UNDERSTAND THIS! I AM NOT TRYING TO MAKE THIS A THREAD RE: THE INSTRUMENT ISSUE IN AND OF ITSELF!

A question was posed on another thread (and never answered) with regards to false teachers. I quote from Ephesians 5:19:

"Then you wil sing pslams and hymns and spiritual songs amoong yourselve, making music to the Lord in your hearts ..." NLT

"Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord ..." NIV

"Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord ..." KJV

I believe it is safe for me to say that Danny holds the view that ANY teaching that goes against apostolic teaching is false. Others on the thread SEEM to believe that the only false teaching is that which denies the diety of Christ.

Be that as it may, IF any teaching that goes against apostolic teaching is false (a good definition of false teaching, in my opinion) then were does this leave the non/anti-instrumentalists with regards to the above passage? If the NT church was directed by the Apostle Paul to include the Psalms in their singing, and if some of the Psalms "suggest/require" the use of instruments, then wouldn't Paul have been instructing his readers at the Ephesian congregation to use instruments in their worship? If not, why not?

I posed this question to a good friend of mine here in Indiana County who has preached for the non/ani-inst church of Christ for many years. His answer was that, since God does not want us to use instruments in our NT worship (he starts with his premise), then the early Christians would only have used Psalms that did not direct/cpommand the use of instruments.

I have problems with this logic, but that was his answer, and he was sticking to it.

Again, I'M NOT TRYING TO START A THREAD ON THE MUSICAL ISSUE IN AND OF ITSELF. I am curious how those on the forum who are from a non/anti-inst background would respond to the verse printed above. And, if Paul was commanding the use of Pslams, then would any group who did NOT use the instrument be going against apostolic teaching when they disallowed the used of any instrument in worship.

BTW ... the non/anti-instrument church of Christ is NOT the only denomination/sect/body of believes that disallows the instrument ... there are others.

Any help here?

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Answers

The whole thesis of your argument is predicated upon the belief that we conclusively know the content of N.T. worship, especially in regards to the use of instruments.

Your question even indicates concerning Psalms that they "may or may not" be sung in conjunction with an instrument.

The silence on the issue.....and the lack of historical data.....is what guards me against making such dogmatic claims.

Thanks for starting another thread.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Darrell,

Yes, the anti-instrumentalists are in direct opposition to Scripture here and are teaching falsely. They are in rebellion against God's clear commands on worship.

On this forum, some are quick to label those that are not as legalistic as they are, but will not do so for those that are more legalistic than they are. The fact is, those who are legalistic are to be condemned as much, or more than those that are liberal. Jesus' confrontations were consistently with those that built a fence around the law. The legalists add to the Scriptures by making up rules for worship, such as no instrumental music, that God never intended. Like the Pharisees, they have built a fence around the NT, trying to protect what needs no protection, as it can stand on its own. Rather than being satisfied with the clear biblical commands, they add their own. The same is true on the subject of baptism. Not one time does the NT require the baptismal candidate to know everything about baptism, but simply to respond to Christ's command to be baptized. Yet our legalistic friends add the requirement that they candidate must both be baptized and know everything about baptism to be saved. Of course, the problem with this logic is that we would have to be rebaptized every time we learned a deeper truth about baptism.

In Christ,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Although I have never thought of it in these terms, Darrel seems to make a case for an implied command.

I have spent time looking at the definitions of the word Psallo and Psalmos before but I have never taken on this line of reasoning. Here's another way of asking the question, at least as I understand what Darrel is asking: If we are told/commanded to sing Psalms (Eph 5:19) and some of the Psalms themselves command/advocate musical instruments, then wouldn't the refusal to do so be refusing to obey the Scriptures?

I have never thought about it in these terms before but I too would appreciate hearing a response to the idea. And I too do not want Lee or anyone else to think of this as an attack, but only as, what I think to be, a good question. I find this very interesting.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Barry..... Do you ever get tired of building those straw men???

First....show us the clear command that instruments are to be used in worship. I want chapter and verse. (And don't bother with the "sing with Psalms" one....as I've already declared my stance on that one.) And please....cite one historical reference.....that indicates that such is a command to use an instrument.

