it is funny. On more than one occasion you have said you would not discuss it....and then you proceed to discuss it.

Don't worry though.....in 2 Cor. 9 Paul claims that it would be "superflous" for him to write concerning the offering for the saints....and then he proceeds to write about it. What a hoot!! So....you're in good company.

As per the "straw man".....in the thread "It's Time for A Serious Debate....".....a quick perusal revealed three times to me that you used the phrase "those of us who do not use instruments in worship."

Note, that you did not say...."Those of us who don't use instruments." You specifically said....."those of who do not use instruments in worship."

Therefore, I assumed the purpose of your case is to show that only vocal music is acceptable in the worship of God.

Now at stake....is whether or not those of us who use instruments in our worship service are wrong.

Am I wrong in assuming that is "the battle line?"

Therefore you approach each Scripture, including the Colossians passage with the conviction that God has ordained certain things to be done in a worship service.

Am I on the money yet?? I fail to see the "straw man."

As per the Colossians passage....I may be wrong...but I don't believe I used your name in association with that passage. I believe I said...."the 'nons' favorite verse??

Why do you assume the term "non" to be pejorative?? What term would you prefer?? Did I say "non" Christian?? That would be pejorative.

It seems to me your entire last post was based on things I did not say.

Sammy Boy......I will certainly agree....and even previously tried....to not involve Lee's name and possibly misrepresent his views. I am willing to simply discuss the arguments used for the last 150 plus years.

Point well taken.

And yes.....we are still waiting for the outline of N.T. worship....are we not??

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Lee....

I want you to know....that you are an answer to prayer.

As I said in another thread.....about two weeks ago I made a decision to strive to be more Christlike in all I do, including my dealing with my brothers and sisters in Christ.

I have studied and prayed asking the Lord to help me.

As is often the case, when we resolve to do something to better ourselves for Christ, God often allows our resolve to be tested.

You brother Lee are the answer to my prayers.

The words of your post need little response.

My response would only be motivated by anger and as such I will let the readers decide for themselves your true desires.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Robin.....I did my part.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Lee.....

In general....thank you for the apology....and there is nothing to forgive. It became clear to me that the words you spoke were inflated by emotions generated between you and Ben. I simply wanted you to understand, that in my evaluation of you from the past, that post was quite "unlike you." Water under the bridge!!!

In specific.....you must understand and believe that the call for "N.T. outline of worship" had very little to do with the instrument discussion. You and I are in perfect agreement that there is none. I (and I believe Sam) would want others to acnknowledge the same. I believe you can see that the ramifications of such far outreach the "instrument issue."

As per my discussion of "nothing new under the sun for the last 150 years".....I still maintain that. HOWEVER, you may be THE FIRST I have ever seen.....that consistently follows though on it. But I have heard the arguments before.

I believe Mark Winstead did it previously.....and I have as well....commended you for that.

Compare this to the "non instrumental" church my daughter and son-in- law attend....where the topic of the instruments is one "no one talks about."

Interestingly, a number of Christian Church folks I know well have joined that church.....and they weren't even asked to "repent." (ha)

Like I said......water under the brige.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Is this the "Pre-Debate.....Debate?"

LOL!

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Lee....

You have admitted before that you had a hard time with "humor."

When I said...."Is this the Pre-Debate-Debate?"....it was a joke.

How in the world that you read into this that I was accusing you of anything is beyond me.

But...if that is the way you took it....I apologize.

I regret ever starting this thread....and I should have honored your request to let you have your hearing with Brother Jack....and then after that carry on discussions with you.

I look foward to your debate with Jack for which you must give your full attention to. We'll pick it up after that.

I appreciate the fact that you have clarified your position when I misrepresented it. I was simply going on what I have dealt with in the past.

Sam....your're a good man with a good heart. Don't let the emotions control the rhetoric. Advice from someone trying to learn the same.

Now I will admit with some on this forum I have a harder time with patience.....only because the stakes are higher.

But with Lee.....a brother in Christ.....we must now allow our pride to be more important than mutual respect.

I'm really not trying to "preach" and I apologize if you take offence.

Both of Yours in Christ,

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Ben....

THANK YOU!!......for bringing attention to my very unfortunate "typo."

I wrote that after a church softball game last night....wearied....and suffering from a "slight" ham string pull. (Why I'm playing I don't know.)

Anyway....here is the proper statement....."But with Lee, a brother in Christ, we MUST NOT allow our pride to be more important than mutual respect."

Thanks again!

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2000

The answer is simple, Danny. There is none. As I've said in other lines of discussion, there is very little, if ANYthing, in which God gives a "cookbook", as it were, as to how to do the daily bits of kingdom living. He deals with attitudes and relationships, and not much detail.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Brother Danny:

What you have started here is a free wheeling discussion. It is far from a formal debate as you have attempted to depict it. Brother Jack and I will have the real debate and when we are finished with the details and agreeing upon the propositions and guidelines for the debate we will inform everyone of it and that is when the debate with me will begin and not one moment before that time. Now you may have a free wheeling discussion with those who agree with you and enjoy sharpening your skills fighting a straw man that argues just as you would prefer that he argue. This way you can triumphantly rejoice that you have easily knocked him down but you will not be debating me unless you do as brother Jack has done and agree to a clearly stated proposition and fair and reasonable guidelines for an organized and formal debate. When Brother Jack and I finish our debate you are welcome to engage in a debate with me on the same subject from different propositions. You once said that you would not walk across the street to even discuss the matter with me. But now you are courageously pretending to debate with me without agreeing to any clearly stated proposition or any agree upon guidelines. I just want to make it clear to you and others that you will not debate this subject with me unless you affirm clearly stated and defined propositions. And agree to the rules of debate and set a mutually convenient time for the debate to commence and a clear timeline for its conclusion. Brother Jack has been more than willing to do such and therefore I will debate him as planned. If you wish to debate me you will have to just get in line and wait your turn for you have waited too long on the other side of that street that you were unwilling to even walk across to discuss the matter with me.

I will however demonstrate just how you build a straw man from your own words. You have said:

First....one of the things I've noticed through Lee's discussion of this...(which has become quite lengthy for someone who doesn't want to discuss it)....is that he constantly mentions that the N.T. is very clear about what acceptable worship is. Really??? Take for instance one of the "nons" favorite verses....Colossians 3:16...."Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, will all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.....singing with thankfulness in your heart." Please tell me......where are the words, "In your worship service?"

Now, when you read my proposition that I have agreed to affirm and debate with Brother Jack you will not find the words worship service in it at all. Also, when you read all that I have said to this point you will not find that I have used the words worship service. So if you wish to debate me in effigy you could at least attempt to build a straw man that remotely resembles me.

Now I notice that you have no aversion to calling those of your brethren opposed to instrumental music "nons". Now I know that you would not appreciate my resurrecting some of the derogatory sectarian designations that have been commonly used by those of my brethren who agree with me in reference to you and my other brethren who disagree with me. Are you doing this because you are pounding upon a straw man and he will not answer or have any feelings about being called by such sectarian, divisive, designations? I hope that you can see that this name-calling is of no good purpose.

You ask questions that are not even remotely related to the position that I will take in the debate and that I have taken thus far in the forum. When we sing and admonish one another we are to do so in song according to this passage in Colossians 3:16. Now a better question would be where are the words sing and admonish one another with a piano or any other mechanical instrument of music for that matter? You will find them in the same place that you find the words worship service. Unless you have the wisdom to show us an instrument of music in this verse! I am sure that all that can read will agree that no instrument of music can be found in this verse. But that does not cause you any concern. Yet you are incredibly concerned that the words worship service are not in this verse. Why do you not show similar concern over the fact that any instruments of worship are to be found in this verse? I agree, the words worship service are not found in this verse. That is the very reason that I have not used the word worship service in discussing this matter or in forming my proposition for the upcoming debate with brother Jack. But you will never fine an instrument of music in this verse because it is just not there.

Now you claim that I have argued that the word worship service is in Colossians 3:16. Could you please quote directly from and give a clear reference to show that I have said such a thing in any place? That would be interesting to see. You have always quoted my words exactly whenever you ar3e trying to correct my errors and I have always appreciated it. But when it comes to this subject you have conspicuously avoided quoting my exact words to which you refer and giving the reference where they can be found. I hope this is not because you know that I have said no such thing but you wish to ascribe it to me anyway. This is not like you Brother Danny. Please quote the exact place where I used the words worship service in reference to Col. 3; 16. I would like to read it for myself, as I am sure others would like to read it also.

Maybe you and Brother Demastus should have a mock debate since you are convinced that he knows more about what I believe that even I know myself! Ha! If this were not a serious subject that has divided the body of Christ it would be the absolute best in slap stick comedy.

I do pray that we can have a fair debate without all of these deliberate misrepresentations. They are not helpful in the least. I say that your misrepresentations are deliberate. I should say that they appear to be such unless you just assumed sincerely that I would say such things and therefore felt safe in ascribing those words to me. But Brother Danny I have not used the words worship service in reference to any passage of scripture. And I believe if you go back and look you will not find me using them at all and certainly not in reference to Colossians 3:16.

I pray that our Lord will bless you my brother in all that is good and right and that you will enjoy and abound in the grace of God through Christ our Lord.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Lee,

If you don't want to be involved with this discussion, then don't be. We'll do what we can with arguments we've heard from other non- instrumentalists we've dealt with, and will try not (at least I won't) to imply that they are your arguments.

My offer will continue to stand and wait for the one-on-one discussion when you are done, whether it be me or Michael DeM., or someone else who wants to badly enough.

Danny made one reference to you. It was this: First....one of the things I've noticed through Lee's dicussion of this...(which has become quite lengthy for someone who doesn't want to discuss it)....is that he constantly mentions that the N.T. is very clear about what acceptable worship is. This IS something you have clearly spoken in the other two threads. When he moved on to the specific scripture he mentioned, he did not say that it was your argument. He referred to it as an idea that other non's have used. When you say that he attributed it to you, you are incorrect. He did not. If you don't want to be part of this discussion as it is developing, then don't be. We understand that you don't. And that's fine. But then don't come 'round objecting when we discuss arguments that other non's have made to us. Either be in or be out. The one-on-one discussion will be awaiting you when you are finished with the other.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Now, to Danny and everyone else:

How 'bout this? Let's leave Lee out of this. He and Jack will have a lively debate, in which we are invited to be the Greeek Chorus of sorts. But in this discussion, as wild and wooly as it may get, let's not invoke anything like, "Lee would say this", or "Lee said that". Let's restrict it to arguments we have heard from others, or questions that we have on our own.

Can we be gracious enough to do that, without giving up our autonomy or dignity? Jimmy Stewart woulda, if this was the old west!

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Danny:

As you nkow, I went thru a bout with the two "Jay Wilson Wannabe's" about the idea of worship, while you were working with them on another matter. Their approach (I guess I should say, "Jay's approach") was much like Lee's, except that they came to a different conclusion. They use the one verse from Matthew, about true worshippers worshipping in spirit and in truth, as the definition of worship in the church, and concluded (among other things) that what we do on Sunday morning isn't worship.

One of the mistakes made by these folks, and by the non's, is to mistake GENERAL DESCRIPTION for BINDING DEFINITION. For instance, if I were to give a description of the chair I'm sitting on right now, I mightd say that it is a horizontally flat cushioned surface covered largely with grey material, attached to a pedestal with four legs and wheels. And that's a fine description of this chair.

However, it would be wrong of me to take this description, and to universally declare that That is what a chair is, and that any other thing that is called "chair" but that doesn't look just like that is not really a chair, and anyone who says otherwise is to be declared a Chairitic, and tossed out of the Assembly of Chair Sitters.

That's what happens when a good Biblical description of a New Testament practice, or ANY description of a practice in the scriptures, is declared to be The Thing That God Wants And Nothing Else Will Do.

I've found God to be very specific when He wants to be, about issues He wants to be specific about. "What shall we do? - - Repent and be baptized." "An elder should be . . ." Build the ark x cubits by x cubits . . ."

But what happens when Christians get together in worship and praise and prayer and learning of scripture is just not much addressed, as far as God saying, "Do it this way." The only specific instruction I can come up with is about how to use spiritual gifts in the public assembly. Any others, where a NT writer says very clearly and specifically, "Do it this way"?

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Brother Sam, you have wisely said:

If you don't want to be involved with this discussion, then don't be. We'll do what we can with arguments we've heard from other non- instrumentalists we've dealt with, and will try not (at least I won't) to imply that they are your arguments.

Brother Sam, I will not be involved in this discussion and you have correctly ascertained the reason I will not. Assigning arguments to me that I have not made myself is extremely unfair. I appreciate very much the fact that you at least will not behave in such a dishonorable fashion.

You have said:

Danny made one reference to you. It was this: First....one of the things I've noticed through Lee's dicussion of this...(which has become quite lengthy for someone who doesn't want to discuss it)....is that he constantly mentions that the N.T. is very clear about what acceptable worship is. This IS something you have clearly spoken in the other two threads. When he moved on to the specific scripture he mentioned, he did not say that it was your argument. He referred to it as an idea that other non's have used. When you say that he attributed it to you, you are incorrect. He did not.

If you will read his follow words which I quote from him you will notice that he used this argument from the nons as a for instance of what I had said. Therefore he does attribute the argument to me and uses his own words that he claims to have heard from our brethren who agree with me that instruments are not authorized for the praise of God and the teaching and admonishing one another in the church of Christ. He thereby accuses them and me of saying things that I have not said in any place and I suspect they have not said it either. Read it again and I think you will see why I conclude that he was ascribing those arguments to me. I now quote his words for your reflection as follows:

First....one of the things I've noticed through Lee's discussion of this...(which has become quite lengthy for someone who doesn't want to discuss it)....is that he constantly mentions that the N.T. is very clear about what acceptable worship is. Really??? Take for instance one of the "nons" favorite verses....Colossians 3:16...."Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, will all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.....singing with thankfulness in your heart." Please tell me......where are the words, "In your worship service?" In fact, the context has nothing to do with "a worship service." The whole of the passage is a discussion of the daily attitude of the Christian. It is a discussion of contrasts....the contrast between "the old self" (vss. 5-9).....and "the new self" (vss. 10- 17).

The passage has NOTHING....ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a worship service.

But I must admit that you have been fair in that you have asked the brethren not to invoke my name if they are going to conduct an imaginary debate with hearsay evidence of what brethren have said to them over the years concerning this matter. I believe this is fair and reasonable. I do not want to participate in your mock debate with imaginary opponents. But I do respond when I am made to be responsible for what all of you imagine that I would say based upon the pure fabrication of what some brethren may or may not have said to you men in the past. Now I am not responsible for anything that may have been said to anyone in the past. And this does appear to be a tactic to create an impression unfavorable to those of us who oppose instruments of music for the praise of God and the admonition and teaching of one another in the church of Christ.

Anyone that cannot see the unfairness and deliberate attempt to attack me further before the debate begins is just plain blind. But at least you are fair enough to ask these brethren to stop invoking my name.

But I will not participate in this as you have suggested. But it is extremely unfair to invoke my name in a discussion that I have already said that I will not be involved in until after the debate. I believe that it is a fair request that you have made and I herein make the same request. If these brethren wish to debate me, then they should agree to a debate with me. But it is ridiculous to pretend that invoking my name in a discussion that I have agreed not to participate in is a genuine debate with me on this subject. Now that is how Danny characterized this in the title to this thread which is Lets get started. The debate that is. With this title he obviously attempted to leave our readers with the impression that this was the beginning of the debate they have been looking for with me concerning instrumental music in the worship. I do not believe that any sensible or reasonable person can deny the obvious intent by Brother Danny to supercede the actual debate that will take place between Brother Jack and me. Now our readers can see that I am right about this matter. Why all of this nonsense when all I asked for is for anyone in this forum to debate the subject with me one on one in a fair debate with some reasonable though formal guidelines to follow with a moderator to insure fairness to both sides. It is obvious that I have been wise in demanding this for it is clear from the reaction to the debate that there is much fear concerning allowing anything against instruments of music to simply be given a fair hearing in an honorable debate in this forum. All of you should be ashamed of such behavior.

But I do agree that they be allowed to argue with their straw men since I will not be participating in this tread. But I am sure you can understand why I responded to the beginning of this thread which was billed falsely, I might add, as the beginning of the debate which Danny knew everyone was looking forward to hearing. It was necessary that I speak up to let them know that this is not that debate. Rather it is an exercise that preachers enjoy of debating the weaker arguments that they have heard from those brethren who oppose them and give themselves a pep rally secure feeling that everything is ok and they have won the battle over again. This is their right of course and I do not seek to deny it to them but it is not their right to bill it as THE DEBATE that everyone has been looking forward to hearing between me and Brother Jack.

Also I believe that you can understand my desire to respond when my name is being referred to again and again as if they are dealing with my arguments. Especially when I have not agree to engage in the discussion and they are not referring to anything whatsoever that I have actually said. You show that you recognized this in your wise suggestion that these Brethren refrain from invoking my name in their struggle with their straw men build of the very weakest arguments that they have collected to inform their members that we have made. Maybe this is something that they just must do, and I do not really object to it. But do not invoke my name and pretend that you have answered my arguments or in any way have had a debate with me on this subject or bill such a thing as the debate on instrumental music that all in this forum have been talking about recently. A lie is a lie regardless of the form that it takes.

So at your suggestion I will not participate in this particular thread. And I can only pray that my brethren that are conducting this exercise with their straw man will not seek to give the illusion that they are debating E. Lee Saffold by invoking my name without ceasing as if the arguments are from me.

I appreciate your suggestions and your comments concerning these matters. I now leave this tread for all of you to enjoy your game with any straw man you wish to set up and destroy. I may even watch with a view to see if any are willing to challenge arguments that they themselves believe to be strong ones. I doubt if anyone is even willing to admit that there are any such arguments against instrumental music in the worship.

May our Lord bless you abundantly? I am praying for you Brother Sam, and I am referring sincerely to your e-mail sent to those of us your Brethren request our prayers for your work.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Lee, you're reading too much into it. Danny did refer to you, but very clearly turned away from that reference when he went on to the passage he discussed. It would have been quite easy for him to say, "Lee's position on this would be...", but he did not.

I think you have become to sensitive to this to evaluate it clearly. I would suggest you leave this one be (just as I asked Ben to leave the other one alone for a while).

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Danny,

Why they hurry? You have indicated in another thread that things were moving way too slowly with the debate and here you say, "I've waited long enough..." Why the hurry?

Personally, I enjoy Lee's knowledge of the scripture and his organized way of asking/answering questions. I would like to see the debate take place... especially since, I believe, Lee has agreed to discuss it afterwards. I sincerely believe that everyone involved would get a better understanding of the issue if it involves someone with knowledge and convictions from both 'sides'... rather than a one- sided conversation. Besides, what are we striving for?.... Unity based upon Truth, right? If everyone (no one in particular... if anybody thinks I am speaking at them... I might be) would agree to re- read their posts a few times... and remove anything at all that was prideful... we might be able to have an attempt at unity.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Sam,

You said, above,

"I think you have become to sensitive to this to evaluate it clearly. I would suggest you leave this one be (just as I asked Ben to leave the other one alone for a while)."