Second.....cut and paste one single quote.....of anyone who ever said....."an individual had to know everything about baptism."

Third....and this goes for anyone.....show me the verse that describes the music to be used "in the worship service." All the verses described so far have absolutely no context of formal worship. Rather.....they are descriptions of the Christian's manner of life and interaction with others in Christ.

I'll await your response.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Barry,

Quit trying to justify your own liberal beliefs by condemning others. Most acapella brothers that I have spoken to are pretty well-reasoned for believing what they do, and they do so without being ashamed of the Scriptures.

However, I do disagree with the reasoning. I would also add that I am much more comfortable with someone that is too cautious with the Word than one who loosely throws out core doctrines because it makes them uncomfortable.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

And about baptism, why don't you start with what Peter said in the first Gospel sermon. A person needs to know that 1. it is for the forgiveness of sin and 2. in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. What is so difficult about that? Why is that knowledge so hard for people to understand? Everything else we learn concerning baptism just adds to the understanding of what Peter said.

Pardon me Danny for putting this on the wrong thread. You can beam me up later.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Danny,

I agree that the passage has to do with everyday living, but the question remains, if the acapella brethren use this verse to justify no instrumental music, would not their reasoning also condemn them for not using instruments when the Psalms declare to do so? I don't see this as so much a "What the Scriptures say" question as much as it is a logic question.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Scott you stated..."I don't see this as so much a "What the Scriptures say" question as much as it is a logic question."

I agree.....but Barry has not presented it that way....as he has laid the charge....more than once....that the Scriptures "command" the use of instrumental music.

As per the baptism thing on this thread....that's fine...since Barry inserted it as part of his charge.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

1. God's true New Testament Church is admonished to use musical instruments The following scriptures contain hidden truths that we easily could miss if we were to simply read over them:

a) (Col 3:16-17) Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. {17} And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Barry...you stated..."and is almost certainly describing a worship servie of the NT church."

Again I ask.....where is the thus saith the Lord for use of musical instruments in worship??

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Danny,

It is amazing that you can absorb this entire argument in less than 5 minutes from the time I posted it. You obviously really don't care about the issue. I've already clearly shown that the NT was to use instruments in worship. What are you missing?

IHS,

Barr

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Barry....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Danny,

My definition of false teacher would not include E. Lee. Your's does as he directly denies the apostolic teaching.

My argument is not from silence. Both the Colossians and Ephesians passages are clearly directed to the church. Who do you think they are written to, and what application do they have if not to worship? How can you sing songs, psalms, and hymns in a setting other than worship? You're the one being absurd here, Danny. Aren't those terms applied to worship in your church?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

RE: The Colossians passage.....chapter 3....in vss. 5-11...he describes the old way...that was put to death (at baptism by the way...see 2:11-12).

Vss....12ff....note the word "therefore".....in which he goes on to describe the general manner of living the Christian walk....including vss. 18ff....that describe the husband wife relationship.

What utter nonsense to suggest that Paul describes worship....and then jumps off into a discussion about Christian households and those relationships.

Notice also he states...."as you sing Psalms".....NOT DO IT OR ELSE!!!

The same exact thing is true of Ephesians 5....notice the contrast of the old life and the new life....and the discussion of the new life including a discussion of family relationships again!!!

Your interpretation would be fine Barry....if not for the fact you completely ignore context the whole time.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Questions

When is the time that some feel instruments are not to be used and others say use them? If the answer is,"in the worship service" then please help me to understand what is a worship service and what does it consist of in light of Rm's 12-1ff.

If it is correct or incorrect to use an instrument when the saint's assemble how about a group of friends that meet at someones home for a cookout and sing gospel songs with instruments? (where two or three are gathered). A follow up on that. If it is wrong to play gospel music with an instrument,with friends, at home why is it acceptable to play another type music?

I consider these to be honest questions and do not intend to cast reflections on either point of view.

Statement

I have been in service's where someone sang and played an instrument and it was very pleasant. I have been where the instrument was not used and the singing was beautiful. It is my opinion that both intended to praise God with their music. I have been where a "worship team" had the amps cranked up so loud it hurt and I could hardly hear those that were singing. I have people heard sing that seemed to be singing for their glory and those that sang glory to God. I have heard Psalms sung and I have heard,"just a little talk with Jesus makes it right". It seems one of our greater problems is the songs that we sometimes sing.

I think a greater problem with the instrument is if we let it divide us.

Lookin for wisdom.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Barry,

Interesting that you make the implied claim that instrumental music has been used in the churches since the first century.

I spent more than 20 years in acapella churches of Christ, and am well-versed in their arguments. One of the strongest involve independent (non-CoC) documentation that instrumental music wasn't introduced into the churches until much later, and one modern denomination that can historically (and believably) trace themselves back to the third century (they will claim even further back), the Eastern Orthodox church, still doesn't use instruments. Are you now challenging this?

I have to say, you are the first I have ever came across that acapella isn't an option. Are you not aware the roots of acapella? Literally, it means "in the style of the chapel".

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Faris....

Good questions....good points.

But I gotta warn you....it is not applicable to this thread. If you want...."cut and paste" to another thread.

The essence of this discussion has to do with false teachers....not the instrumental debate....per say.

For all.....any further development of the instrumental/non debate....will be erased.

Now Mark Winstead....I think your points are valid as they are to the direct point of statements made. I will permit that line to continue.

Trying to keep things on track.

Thanks!

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Barry believes there are at least a few verses in the NT where we are commanded to use instruments. Danny believes they are not commands ... at least not for the worship service.

Let me through another cog into the wheel then. We in the RM are strong on "thus says the Lord," and "apostolic president (sp)." And I certainly agree that we should be strong in those areas.

What about the Lords Supper, and it's weekly observance? I hold to the weekly partaking of the Lord's Supper, as I'm sure the vast majority of those on this thread do.

We base this on only a couple of verses ... with no certain "thus says the Lord" on how often to partake. We lean towards apostolic president from, let's say, Acts 20:6-7 "But we sailed from Phillippi after the Feast of unleavend Bread, and five days later joined the others at Troas, where we stayed seven days. On the first day of the week we came together to break bread ..."

I certainly agree this is talking about the Lord's Supper. I agree that Paul et.al. hung around in order to be with the brothers and sisters on the Lord's Day, and that they participated in the Lord's Supper. I might even agree that his purpose in hanging out till the Lord's Day was to ensure he would be with brothers and sisters in the taking of the Lord's Supper.

But nowhere does this passage give the idea that, while they took the Lord's Supper on that particular Lord's Day in Troas, it was the regular custom of other congregations to do the same. It might have been by that time, it might not have been ... just doesn't say. Actually, nowhere in this passage does it make it crystal clear that it was the custom (maybe a bad choice of words) of the church at Troas to participate in the Lord's Supper EVERY Lord's Day. Maybe ... just maybe ... this particular Sunday was their "communion Sunday" as many congregations observe today. I'm not saying it was, I'm just saying that this passage does not have a "thus says the Lord" command, or even a certanty of an apostolic president.

Of course, in Acts 2:42 it speaks of the early church participating in the "four items of worship" as some have called it ... "They devoted themeselves to the apostles teaching, and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." This MAY refer to the Lord's Supper ... but just a couple of verses later (v.46) it says, "EVERY DAY (emphasis added) they continued to meet together in the temple courst, They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts ..." Now, we understand that the early church met whenever they could ... people didn't have "Sunday off" so they would gather as they could, when they could ... daily. Did they participate in the taking of the Lord's Supper (problebly with the eating of a regular meal) whenever they gathered? If so, this throws yet another cog in the RM wheel of some preachers/congregations who believe it is wrong (and some would say a sin) to take the Lord's Supper any other time other than on a Sunday morning or evening.