That sounds like good advice, both for Lee and for me -- I don't think I've gotten "sensitive" to the issue in the way that Lee has (to take personally things that are obviously NOT intended personally), but I was having increasing difficulty in keeping my temper and not responding "in kind" to the things he was saying about me. However, I seem to have either missed or misunderstood this when you said it to me. Can you tell or remind me where and when you said it? Thanks.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Sure. My first entry in the "Maybe this will end the discussion/debate controversy), as follows:

So, how 'bout the rest of you? Benjamin, I know that, for you, other issues have arisen. But perhaps you will be gracious enough to set them aside for now, with the understanding by most here that you and Lee have rather been talking at cross-purposes for a time.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Brother Danny:

You have sought to describe the battle lines with these words:

Therefore, I assumed the purpose of your case is to show that only vocal music is acceptable in the worship of God. Now at stake....is whether or not those of us who use instruments in our worship service are wrong. Am I wrong in assuming that is "the battle line?"

You are only partially correct in your statement above. I answer this because you addressed the question to me. The purpose of my case is to show that vocal music accompanied by plucking or playing or making melody with the heart to the Lord when we are teaching and admonishing one another and when we praise God. This is by no means limited by what you have called the worship service. This could be while singing in a prison as was the case with Paul and Silas when they were in prison for Christ sake. None would likely call that a worship service. I have deliberately NOT used the words worship service for several reasons but the primary one here is to make sure that no one assumes that I am talking exclusively of the worship service. Now several of you have pointed to inconsistencies among those of us who do not use instruments when we worship God because some among us have no problem using them outside of the so called worship service. I have been unable to find the terms worship service in the scriptures and though I can find something resembling what we often call a worship service in the scriptures I do not find it being called such. Therefore to avoid this confusion and to affirm a proposition that Brother Jack and I both agree best describes the true battle line. And to be completely consistent in my argument, as are the scriptures I have not said and will not restrict this command of Christ our Lord to the confines of a worship service. Our Lord has not restricted that command to any such thing and I have no right to restrict it in this way.

So I do hope that you can see that there is a good reason for my objection to this restriction. Now I agree that this command of Christ includes any time that we are teaching and admonishing one another or praising God in song. Therefore it would include what you refer to as a worship service. But I want it to be clearly understood that I am not referring exclusively to what many refer to as the worship service. I am referring to any time or place where we are teaching and admonishing one another or praising God in song. Now this admittedly includes what many refer to as our worship service but it is not by any means restricted to it alone. Now that should make what you refer to in military terms as the battle lines.

So you can see why I have said that you are completely off the mark on that score as far as what I am affirming in the upcoming debate. If you could have waited until the debate begins to draw your conclusions concerning what I am affirming you would not have made these assumptions.

Now please understand that I have not used the term worship service and I have avoided that term by design and for good purpose. When you ascribe the use of it to me you do unjustly misrepresent my case. However, I know why you assume this. For you are talking in this thread about the things that have been said on both sides during the past 150 years. During this time the term worship service was in common usage and many of the debates were restricted to this and the battle lines were drawn as you describe them. In this case you have come across something that is relatively new under the sun in relation to this discussion. I am not the first or the only one to refuse this restriction but it does appear to be new to you.

Then you say:

And yes.....we are still waiting for the outline of N.T. worship....are we not??

Now you may feel the need to find such but you have no good reason to demand that I provide such in order to prove my proposition. So there is no reason that you should be waiting for that from me because it has nothing whatsoever to do with my proposition that I am trying to affirm. The outline of New Testament worship has nothing to do with the fact that whenever and wherever we teach and admonish one another and praise God in song we are to do so with the accompaniment of the heart and no other instrument is authorized for this purpose. That is my contention and therefore I do not have any obligation to find some outline for New Testament worship in order to sustain that affirmation.

Now I want to also take this opportunity to apologize to you and all of the preachers and teachers in the Christian Church for my remarks to which you strongly objected. You drew the conclusion that I was saying that all of you are openly by that I think you meant deliberately deceiving those whom you teach. You objected to my words and I could not see how you drew the conclusion that I had said such a thing. But others also objected, and then last night I received e-mail from Sister Muse objecting as well and all were referring to the same words that I had used. Now when you object to something I do always stop and reconsider what I have said. I asked you to give me the specific words that caused your objection but you did not explain in detail. But when someone who loves the truth as much as Sister Muse writes me and quotes the exact specific language that I had used and explained in detail why she saw it as objectionable I saw what you meant. She drew the exact same conclusions that you reached and I was compelled by her argument to realize that I had in fact said something that I did not believe myself. I did in fact leave the impression that I thought that all of you were deliberately deceiving those whom you teach. I do not believe any such thing and I apologize for having said words that were stated so strongly that anyone with common sense could have drawn the conclusion that I was charging you with deliberately deceiving those whom you teach. I did not believe that when I said it and did not mean such by what I said but the way in which I said those things does without question convey that idea and I do sincerely apologize for having said it. I do not believe that you are deliberately  working to deceive those whom you teach. So please forgive me for leaving that impression.

Now I want to be clear that I have always said that I believe you are in error concerning this subject. And, since I believe you to be in error it is only natural that I would believe that when you teach it you are perpetuating that error. But that is a horse of a different color from saying that you are deliberately teaching something that you know full well to be an error and doing it with the deliberate intent to deceive those whom you teach. I did not make this distinction clear in the words to which you and Sister Muse refer and I sincerely apologize and ask your forgiveness.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Lee,

Thank you for the gracious apology!

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Brother Sam:

You have said:

But what happens when Christians get together in worship and praise and prayer and learning of scripture is just not much addressed, as far as God saying, "Do it this way." The only specific instruction I can come up with is about how to use spiritual gifts in the public assembly. Any others, where a NT writer says very clearly and specifically, "Do it this way"?

Now, I think that you would agree that it does not matter how MUCH is said about any subject that God has chosen to address. If God addresses it with only one single word we had better be busy understanding that word and be prepared to obey whatever his will is in the matter. Just how many words would God have to use to convince us to do what he has said do in the few words that he has spoken. The Divine economy is seen in Gods sparing use of words. One of the evidences that God is the author of it is the fact that he does not cater to our curiosity by giving us detailed information concerning all that we would like for him to provide. So do not think that because God has spoken in a few places that he has not spoken at all and has therefore left us to do as we please. This is simply not the truth concerning this issue. Nor is it true in other areas of our lives as Christians. I do not think that you mean to imply that the fact that God has not said as much as you would have preferred that He say on this subject that the words he has spoken are insufficient for our understanding what His will is in the matter.

There are without doubt clear instructions in 1 Corinthians 14 concerning the use of spiritual gifts in the assembly of the saints. Including in those instructions are instructions concerning prayer, teaching and singing. Those instructions are very specific. It is interesting to note that the singing was to be accompanied by the understanding. Notice these words, What is it then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the understanding also. (1Cor.14: 15). Now this was referring, in context, to inspired prayers and songs and their relation to the use of tongues when they prayed and when they admonished one another in song. Everything was to be done to the edification of the church in this assembly including the inspired prayers and songs. It was imperative that everyone prays and sings with the heart or understanding. So that whether one was singing, praying or teaching they were to speak languages that could be understood by all. It would not do for them to use any words or sounds that could not be understood. Now it is clear that God did not want the unintelligible sounds of foreign languages connected with their prayers, singing and teaching in the church. SO we do have specific instructions concerning these matters in the assembly and those teachings were not mere matters of expediency but of utmost importance.

There is interestingly enough absolutely no instruction concerning the duties of the minister of music and how mechanical instruments are to be used.

Therefore it is good for us to discuss how we are to conduct ourselves in these assemblies. There are passages relating to this subject that are given in the form of commands and are not in the least mere descriptions of how things were done. Colossians 3:16-18 is specific instructions given in the form of commands to be obeyed. So also is the parallel passage found in Ephesians 5:15-33. These two passages cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be characterized as mere descriptions of how things were in the first century. I give these as examples but there are others. They are in fact instructions and commands concerning how things are to be done in the church, period. They are commands to be obeyed instead of interesting little descriptions to be observed with interest and other wise ignored.

Now there may be several passages that do nothing more than describe for us just how the church obeyed these commands but these are related to commands to be obeyed and aid us in understanding those commands. But the commands themselves are not simply descriptions of a chair so to speak. No one would equate our constitution in this country to a mere description of how things were in the early days of this country and would contend that we are therefore not required to follow what it says. Nor should anyone conclude that the teachings of the apostles are any less, especially in these verses given above which are not given in a descriptive form to appeal to our curiosity only. They are the commands of Christ, given by the Holy Spirit through the apostles. We are to therefore continue in the apostles doctrine and fellowship and the breaking of bread and prayers. (Acts 2:42) for these are the doctrine of Christ. (John 14:26; 16:13).

And whatsoever ye do in word or deed do all in the name of (or by the authority of) the Lord Jesus Christ giving thanks to God and the father by Him. (Col. 3:17).

This verse is not a description but a direct command that we are to follow in all that we do. All that we do in word or deed must be done with the authority of Christ. That is with his approval. The only way we can know that Christ approves of something is for it to be revealed in His word given by the Holy Spirit to the apostles and other inspired writers of the New Testament. Therefore, if we would follow Christ in all that we do we must have word from Christ that he approves of what we do. In the upcoming debate we will search the New Testament for the approval of Christ for the use of mechanical instruments in teaching and admonishing one another or praising God in song. If we find no such approval or authorization we should not do this thing for we cannot do it in the NAME OF CHRIST.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Lee wrote: "If we find no such approval or authorization we should not do this thing for we cannot do it in the NAME OF CHRIST."