What's the point, with regards to this tread? In an attempt to come up with a working definition of a "false teacher" I tend to lean to the idea that anyone who is teaching anything other than the truths of Scripture as presented by the Apostles (through divine guidance) is a false teacher. But we have the problem (?) of defining what is apostolic teaching as doctrine, and what is not. I.E. musical instruments ... the day(s) for participating in the Lord's Supper ... foot washing ... holy kiss ... etc., etc.

Some folks are very quick to volunteer to be the one to "set you strainght" on these questions. I was at a county fair this evening. The non/anti-inst church from that county had a very well set up booth in one of the tents. I mentioned that our family had been attending the non/anti congregation in Indiana County until we started the contemporary (instrument used) service last spring. The gentleman there was very quick to blast my use of the instrument, saying he would pray for me as a "lost" or "wayward" brother (I can't remember which term he used).

Just saying we must be very careful in our study of the Word, and our assigning "thus says the Lords" to some the apostles taught, and letting some of the others go by the wayside.

Wow -- a looooong post from me, which I don't usually do. Thanks for the time and for your great study in these matters, and for sharing your beliefs and your study with us!

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Brother Darrel:

I appreciate your question, which you have asked in what seems to be your effort to avoid the instrumental music issue simultaneously as follows:

“UNDERSTAND THIS! I AM NOT TRYING TO MAKE THIS A THREAD RE: THE INSTRUMENT ISSUE IN AND OF ITSELF!”

If this were your sincere intention then it would have been much wiser to not mention the instrumental music issue at all when it is not your real question. Your true question, if I have understood your post correctly is whether or not one is to be considered a false teacher if he is “TEACHING ANYTHING THAT IS FALSE”. It seems almost axiomatic that if one is teaching that which is false then he is most likely a FALSE TEACHER. How in the world could he be otherwise? Could he be teaching that which is false and simultaneously be considered a teacher of the truth on the same subject? Therefore if you can prove conclusively that those of us who do not use instruments of music in the worship are teaching false doctrine because they are in direct violation of the commands of God to use instruments inthe worship then you would assuredly be justified in considering us false teachers. But "let no him that putteth on his armor boast as he that taketh it off." For you have not proven that there is a command of God wich demands that Christians worship God with instruments of music and you cannot prove such nonsense to save your life. And if you did you would make false teachers out of every Christian that we read about in the New Testament for there is no reliable record that they ever used instruments of music in their worship. I do not believe that the apostle Paul, Peter, James, John, and the first century CHristians who followed their teaching under the guidance of the Holy Spirit were disobedient to God and were false teachers because they never used instruments of music in their worship. But you might be willing to consider them as sinners because they disobeyed what you consider to be a command of God to use instruments in the worship but I do not think that the sensible brethren among you would do so.

Now, since it appears to be your intent to imply that those who do not use instruments of music in the worship are teaching false doctrine. And if your assertions, which you have not even come close to proving, were in fact to be an established truth taught in the word of God. Then it would logically follow that those of us who oppose it would surely be teaching that which is false. But according to Brother Davis’ notion we could teach falsely about everything in the word of God and we could do it deliberately and still we would not be false teachers unless we deny the deity of Christ. But I agree with you, that those who teach anything contrary to the truth of God’s word are in fact false teachers whether they do it intentionally or innocently out of ignorance. The former need to be disciplined and the latter need to be shown the “way of the Lord more perfectly”.

Now, this is my comment about the false teacher portion of your question. Now, concerning the instrumental music issue. Because Brother Davis is using this issue to avoid the discussion of his false doctrine concerning baptism I will refrain from discussing it until he returns to discuss the issue of baptism. I will only say just now that most of what I have read from you and others concerning this matter is a very “target rich enviroment” to say the very least of the matter!

And we have already been told that any further discussion of instrument issue in this thread will be deleted I will refrain from answering that portion of your question. We need to consentrate upon one subject at a time if we really care to discuss them with any amount of sincerity. WE cannot allow Brother Davis to escape from his responsibility to discuss the issue of Baptism by stiring a needless contrversy at the moment concerning the instrumental music issue. I have been in fellowship with all of my brethren in this forum for a long time. And we have worked together for good against that which is false among us and we will not allow anything to prevent us from joining together to refute the lies that men like Brother Davis is teaching concerning baptism. But every one can see that the instumental music issue is almost always being brought up by those of you who believe that it is right to use it. I have seldom brought it up myself except in a few instances where the issue was being use in a prejudicial way to be insultive to those of us who do not use it or to “poison the wells” before engaging in a discussion of other issues.

And this issue is being used by Brother Davis to avoid facing the arguments that he has been ignoring ever since he first brought up the subject of baptism being valid without a person knowing that they were being baptized for the remission of sins and we responded to him.

Now, if you wish to debate the subject of instrumental music then state your proposition clearly and if I find that I do not agree with your proposition then I will deny it in a formal debate in this forum. I will tell you that because of personal and business matters that I must attend to I cannot undertake such a task for at least a month and a half. But that will give us time to arrange for a formal discussion of this subject. If you are confident of your position on this matter then let us arrange terms of debate and debate it formally.

Given your current affirmations I would certianly enjoy debating with anyone who will affirm the propostion that the New Testament teaches that instumental music is COMMANDED of God for all who worship him in any place. And that those who refuse to use it are in direct disobedience to God and are therefore sinning against him.”

If you would like to affirm such a proposition then I will be happy to engage in a formal debate denying that position. Then we will see if your argument that you have made holds any water. If you are unwilling to debate this issue with me formally then all of you can have this discussion between yourselves. And that will be much easier than a formal debate with a real opponent, now isn’t it?

I can assure you that you have much to learn about the passages that you quote if you think that they form a command from God to use instruments of music in the worship.

Now, I have offered to debate this issue before and through no fault of the one who was more than willing and able to discuss it with me the debate could not be realized. And because of my personal time constraints I cannot engage in such for at leas six weeks. But anyone willing to affirm the position which you are affirming and which I described above will find me more than willing to deny it in a formal debate upon the issue.

Now, I am not seeking to start the “debate over formal debates” again. What I am trying to do is to prevent men like Brother Davis from asserting false doctrines such as his false doctrines concerning baptism. And then avoid the responsibility to answer the questions put to him concerning it by jumping in to create strife between us who oppose his lies so that in the mist of our strife he can escape ever having to answer concerning that subject.

Your question is a good one. But you will find that it is frought with major difficulties that you will be unable to extridte yourself from especially in a formal debate. And I do not want the brethren who use instruments of music in their worship to think that I consider your argument to be representative of their position on the matter. For it is most certianly not the one they have historically held to be true. And any discussion of the matter would have to make it clear that once we show that your position is incorrect that we have yet to show that the diametrically opposite position held by most among you. The position that because the scriptures are silent concerning instrumental music in the worship it is therefore simply a matter of expediency to be practice or not as you see fit. For it would be unfair to them to allow your position to be taken as representative of most of our brethren who use instruments of music.

Now, because there has not been in many years any real discussions or debates among us on this issue. I can understand that some are now BOLD enough, because they are ignorant of the issue and the scriptures as well, to assert that it is COMMANDED of God that we use instruments in the worship. But those who have dealt with it and attended many debates in the past dealing with it are not as bold to assert such nonsense in a formal debate. In fact, no one has ever asserted such without coming away determined to never do such a thing again!

Brother Danny:

I appreciate your warnings to those who do not know any better than to assert such nonsense. And I understand why you are doing it. And because of that I defer this part of the discussion for anyone who wishes to pursue it in a formal way in this forum. And I hope that you can understand that my purpose is to get back to the issue of the false doctrine that baptism is valid if it is done for any reason and without any knowledge or understanding whatsoever concerning its purpose which is for the remission of sins. And I hope that you can understand that I am tired of making arguments in a format that allows those opposed to them to simply ignore them with impunity. I want to discuss some of these issues in a formal way that does not allow any side a “way of escape” from the arguments and the facts presented. I do not hunger for controversy nor for a formal debate. I work very hard and it is difficult for me to arrange my time. But for this subject and the subject of baptism which I have mentioned I will MAKE THE TIME to discuss it in any way that will require responses to all questions and arguments made on both sides.