I write: This statement presupposes a key assumption that really needs to be addressed first, IMO. When is the lack of approval or authorization a prohibition.

I grew up acapella Church of Christ, my maternal grandfather was Primitive Baptist, and a maternal uncle is a Primitive Baptist preacher (I mention this because PB have the same beliefs on music as CoC acapella, too). I heard all the arguments, and in college dissected those arguments when encouraged to do so by a preacher (not just those arguments, but all arguments -- he was trying to insure we thought for ourselves and didn't just parrot). I came to the conclusion that if one buys "lack of authorization or approval is prohibition" there can be no instruments allowed with our music. To me, all other arguments I ever heard are incredibly faulty in their logic with holes that you could drive an aircraft carrier through (btw, I know more than a little bit about logic).

I debated with myself on "silence is prohibition" (a phrase I recognize oversimplifies the statement, give me some liberty please) and its impacts. I stated in another thread a couple of weeks back that I knew one day I would be following Jesus with either the "anti"'s (an extreme set of them, for that matter) or with those known as the Christian Church. This "silence is prohibition" was the crux of that knowledge, for if lack of authorization or approval always results in prohibition, then we shouldn't own a church building (no authorization or approval (approved example)), we shouldn't use multiple cups, we shouldn't have a long term located preacher, we shouldn't have Sunday School (all teaching should be as done in the NT, where they didn't have SS), et al.

I have come to the point in the last three years or so that I believe that where there is silence of commands, principle must be applied, and where there is no applicable principle, there is freedom. The N.T. record is silent on the use of instruments with singing, so we must ask about principles. Singing appears to be for our own edification and strengthening as well as praise of God. God was praised in the O.T. with the instrument involved, so why would He be offended now?

So, to me, the real debate is on "Is prohibition implied by silence?". Settle that debate in the affirmative and acapella follows. Otherwise, it depends on the circumstances of the saints involved to settle what's best.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Brother Mark:

I am sure that you know there is a vast difference between the Primitive Baptist and us. SO that comparison is not useful in this matter. I know that they do not use instruments but that is about as far as the similarity goes. The Greek Orthodox Church does not use them either but we are hardly similar. The Russian Orthodox Church does not use them and none could conclude that we are exactly similar. But if this argument has any meaning the first century Church did not use them and unfortunately this fact alone would not make us truly similar to them either though it would leave one with the impression that the reasons are the same among all of these groups.

Then you say:

I write: This statement presupposes a key assumption that really needs to be addressed first, IMO. When is the lack of approval or authorization a prohibition.

Now, Mark, what I said concerning this matter was in relation to the clear statement of Paul in Colossians 3:17 where we are commanded us whatsoever ye do in word or deed do all in the NAME OF CHRIST. Now if we do anything that is not in the "name of Christ" we are not obeying the teaching of this passage, are we? I do not think that you meant by what you said that it is perfectly ok for us to do things without the approval of Christ! If Christ does not approve of what we do I am certain that you would agree that we should not do it. This would therefore mean until we are sure that Christ approves of what we do we should not take any chances that he just might approve and we just do not know it. If we cannot do anything that Christ does not approve of then it follows that we should make sure that we have his approval before we do it. Now your training in logic should help you see that clearly.

Then you said:

So, to me, the real debate is on "Is prohibition implied by silence?".

Now I have not said anything about prohibition is implied by silence. In fact I firmly believe in many cases that liberty is implied by silence. For it is not my position that silence alone prohibits anything. Rather, specific commands from God exclude all that is not specified in those commands. Since I have written briefly concerning this matter in another thread I will simply paste it here so you can see that I do not take the position that silence alone is a prohibition but rather Gods specifications forbid us from going outside of those specifications. I will cover this matter in detail in the debate and I invite your attention to it. But the real debate will not be upon the question Is prohibition implied by silence? but rather "does Gods specific commands exclude all that is not contained in those commands as is evidenced by deliberate silence concerning all else? Therefore, silence is nothing more than evidence that God may have specified what he wanted and in doing so he excludes everything else without having to specifically forbid all else in order to make that fact clear. He makes that clear by supporting his specific command with silence concerning everything outside of the bounds of those commands. I now quote the previous post wherein I discussed this matter in another thread with the simple suggestion to you that I will develop this argument in detail in the debate because I do not have the time to do so just now. I present it for your edification with the prayer that you will find it useful:

In the tread I have pasted this from the following characterization of my position was stated:

My only difference with you is in application of the principle of silence (as I'm sure you are aware of this already). Where as your position is silence prohibits....my postion is where there is silence there is Christian liberty....checked by biblical prohibition. My response to the above characterization was as follows:

My application of the principle of silence is not as you have stated. You say that my position is silence prohibits. This is not exactly correct though it is what many seem to perceive my position to be. My position is that when God specifies he thereby excludes all other than that which he specified. Thus his specifications are the thing that prohibits or excludes that which is other than the thing specified in the command. The silence is the natural result of such and hence is evidence of such specification rather than the thing that prohibits all else. A scriptural example of this principle of Gods specifications excluding all other than the thing specified and how silence was evidence of the specification is found in Hebrews 7:12-14 which says:

 For the priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are said belongeth to another tribe, from which no man hath given attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe MOSES SPAKE NOTHING CONCERNING PRIEST. (Heb 7:12-14).

Now from this passage we know that God had specified which tribe was to give attendance at the altar. We know from the Old Testament that he had specified the tribe of Levi. When he made this specification he thereby naturally excluded all from any of the other tribes from being priest. The silence concerning all of the others was the natural result of his specifying the tribe of Levi. There was no need for him to specifically FORBID each of the other tribes in order to prohibit them from serving at the altar. His specifying the tribe of Levi was sufficient to prohibit all others. Hence his silence concerning all of the other tribes was only further evidence that he has clearly specified only one tribe, the tribe of Levi, to serve as priest. And this prohibition, of which his silence was evidence, was clear to all without any misunderstanding at all. And Paul, whom I believe wrote the book of Hebrews by inspiration, refers to the silence of Moses as evidence that God did not authorize anyone but the tribe of Levi to serve as priest under the Law. In support of his assertion that no one from the tribe of Judah could serve as priest under the law, the Hebrew writer says, of which tribe Moses SPAKE NOTHING CONCERNING PRIEST as evidence that God had spoken of only one tribe to serve at the altar. All others were prohibited by his specification of only one tribe, the tribe of Levi, and his silence concerning all of the other tribes was evidence or conclusive proof that he had specified that tribe only and thereby excluded all others. Therefore, it is not silence alone that prohibits but specification previously made and re-enforced by silence concerning everything other than the thing specified that prohibits all else.

There are many things that God has been silent concerning which we are at liberty to do or not as we chose. But there is nothing that God has specified and re-enforced with silence concerning things outside of HIS specification that we are at liberty to do. We are not at liberty to do anything other than that which God has specified that we should do in the commands that he has given wherein he has specified the thing to be done. Therefore, if the silence is connected thusly to a clear specification of God it is evidence of a specification that excludes or prohibits all else. But it is not the silence that prohibits, rather it is Gods specifications that prohibit our going outside of his specific requirements.

I hope that this clears up the matter of silence forbids being my position. For such is a complete misunderstanding of the position that I believe to be scriptural. I agree that this is a subject to be taken up later in our debate with Brother Jack. But this principle applies to more than the instrumental music debate. As can be seen from the passage I have quoted above from Hebrews, it applied in the prohibition of any tribe other than the tribe of Levi serving as priest. God prohibited all others by specifying the tribe of Levi and re-enforcing that specification by his silence or speaking nothing concerning any other of the tribes concerning the priesthood. But you are not responsible totally for your perception. I believe that we have often left the perception that Gods silence alone is the thing that prohibits. This is not an accurate perception and I hope that I can correct this perception that we have inadvertently given by emphasizing the silence which is evidence of Gods exclusion by specifying only one thing and speaking nothing of anything else rather than the actual specification that excludes all else. I do sincerely think that this is one of the reasons that we have never been able to resolve our difference over the issue of instrumental music as well as several other issues throughout the restoration movement.

I only offer this as an effort to explain that I will not be coming to the debate with brother Jack with the hermeneutic that silence prohibits but rather it is evidence of a prohibition found in the definite specifics of Gods commands.

I sincerely hope that this gives at least some food for thought and will prepare others to not assume their perception that I am arguing that silence prohibits is a correct one. I would say silence is evidence of an existing prohibition. Such prohibition resides within Gods specific requirements wherein God has specified the thing to be done and thereby excluded all else. His silence concerning all else is evidence that he has excluded anything outside of His definite specifications as the example from Hebrews above demonstrates.

Brother Mark, please keep this in mind as the debate with Brother Jack proceeds. I do not want anyone to assume in advance that I am arguing from the perspective that you describe that silence prohibits for that is not the position that I take. Gods specific commands exclude all not specified in that command. Silence after that specific command has been given is an indicator or is evidence of the fact that God has specified and thereby excluded all not in his command.

Gods generic commands are different. In these commands he has simply told us the results that he wants and has not specifically required anything other than that result. Example would be to Go ye therefore and teach all nations. If we go we have obeyed. God has not specified how we are to go. We are therefore at liberty to go by train, plane, bus, afoot, or ship.

It is my contention that God has specifically commanded the type of music and the instrument which is to accompany it when we teach and admonish one another or praise God.

So please understand that my comments to which you refer were not intended in any way to negate the position that I have herein described as the position that I take.

I hope this is useful information to you. I sincerely hope you will accept it as food for thought and give it some serious consideration. And I hope that you will look for my detailed development of this line of argument in the debate and that you will apply all of your logical acumen and training to testing this position in the light of Gods eternal word.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Yeah, Lee. For someone who has declared repeatedly that he won't be involved in a "free-wheeling discussion" befroe his debate, you've certainly made yourself invovled.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Brother Danny and Sam:

I have yeilded to your request and your constant rferences to me and have joined your discussion and now you use it as an opportunity to accuse me of being inconsistent.

Maybe the both of you should decide first exactly what you want. You do not seem to have been sincere in your words seeking that I be willing to participate in a "free wheeling discussion". I even agreed to participate in one with Ben as per your request Sam. He did not seem to be interested in that without attaching, as it appeared to me, the requirement that we "cancel" the debate. Now I have tried to comply with your wishes and you can think of nothing better than to use it as an opportunity to falsely accuse me of inconsistency.

I tell you what. I will agree to A free wheeling discussion of this issue with Brother Ben and Brother Danny and Brother Sam in seperate threads provided that I am required to respond to one person in each tread and one person only and everyone else are required "lurk" and make seperate comments in a tread provided for that purpose.

Now I have come your way about as far as it is possible for me to go. Yet all you can do is use it as an excuse to complain and accuse me of being inconsistent.

So you kind Christian men can decide just what you would relly like to do and let me know. You are not happy when I do not respond and you are not happy when I do. SO which one is important to you? Or is it your purpose to critisize me regardless of what I do simply because I cannot agree with you on this issue?

But I have now removed all of your "excuses". Danny, I will discuss this with you in a "free wheeling discussion format so long as it is understood that I am only responsible to respond only to you.

Brother Ben, I am willing now to take up where we left off in our "freewheeling discussion" provided that I am responsible to respond only to you and no others.

Brother Sam, the same offer is extended to you. I will discuss the matter in a free wheeling discussion with you provided that I am reponsible for responding only to you.

Now this will be extremely time consumming for me but I am willing to do it if this will help everyone think about this subject and I also request that the debate not be canceled as a condition of my agreeing to do this.

Now, Brethren, I do not see how I can be any more fair or reasonable than this. I know that Brother Ben does not want to see a debate. I am asking that he sacrifice that for I am yeilding to his point completely in my agreement to return to our previeous "free wheeling discussion". I only have three requirements. 1.) that I am required in each of the three threads( one for the discussion between me and Brother Danny, one for a discussion between me and Brother Sam, and one for a return to the discussion between me and Brother Ben) to respond to only one person in each of those threads.

2.) That the dabate with brother Jack be set in stone and that I will be able to leave the "free wheeling discussions" in order to participate in the debate with Brother Jack.

3.) That everyone recognize the time I would invest in such an endeavor and allow me reasonable time to respond under these conditions.

Now, That is giving you everything that you CLAIM to have wanted me to do and more. SO we will now see just how much of this is real or just "smoke and mirrors". Only Brother Jack has agreed to Debate me by seriously entering into the negotiations for a debate. I appreciate that in him and have grown to respect him highly. I do believe that many of you would truly benefit from hearing him debate this issue. I am certian that I will. But enough of this nonsense whining when I respond and crying when I do not.

I am now offering you what you have been CLAIMING that you would like to see me do. All I am asking is that you respect my request to have a debate. We can then compare objectively and the people in this forum can decide for themselves which format was the most useful and productive.

Now I just cannot think of any other way that I can be more reasonable about this matter. Now you are either willing to agree or not. If not, stop whining. If you agree let us begin by stating three threads one entitled " Saffold/Gabbard Discussion" and one entitled "Saffold/Rees" discussion and one entitled "Saffold/Loveall Discussion" and each of you begin your "freewheeling" as you like and I will come in and respond and just "freewheel" along with you.

I will do this until the debate commences and will stop until the debate is finished and return to continue until you say it is time to stop. And of course I will have certian Job responsibilities that will require my attention but I will return as soon as I am back in town. Otherwise I will be there as long as you like. So,Danny, you seem to be in a hurry. I have agreed to your request. Now can you abide with my simple requirements related to it?

I ask the same of you Sam and Ben?

Is this more like what you want or would you prefer one thread wherein all three of you come at me at the exact same time. Just tell me which way you think is fair? WE will see just how willing you are to "discuss" this matter. I sincerely think that you are willing to discuss it and I have now agreed to do it your way provided that the debate is allowed also so that we can see how much better a debate is for the discussion of such issues as this one.

Now it is time for you to either stand up or sit down. You decide where you are in this matter. You all have wanted to "Freewheel with me on this issue" so lets start "freewheeling"! Ha!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Lee:

You have made all of this much more than it is, and I am pretty tired of it.

I NEVER NEVER NEVER insisted that you enter into any discussion you didn't want to.

You CONSTANTLY said you wouldn't do this.

I TOOK YOU AT YOUR WORD, AND ATTEMPTED TO DIRECT THIS DISCUSSION AWAY FROM YOU.

And now you say that I am inconsistent. Lee, you are being disingenuous here. And you are misrepresenting everything I said to you.

You are the one doing all the whining. I again and again said, after the debate, we'll do the discussion. I've said this a number of times, both in this thread and in others.

Get the chip off your shoulder, quit playing the persecuted Oh-it's- just-so-much-but-I'll-make-the-sacrifice whiner, and do what you said you'd do. we will continue this discussion without you, AS I CLEARLY STATED AT LEAST TWICE ABOVE.

i have tried again and again to support your position of only wanting to debate in what you see as the proper manner, only to have you go off in every other direction. I'm weary of it.

After your debate, come back and we'll have it out, if you still desire. But stop this junk you're doing now.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Sam:

I do not feel persecuted in the least and have not said anything to indicate it. I have offered to do what everyone has been wanting me to do. Now we will see if you were sincere about that or not.

You want a free wheeling discussion. I have offered to engage everyone of you in such a "free wheeling discussion" and now we see that one of the three is not willing to even do that.

So we shall wait and see if any of the others are as interested in a "freewheeling discussion" as they pretended to be. If not then maybe I will be able to just wait for the debate as I had been asking to be allowed to do for so long and everyone wanted to discuss the subject and set the stage before the debate and ascribe arguments to me that I did not make. Now I am not a in any way "playing the role of a poor "pesecuted" man" as you would like to have everyone believe. Not at all. I have simply agreed to do what so many have critisized me for not doing. Now we see that at least Brother Sam is not interested.

You are simply "tired" of it all. Well, if walking with the foot soldiers hat wearied thee then what will you do when you must "run with the horses?"

Well we shall see if the others are interested or not. If not then there will at least be no justification for the false claim that I somehow mistreated everyone in my desire and my attempt to discuss this matter only in the format of a debate. I am not complaining brother Sam I am challenging each of you to join me in a "freewheeling discussion" as all of you have suggested that we do. Now you can see plianly that we cannot have it both ways. I wanted to debate this subject and was accused of wanting a debate in order to avoid a "freewheeling discussion". Now I have agreed for the fourth time to a "freewheeling discussion" only this time I agreed to do it before the debate begins because some are in such a big hurry to talk about it that they cannot wait for the debate without insinuating that it is being unduly delayed and implying by that that I have in some way delayed it, which is clearly not true and Brother Duane can be a witness to that fact.

So I have yeilded to the request for a Free wheeling discussion even before the debate begins and you refuse it.

Well my offer still stands for the other two men that I have agreed to discuss this matter with and we wait to see if they will accept the fact that I have yeilded to their request and agree to such a discussion as I have described.

But all you can do is accuse me of having a "persecution" complex of some kind. THose who feel "persecuted" Brother Sam do not agree to three simultaneous discussions while waiting to engage in a formal debate.

So you have chosen to avoid the freewheeling discussion. Keep that in mind the next time you want to critisize me for avoiding it.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Danny,

You wrote,

"But with Lee.....a brother in Christ.....we must now allow our pride to be more important than mutual respect."

I puzzled for some time over what you meant by that, since it seemed to say the opposite of the rest of what you were saying, and the opposite of what you have been urging in other messages "lately".

I wonder if maybe it was a "typo" and what you really meant was "NOT", instead of "now"?

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Is this from God or from Satan? I have been meditating and praying about what has been happening in this forum recently and how polarised and adversarial things have become. I really think that every time the "heat" has gone up another degree or two, it is Bro. Lee who has initiated the escalation, but much of it has been in reaction to me and things I have said (or that he has imagined I have said). And I have, along the way, occasionally let my temper get the better of me and have said things that were harsher than they should have been. Everything I have said has been the truth as I have understood it, but I regret what has come out of it.

I had come, therefore, to the conclusion that for the sake of my own spiritual and emotional well-being and that of the forum as well, I should quit responding to Lee Saffold. Then, just a day or two after I came to this resolution, he offers a compromise that, while it still isn't quite what I had in mind as ideal, would eliminate my most serious objections.

Should I accept or should I not? I'm very tempted, but I feel I'm caught "between a rock and a hard place". If I accept, especially so soon, without allowing emotions to cool off more first, I am afraid we will just see a continuation of the bitter wrangling that I'm trying to get away from. If I decline, even for a time, I fear that Lee may use that fact against me to say that I'm both insincere and afraid to come to grips with this issue.

As it is, I CANNOT engage in anything like this right away, and probably not before the middle of next week, because I have too many other things to do. So I will think about it, pray about it, and give some kind of response in a week or so -- assuming that the whole situation hasn't already reversed itself by then.

Since the "debate" does seem doomed to take place, despite the problems I see with it, since Sam has plainly stated his willingness to wait for it, and since I could use some "cool down" time, maybe it would be best just to wait until the debate, and follow up with something like this after it is at least well underway -- as long as it does actually take place and reasonably soon. But since the offer has been made, I want to think it over before closing the door on it.