But I refuse to allow anyone to think that the Christian Church uses instruments of music in the worship because they believe that it is COMMANDED of God and that they believe those who do not use them to be in violation of God’s commands. For I am very much aware that such is not the position that they hold to be the truth. and I will give you more time, Brother Danny, to talk some sense into these folks before I take the time to show how miserably wrong they are about this passage of scripture being a command of God to use instruments of music in the worship! I do this out of fairness and respect for what I know to be the true difference between us on this issue. And when I do respond I will start another thread as you have requested because the real subject of this thread is not whther E. Lee Saffold is a false teacher, though it seems to be the intent of the thread, but whether anyone who teaches false doctrine is a false teacher. I have made my comments about that subject.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Lee, you amaze me! I posted:

"“UNDERSTAND THIS! I AM NOT TRYING TO MAKE THIS A THREAD RE: THE INSTRUMENT ISSUE IN AND OF ITSELF!”

You stated: "If this were your sincere intention then it would have been much wiser to not mention the instrumental music issue at all when it is not your real question."

Lee, you have no idea what my original intentention was ... which, by the way, was to ask the question of false teachers, using a question posed in another thread that was never answered.

"Therefore if you can prove conclusively that those of us who do not use instruments of music in the worship are teaching false doctrine because they are in direct violation of the commands of God to use instruments inthe worship then you would assuredly be justified in considering us false teachers."

Lee, I never said non/anti's were false teachers ... NEVER! Quit putting words in peoples mouths! It happens way too often. I simply asked the question ... that is all!

"For you have not proven that there is a command of God wich demands that Christians worship God with instruments of music and you cannot prove such nonsense to save your life. And if you did you would make false teachers out of every Christian that we read about in the New Testament for there is no reliable record that they ever used instruments of music in their worship."

Again, Lee, I NEVER SAID THAT! Wow, how hard is this to understand?

"I do not believe that the apostle Paul, Peter, James, John, and the first century CHristians who followed their teaching under the guidance of the Holy Spirit were disobedient to God and were false teachers because they never used instruments of music in their worship. But you might be willing to consider them as sinners because they disobeyed what you consider to be a command of God to use instruments in the worship but I do not think that the sensible brethren among you would do so."

I wonder, Lee, who is sensible, when you continue to imply that I said or stated something THAT I DID NOT SAY OR STATE! It would be a sensible brother who would read the post and reply to what is written, rather than to what you think or believe I meant to say! "Now, since it appears to be your intent to imply that those who do not use instruments of music in the worship are teaching false doctrine."

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO That is NOT my intent. I ONLY ASK THE QUESTION TO SEE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY! Again, wow!

"Now, this is my comment about the false teacher portion of your question. Now, concerning the instrumental music issue."

There is no need to respond here, because INTRUMENTAL MUSIC IS NOT THE ISSUE!

"Now, if you wish to debate the subject of instrumental music then state your proposition clearly ..."

I DON'T, AND I DID STATE MY POSTION CLEARLY ... SORRY YOU COULDN'T SEE IT, LEE! "Given your current affirmations I would certianly enjoy debating with anyone who will affirm the propostion that the New Testament teaches that instumental music is COMMANDED of God for all who worship him in any place."

I bet you would, considering that was NOT my current affirmation.

"Brother Danny: I appreciate your warnings to those who do not know any better than to assert such nonsense."

Lee, I "know better." It is a shame you don't seem to know better than to turn a thread around into something it is not ... though I have seen it happen again and again in the past.

Wow ... I say it again, wow! And no, I have no interest AT ALL in debating the instrumental issue with you, or with anyone else. If you choose to not use the instrument, great. I choose to use the instrument. That is all. If you want to debate the instrument issue, then you can start another tread for that.

Now ... anyone have anything else to say that responds to the original question, or the other "cogs" I threw in last evening?

Wow!

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2001

Darrell.....