One comment on the proposals themselves -- in case such a discussion does take place, either now or later. Three SEPARATE "one to one" threads sounds rather unwieldy and like a lot of extra work for all of us, especially Lee. There is bound to be a lot of overlap in what each of us might say and what Lee would say to us. It would seem to me to make more sense to have either a "three on one" discussion or even a more "open" discussion, but with the understanding that Lee only has to deal with "one argument" at a time and is free to ignore anyone else and anything else until we are all satisfied that this one argument has been dealt with -- and the understanding that no-one should be offended if they have to wait awhile for him to answer them because he is still busy with an earlier argument.

And in the meantime, if anyone still wants to discuss/debate "the subject" itself, in the absence of Lee Saffold, you might like to take a look at the arguments in the following website: http://www.reformed.com/pub/music.htm. This is NOT from the A-capella Churches of Christ, but one thing they claim as supporting evidence is that so "many" other groups have come to similar conclusions. Most of the arguments used in this website are ones I have encountered from Church of Christ people, plus a few new ones I had not encountered previously. This way, if you want to continue, you/we would not be limited to arguments we have encountered previously from Church of Christ brethren or in the things Lee Saffold has already said, but would have something specific to respond to, from people who hold similar views. (BTW, I have already drawn this website to the attention of Bro. Jack and Bro. Lee, for them to use, if they find it helpful, in their own preparation.)

Sam,

Thanks for the repeat and clarification of the things you had addressed to me. I had seen that, but either took its meaning more specifically than you intended, or took what you have said recently more broadly than you intended. I took the former admonition to be specifically about my objections to debates, and what you said more recently to be about having become too sensitive (about the whole spectrum of the discussions with Lee) to be objective.

Anyway, as I've said above, I am feeling a need myself to "back off" for a time and let things "cool down."

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Lee:

Let me say this again. Pay attention.

I will be happy to discuss this issue with you. I think you are completely wrong about it, and I think I can, from the scriptures, completely refute your every argument. But I will not do so until after your debate with Jack. And I will continue to encourage everyone else to wait until after your debate with Jack.

Sometimes you are dishonest, whether intentionally or not, in your presentation. This is one of those times. You filled pages and pages in two other threads about why you couldn't or wouldn't enter into unstructured discussion about the issue of using instrument(s) in worship. You and Ben got into heated diatribe about it. You said again and again and again that you would not be goaded into it. And now you come over here, a thread being directed in such a way as to go thru some discussions without you, and say, "Oh, all right, I'll discuss it before the debate, one-on-one with three different people, even tho it will be extremely time-consuming for me." And when I reply that, no, I'll honor your repeated statements that you'll only do the debate first, you accuse me of not really wanting to discuss it with you in the first place.

I have been gracious to you and protective of your position, and have encouraged others to let you have your choice of debating rather than discussing, and you return that by making derogatory accusations against me and my willingness to deal with this issue with you.

Once again, I will wait for your debate with Jack to be completed, and then I will take up this discussion with you. And I encourage the others to do the same.

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2000

Having read all that has been said by Brothers Sam, Danny, and Ben, it seems that I can now be correct in saying that it is perfectly acceptable with everyone that I be allowed to do what I requested from the very beginning. It does appear that all are in full agreement that I am allowed to discuss this issue in a debate format with Brother Jack and that all are willing to wait until after that debate to engage in any freewheeling discussion of this matter with me. If I am not correct in that assumption I ask that I be corrected.

It seems that all of you are in agreement that we will all wait until after the debate with Brother Jack to arrange these discussions with me. I appreciate the good spirit, with which it appears that all of you agree to this. I especially appreciate Brother Bens suggestion that we have a three on one discussion with the recognition that I be allowed time to complete reponses to one argument before going to another. His recognition of the fact that there would be some overlap between three separate discussions is wise.

If I am correct in my assumption that all have now agreed to allow me to discuss this issue in a formal debate first and then join heartily in follow-up discussions afterwards, I will now turn my attention to preparing for that debate. And we can all do as brother Ben has suggested and use this time as a cooling off period. I would recommend that we all use it as a time of sincere prayer and reflection. And let us ask our Lord to help us to look past all of the human hinderances to unity that stand between the truth and us. And let us hear His words and understand them because we all sincerely seek to be lead by Him who is our Lord and savior and willingly prepare ourselves to surrender to His will in all things.

I apologize to you Brother Danny for failing to recognize the humor in your statement. As I have said before and you have correctly pointed out that I have problems with humor I often miss it especially when it is in writing. I can see how it would have been very funny. I could have enjoyed the laughter if humor was something that I am in tune with so to speak. It seems however that humor is unfortunately on a frequency that I cannot hear very well. I am sure the lord has sent me in answer to your prayers and he therefore sent one that was basically "deaf" to your humor otherwise there would be no real testing of your patience, now would there?

I look forward now to the upcoming debate and will give my attention to the preparation for it. And I will pray fervently that we can all come closer to our Lord and that we will succeed in doing His will on earth as it is in heaven. I will pray that we can all have better attitudes in the debate and the follow up discussions. I speak in this regard to myself more than anyone else.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2000

It does appear that all are in full agreement that I am allowed to discuss this issue in a debate format with Brother Jack and that all are willing to wait until after that debate to engage in any freewheeling discussion of this matter with me. If I am not correct in that assumption I ask that I be corrected.

I guess I have to ask this, Lee . . . if we begin to discuss this issue amongst ourselves, with no intention of your being involved in it, since you are preparing for your debate, will that cause a problem? I would like to go thru some of the issues involved with others. Can you keep your attention away from this while we do? Not that I want to hide anything from you, but I DO want to begin to toss these ideas around. I would expect no involvement from you, and would expect that nothing be addressed to you. Your name may well arise, but only in passing. There are plenty of us who have heard arguments from your side to make us able to discuss those arguments without talking about you or ascribing them to you. If some of your arguments appear here, it would be because you aren't the only person making those arguments from your side.

How 'bout it? May we proceed?

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2000

Brother Sam:

You have asked:

I guess I have to ask this, Lee . . . if we begin to discuss this issue amongst ourselves, with no intention of your being involved in it, since you are preparing for your debate, will that cause a problem? I would like to go thru some of the issues involved with others. Can you keep your attention away from this while we do? Not that I want to hide anything from you, but I DO want to begin to toss these ideas around. I would expect no involvement from you, and would expect that nothing be addressed to you. Your name may well arise, but only in passing. There are plenty of us who have heard arguments from your side to make us able to discuss those arguments without talking about you or ascribing them to you. If some of your arguments appear here, it would be because you aren't the only person making those arguments from your side. How 'bout it? May we proceed?

Since you have made it clear that there is no intention of my being involved in this effort on your part to discuss this issue among yourselves. And since you are expecting no involvement from me and that these arguments that you speak of will not be ascribed to me or talking about me. I have absolutely no problem in complying with your request that I keep my attention away from this thread.

I fully understand that it is merely your intent to toss things around and discuss this matter amongst yourself without involving me in any way whatsoever. I know that you cannot prevent some overzealous and inconsiderate person from invoking my name and attempting to use this thread as an opportunity to ascribe arguments to me that I have not made. I will promise that I will not respond to them even though such is extremely unjust on their part. I would only ask, if you do not object, that you and others at least attempt to correct them and instruct them that you have promise to leave me out of your discussion of this matter among yourselves. Will you agree to do that? Even if you do not agree to correct those who do these things I will still keep my promise that I have made in this post to KEEP MY ATTENTION AWAY FROM THIS TREAD WHILE YOU DISCUSS THIS MATTER AMONG YOURSELVES. I hope however that you will agree to make it clear to all that participate in this discussion among you that you have promised to leave me, my name, and my arguments out of it.

Now I also understand that there will be arguments that you will discuss that are the same as ones that I will make is of course unavoidable and that your doing so does not necessarily ascribe them to me before I have actually made them. But even if someone does this I will keep my promise to keep my attention away from this thread. I only ask that you and others in this thread do all that you can to keep your promise to not address anything to me or ascribe arguments to me, and that my name will only arise in passing. Can you please do that for me? Even if you do not do that I will keep my promise to keep my attention away. I only ask that you do consider helping to keep the direction of the discussion away from me and toward whatever matters relate to the issue in general without any reference to me. Is that acceptable to you?

I appreciate the spirit with which you propose to do this and I heartily accept and agree to abide strictly by your request and to not change my mind even if someone fails to follow your urging to leave me out of the discussion.

So proceed brethren and please forgive my interruption of your internal discussion among yourselves.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2000

I would only ask, if you do not object, that you and others at least attempt to correct them and instruct them that you have promise to leave me out of your discussion of this matter among yourselves. Will you agree to do that? . . .

I only ask that you and others in this thread do all that you can to keep your promise to not address anything to me or ascribe arguments to me, and that my name will only arise in passing. Can you please do that for me?

Such was my intention from the beginning, Lee. And I do not mean to say, "No Peeking!" you are welcome to follow all you care to. You will not be expected to respond to anything.

It may even help you, to see objections and answers to your points before you have to answer them.

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2000

Thanks Sam:

I sincerely appreciate your wisdom and you fairness.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2000

The proposals regarding discussing the issues but leaving Lee personally out of this sound fine to me. I do have a couple of questions though.

1) Once the "real debate" starts, can we take Lee's arguments from it, give him full "credit" for them, and make our own answers to them? Or do any arguments he might raise in the debate become "off limits" once he raises them, lest he think we are involving him?

2) I would certainly not ascribe to Lee arguments that he has not raised, just because I have encountered them from someone else on "his side". (I am very careful about that, and if I have "seemed" to have done so in what I said about "inference", I apologise. If people will read carefully what I said -- as opposed to what he claims I have said -- I think they will find that I did not do so even there.) However, Lee himself has already given some parts of his arguments in this and other threads (only to refuse to clarify or back them up when they have been questioned -- because it was not yet a "real debate"). Are we permitted, (a) to quote his words and ascribe the argument to him since he is the one who raised it? or (b) to quote the argument but ascribe it to "SOMEONE", when we all know who that someone is? or must we (c) avoid every argument he has already raised, lest he think we are involving him?

I don't think anyone would claim to have "won" against Lee Saffold just because we have offered "a possible" answer to arguments he has raised or will raise. I, at least, would recognise that just because I raise an answer that satisfies me does not necessarily mean that he would accept its validity. Therefore I would certainly not claim to have "debated Lee Saffold" unless he himself comes into the discussion. But it would seem unnecessarily limiting if we are forced to say that once he has raised an argument it then becomes "off limits" for a parallel discussion.

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2000

Brother Ben:

You have said:

 Once the "real debate" starts, can we take Lee's arguments from it, give him full "credit" for them, and make our own answers to them? Or do any arguments he might raise in the debate become "off limits" once he raises them, lest he think we are involving him?

If you would please try to reflect on the position that I am in this forum related to this subject I think you could at least begin to walk in my shoes for a few brief minutes. It may then be easier for you to apply the golden rule and treat me and my arguments the way that you would want to be treated if you were in similar circumstances. If you can imagine yourself being in an environment where everyone except you is completely opposed to your position and they are all eager to respond to even your slightest comment that opposes their view. You have asked them to debate the subject but that allows only one person the opportunity to respond. They reject a formal debate that you feel would allow you the opportunity to present your case in a logical and reasonable format without being required or expected to respond to every comment or misrepresentation of what you say. For such a task is impossible because of the many that want to respond and expect a response from you in return. If the response is delayed or not forthcoming or is not complete for lack of time you are accused of avoiding a real response. You try to satisfy as many as possible but they continue to come at you from every direction leaving the impression that you are not being fair or reasonable. When you are simply trying to have the opportunity to have a complete and integrated logically organized presentation of your case before everyone begins to analyze it. Knowing that you will not be able, for lack of time to respond adequately to all that is said. If you can do this you might be able to discern what is really fair.

Brother Duane has promised to set up a special thread for the debate which will allow all to have limited responses to both debaters and I am not expected to respond or notice any arguments other than those actually presented by brother Jack. If he chooses to take some argument made by someone outside the debate and develop it and use it in his responses to me he will be allowed to do that. I have agreed to this even though it will put me in a position of debating Brother Jack and the host of Brethren in this forum who oppose what I affirm. I have had no problem with this because the fact that their arguments must be filtered through Brother Jack allows me to respond to at least one argument at a time.

But it is my view that the arguments that I make in the debate are not "off limits". But you appear to be positioning your self to be a secondary debater outside of and without being required to follow the guidelines of the debate. If you want to participate in the race you should agree to the rules of the "games" and "strive lawfully". If you cannot "conscienciously" participate in a debate I do not see how you can "conscientiously" participate in this debate "outside of the rules". You are begining to make it obvious that it is not that debates are "adversarial" that causes you problems but rather that debates have "guidelines" that all agree to follow that is giving you problems. If you are not a participant in the debate the rules do not apply to you so you can do what you want in that regard. But if you appear to be having a "paralell" debate with me without agreeing to guidelines and allowing me the opportunity to respond you will only demonstrate without question that you know nothing about truth, honesty, or integrity. For you will demonstrate beyond doubt that you were not truthful about your so-called objection to debating this subject because of the "adversarial nature of debates". You will only establish without doubt my contention that it is not the nature of debates that you object to but rather the guidelines that require fairness to all involved that you cannot accept. We shall see by watching just what you choose to do in this case wherein brother Sam has asked me to "stay away" and promises that my name will be mentioned only in "passing" and you come in with the immediate intent to breach that promise and turn this tread into a "paralell" Debate on this subject absent the rules and the proponent of the opposing view.

I do not know just how to express to you what it is like to be opposed to everyone in this forum on this issue. But if you would be kind enough to recognize that circumstance you may be able to at least understand my concern for fair treatment and being allowed the opportunity to present my case in its entirety before anyone responds to it.

So once the debate begins, this thread will not be the designated place for responses from those observing the debate. Brother Duane will provide the forum for that as we have mutually agreed upon in our negotiations. This will be done in order that Duane, as the moderator of the debate will be able to do his job of ensuring that the guidelines that we have agreed upon, which will be published for all to know, are being followed.

I hope that you can understand this. Actually, it may be that Brother Duane should answer this question for you.

Then you say:

However, Lee himself has already given some parts of his arguments in this and other threads (only to refuse to clarify or back them up when they have been questioned -- because it was not yet a "real debate"). Are we permitted, (a) to quote his words and ascribe the argument to him since he is the one who raised it?

Now Brother Ben, I refused to clarify or back up" these arguments because of the simple fact that to do so once would require that I do so again when they were again questioned. And I would then have been forced to engage in a freewheeling discussion that I was trying to avoid. It is probably true that I should have said nothing at all but having done so it was impossible for me to clarify or back up the arguments without being drawn further into a freewheeling discussion. And thereby creating the potential that such a discussion would circumvent the very reason that I requested a debate in the first place.

Now is it not reasonable that if I am not allowed to respond in return in this thread that you should leave my arguments alone until the debate actually occurs? You have already had your chance in the place where I made those arguments to say whatever you thought of them. There is no need for my arguments to be brought into this thread especially since I have been asked to stay away. You would then be dealing with arguments that I have admittedly and purposely not given supporting evidence for with the intent of waiting for the debate where I would be allowed to develop them in full without interruption. Brother Jack would then be allowed to respond to them in full without any interruption from me.

Then you claim that this arrangement is "unnessarily limiting" with these words:

But it would seem unnecessarily limiting if we are forced to say that once he has raised an argument it then becomes "off limits" for a parallel discussion.

Now you begin your post with complete support of "limiting" my participatiuon in this tread since I am excluded by my agreement with brother SAM but you cannot see any good reason that you should be limited by not being allowed to discuss my arguments in a thread wherein I

No one has said that these arguments are off limits for parallel discussion. But if I am going to be excluded from the discussion it is therefore not a parallel discussion. Now I have agreed with Brother Sam to steer clear of this thread and not respond because the brethren want to be allowed to discuss various aspects of the subject without my participation. I have only asked that if such is the case that my name and my arguments are left out of it since I am not allowed to respond. If I must accept that limitation it seems reasonable that you can limit your discussion to things you have heard from others.

Now I have sent this response because I do not want you to think that I am being unfair to you. I did not make this arrangement. It was requested by Brother Sam and agreed to by me.

I see absolutely no good reason why you cannot wait till the debate is finished to join in the freewheeling discussion with me and bring up at that time the arguments that I have made which you feel needs further evidence or clarification. This debate will take place and it will give you plenty of arguments to consider and deal with in the follow-up freewheeling discussion that I have agreed to participate in so that all can question my arguments in as much detail as they like. In fact, I cannot think of a debate in the history of debates among us where the audience has had more opportunity to actually participate than this one. I could be wrong, but in the past most people attended debates but few ever had the opportunity of engaging in a follow up discussion with the proponent that held the opposite view of their own. They were seldom; if ever given the opportunity to ask as many questions as they wish of the one who opposed their view. They were certainly never given the opportunity to offer as many opposing arguments as they like and even offer arguments that were not brought out in the debate itself. This could be the most exhaustive and through grilling anyone from among those of us who oppose instruments of music have ever been required undergo.

So it seems to me that all can wait for the debate to analyze my arguments in a discussion with me which would allow me the opportunity to respond, as even you suggested yourself in your last post prior to this one.

Now it is not up to me to decide what you will do in this thread. I have promised Brother Sam that I will stay away and he agreed that my name would be brought up only in passing. I also agreed that even if you do not follow what he agreed that you brethren would be doing in this tread that I would remain clear. I will keep that promise. I only make this response because it seems that you do not understand just what brother Sam agrees to do. Nor do you remember what Brother Duane has said he would do in arranging for those who are not actual participants in the debate to have the opportunity to make comments upon the arguments made therein. You are also overlooking the fact that I have agreed to engage in a follow-up freewheeling discussion wherein you will have ample opportunity to question, respond, discuss, condemn, or whatever you wish to say. Now it is opbvious to any thinking person that you are not by this being denied or restricted from having ample and reasonable opportunity to respond to my arguments. You are not being denied anything useful whatsoever by this arrangement that Brother Sam has sought for the direction of this particular thread wherein he has asked that I stay away and I have agreed to do as he has asked.

Do as you wish. But I will keep my promise to Sam. And there is no reason to think that my response to you concerning your questions related to my agreement with Sam is a breach of that agreement or promise in any way. No more so than your references to me, which are far more than merely mentioning my name in passing, can be construed as his not keeping his promise to me.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

Brother Lee, if you are still around,

NOTE: Although this is addressed to Lee Saffold, and I hope he will see it and answer, this is not an attempt to involve him in a discussion he has declared that he doesn't want any part in. This is NOT about the musical instrument question as such, but it is an answer to his message to me and a follow-up to my earlier questions about what limits there are to what we can discuss without him feeling we are abusing the situation.

Bro. Lee, I have read your answer to my questions three times -- parts of it more times than that. Most of it seems to be a re-hash of past postings explaining yet again why you have insisted on a REAL debate on the subject of musical instruments rather than an open discussion, plus a re-hash of your grievances over the way you FEEL you have been treated so far by me and others. (I do not think you have really been treated as badly as you say, since you have misconstrued a lot of things others, including myself, have said, but I will accept that this is the way you FEEL.)

I am still not sure what your answer is to my specific questions. BTW, the questions were sincere and intended to avoid giving further offence to you, and were NOT a veiled attack -- I almost said "another veiled attack", but that might seem like an admission that I have made "veiled attacks" on you in the past, which is something I have NEVER done.

You SEEM, on the one hand, to be saying that we CAN go ahead and use arguments in this thread that you have already made or will make in the context of the "real debate". But then, in the next breath, so to speak, you also seem to suggest that if anyone does this they are being sneaky and underhanded and unfair to you. I don't see it that way, but I'll accept that this is how you FEEL about the situation. In short, you don't seem very happy with the idea.

As for whether or not this is a "parallel" discussion -- It is NOT parallel in the sense of debating you. But I thought that issue was settled clear back in the initial proposals! It has certainly been clarified several times since then. However, you will be "debating" the use of instrumental music in worship with Bro. Jack in another thread; some of us propose to "discuss" the same question (WITHOUT you personally) in this thread, and I THOUGHT you had agreed to this. In what way is this NOT a "parallel" discussion OF THAT ISSUE?

Since it is a "parallel" discussion, i.e. discussing the identical issue, it seems inevitable to me that some of the same key arguments will arise. For example, what constitutes "authorisation" from God to do something? is there a difference between specifically "authorising" something and "allowing" it? what, exactly, is meant by the commands/admonitions regarding "singing" in Ephesians and Colossians? Etc. Do we dare raise, in this thread, the same arguments that you have already raised or will raise in the debate? or will you accuse us of trying to "debate Lee Saffold" in a setting you have objected to?

You have also raised one concomitant argument that I have not really seen elsewhere in connection with the question of instrumental music -- that because of the "divine economy" (though I thought that phrase normally meant something quite different), God is sparing with his words and DOESN'T spell out the details of his commands. I haven't checked, but I think you brought up that particular argument IN THIS THREAD! I think that issue also needs to be addressed, and I'm not sure I want to wait for the "debate" to get started and for it to be raised there before I can address it. Can I say something about it now -- to the brethren who are following THIS thread, and with NO expectation that you yourself will answer it, here, now, or ever, but addressing the ISSUE and NOT you personally -- or is it off limits because you raised the question?

Usually you are the one wanting the "rules" of the debate to be clearly established. All I'm asking for is a clarification of how much we can discuss here WITH EACH OTHER without you taking it personally and accusing us of trying to draw you into it. If the tone of your answer to me is any indication, it looks like there isn't much.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

Brother Ben:

I have agreed with Brother Sam to not be involved in this thread. He has made an agreement with me that my name would only be mentioned in passing and that this thread will be discussing this issue without me and therefore will not be directing arguments to me which I am excluded from answering in this thread.

Now my last words in my post to you were as follows:

Do as you wish. But I will keep my promise to Sam.

Now Brother Sam, I am keeping my promise and I expect you to keep yours. Therefore I will leave it to you Brethren to decide among your selves just what is fair and right in this matter. I think, therefore, that you should answer Brother Ben. It would be helpful to him and me if you would answer in such a way as to clarify our agreement. Please do tell just how it is that you intended from the beginning to make sure that my name would be mentioned only in passing and that arguments would not be ascribed to me that I did not make. It is a very simple agreement easy to be understood. Brother Ben cannot seem to comprehend it.

I have said nothing about any of my actual arguments being off limits but that everyone recognize the fact that you are excluding me from answering any of your responses to my arguments.

I believe it would be better that you explain this to Brother Ben. This is what you promised to do. I will nowgo away and keep my promise to you. We all shall see if you and others keep your promises.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Brother Sam:

Just so no one forgets just exactly what you promised and I agree with here are your exact words:

I guess I have to ask this, Lee . . . if we begin to discuss this issue amongst ourselves, with no intention of your being involved in it, since you are preparing for your debate, will that cause a problem? I would like to go thru some of the issues involved with others. Can you keep your attention away from this while we do? Not that I want to hide anything from you, but I DO want to begin to toss these ideas around. I would expect no involvement from you, and would expect that nothing be addressed to you. Your name may well arise, but only in passing. There are plenty of us who have heard arguments from your side to make us able to discuss those arguments without talking about you or ascribing them to you. If some of your arguments appear here, it would be because you aren't the only person making those arguments from your side.

How 'bout it? May we proceed?

Notice that you said:

I would expect no involvement from you, and would expect that nothing be addressed to you. Your name may well arise, but only in passing.

Now Brother Sam, I hope that you will explain this to all.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Gentlemen and Ladies, Please allow me to speak in behalf of Jay Wilson. He is interested in the official debate offered here in this forum, but he is travelling extensively right now, preaching throughout the east and midwest U.S. He has asked that we offer his acceptance to the debate and set up the proposition(s) and/or format for him at the discretion of those offering the debate and ours. Please consider his acceptance, since some are hesitant to debate at this time, understandably so for many and varied reasons.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Brother Cooper:

I accept Brother Jay Wilson's gracious offer and will contact you via e-mail to make the arrangements. Please be aware that Brother Jack Prentice has already accepted the offer but this is no reason why I should not agree to discuss it with Brother Wilson also. I am happy to do so for we all may have the opportunity to have a good thorough organized and complete discussion of this subject from which all may benefit great. At least that is my sincere prayer.

I have sent an e-mail to you with my formal acceptance of his ofer extended by you and will communicate further with you when I get home from work.

I pray that our Lord will abundantly bless you in all things good and right.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Looks like we need to re-start this discussion thread, so we don't have to wade thru all this mess to get to the good bits.

After the weekend, I'll start the thread and set forth the "official rules", WITH DUANE'S PERMISSION. I'll try to moderate it as we go, again, with Duane's permission. See ya next week.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

My apologies to all, and especially to Lee Saffold, if it has appeared that I have been trying to keep him involved in a thread in which he has agreed NOT to be involved. I really was seeking clarification as to what "leave Lee out of it" means -- how much we could discuss arguments that he has made or will make without him being offended and claiming that we are insincere and trying to draw him back into it.

My original posting in which I raised these questions WAS NOT ADDRESSED TO HIM, but to the rest of you, and he was only referred to in the "third person." My second posting on the subject was addressed to him, but that was because he had responded to the original posting, and I was discussing the things he had brought up in that.

Please note, for the future, that if I do quote anything he has said in anything I might post in this discussion in the future, it will be because it is ON THE ISSUE, and I will not expect any response from him personally.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Where to start, where to start...

(I do believe that from reading previous threads that I am allowed my anonymity as long as I present a real e-mail addy. If I am mistaken in this, please feel free to remove this post.)

Seems to me that there is more work involved in stomping on other people feelings in this thread than actually discussing the focus of the thread!

Is this not a "FORUM?" Does not "Free-Wheeling Discussion" take place in a "FORUM?" Is the forum in place so that we can "come together and reason?" Then WHAT'S ALL THIS YAK ABOUT AN ORGANIZED DEBATE??? AND FOR THAT MATTER, QUIT DEBATING WHEN WE'RE NOT DEBATING!!!!!

By the way, what is the object of an "organized debate?" To get one person or the other side "right"? Seems like a false premise from the very beginning. Who are you to presume you have all the answers? And correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't that seem a little pharisaical to you? Wasn't it always the pharisees who were in Jesus' face about just where the Law started and stopped? So what's your purpose in having this "Gentleman's Debate?"

Galations 5:18-21 says: "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law. The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."

I repeat the following:

"HATRED, DISCORD, JEALOUSY, FITS OF RAGE, SELFISH AMBITION, DISSENSIONS, FACTIONS and ENVY... ...those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Can you honestly say that you haven't felt any of these in this thread? Or do we need to show ALL of the above to qualify for the result of not inheriting the kingdom of God?

I really appreciate Lee's discussion concerning "silence is prohibition". That was not something I had ever heard before. I had always assumed the same thing (from my experience) as Mark in that it was always what I heard as the argument. That is why, I am sure, he made that assumption. Good point, Lee.

However, Lee, If I were to take your logic to the complete end... If because "Christ has not authorized musical instruments in that passage" argument is true, then it is also true that you may not utilize songbooks (this would be a written instrument, if you will) in order to "sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God." You are to use only the mouth and only the heart, right?

But wait... let me argue another side... If what you are basing your theology on that passage in Colossians is complete then the use of musical instruments of ANY kind and ANY time (whether or not you are Worshipping God at the moment) is disallowed. That means that any type of secular music accompanied by a musical instrument would be sinful by what I believe your argument to be. Why do I sound so ludicrous? Let's look at vs 17: "And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." I assume that "Whatever" would be, well, everything right?

To all: I do not claim to "know it all" I am here only to learn more about my God through the insight of my brethren. I DO hope that it will be in CHRISTIAN LOVE and not in mealy-mouthing and making every word you write look righteous when in fact it full of the teeth that gnash and back-bite. I carry too many wounds such as these, and yes, I too am guilty.

WWJD? Yes, that would seem to be the operative phrase.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

Can anyone give a progress report on when the formal REAL debate is likely to get underway? It does seem as though it is taking a long time.

And is anyone interested any more in launching the proposed "informal" debate/discussion on the subject? I tried to bring up some of the hermeneutical principles involved (the one on "Authority, authorisation, commands and permission"), but I may have been too indirect in how I approached it. It rapidly degenerated into a discussion of which day of the week Christ was crucified.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000