First of all....let me address this statement you made..."I tend to lean to the idea that anyone who is teaching anything other than the truths of Scripture as presented by the Apostles (through divine guidance) is a false teacher."

Darrell....I may be reading too much into it....but that statement sounds like it is one idea of many that you have decided to adhere to at this time.

IT IS NOT AN IDEA....IT IS BIBLICAL!!! Listen to these words..."If any so called brother does not follow us in our directions take note of him and do not associate with him."

Sound familiar?? It should....for these words are repeated numerous times in the N.T. from the pens of the N.T. writers.

It is not my idea....not even "my" interpretation....it is the clear writing of Scripture.

Now....concerning the Lord's Supper discussion....comparing the arguments to have a weekly Lord's Supper with being commanded to use instrumental music...is the proverbial "apples and oranges."

In addition to all you mentioned about the Lord's Supper.....let's not forget there is 1600 years of church history....wherein....the Lord's Supper was held every Lord's Day. It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation that it changed to less than a weekly observance......and only in reaction to a "works" oriented Catholic church.

Scripture....plus apostolic precedant....plus 1600 years of church history.....make a very strong case.

One we certainly do not have to "insist" on the use of musical instruments.

Thanks for the discussion!

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2001

Lee, you wrote,

"I do not believe that the apostle Paul, Peter, James, John, and the first century CHristians who followed their teaching under the guidance of the Holy Spirit were disobedient to God and were false teachers because they never used instruments of music in their worship."

Lee, can you prove that apostle Paul, Peter, James, John, and the first century Christians never used instruments of music in their worship, from the Scriptures themselves, or are you merely starting from a false assumption because of your own bias in the matter? If you can, I'd like to see it. If not, it's best not to be dogmatic about it. Because for the life of me, I can't find in my Bible where they never did ... nor where they did. The New Testament seems to be silent on the matter entirely. Remember the old RM axiom, "... where the scriptures are silent, we are silent"?

And Danny, I think this is entirely appropriate to the thread, because I am not really concerned with instruments here, I think the issue here is rather Biblical interpretation vs. traditional bias.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2001

John.....

No problem......but it needs to go on another thread....IF....it turns into the instrument/non debate.

Now that being said.....it all comes back to hermenutics. The typical "non" church has held that "silence" prohibits. The typical instrumental position has been..."in matters of silence....there is liberty."

Personally......as long as the hermeneutics are at odds....I don't think the issue will EVER be settled.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2001

One observation that was disturbing to me: Lee wrote that "the apostle Paul, Peter, James, John, and the first century Christians ... followed their teaching under the guidance of the Holy Spirit ... because they never used instruments of music in their worship." Meaning that those who use instruments of music in their worship are not led by the Holy Spirit? (Which comes very close to saying they're not Christians IMHO.) And since Lee has made it clear in previous threads that, according to him (and I assume the non-instrumental CoC position), the Holy Spirit only speaks in the present day through the Bible, where is the express guidance therein?

I agree with you, Danny; it is a hermeneutics issue. And you're also right that perhaps it will never be resolved until Christ returns. but I believe that for a lot of people (on both sides) it is also a cultural issue, and that their own personal viewpoints are read into the Word, rather than letting the Word conform their viewpoints. But that's a human thing, another thing we will likely not overcome until His return.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2001

Danny -- Sorry for the 'tend to believe" as that IS my belief. If someone isn't teaching what the Bible says they should teach, or if they are teaching something OTHER than what the Bible says they should teach, and are doing so making it a "thus says the Lord" then certainly they are a false teacher. My "tend to believe" was my attempt to keep from sounding judgemental on the instrumental issue ... because I'm not.

re; the Lord's Supper. I agree ... very strong argument, yet no DIRECT command ... so I have a hard time making it a test of faith. One congregation in PA really got on the bandwagon when some other congregations were serving the Lord's Supper at Saturday evening services. Yet the early church, it seems, particiapted whenever they had the chance. Best time ... Sunday's I agree, but again, not enough biblically to make it a test of fellowship.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2001

Brother John:

“Lee, can you prove that apostle Paul, Peter, James, John, and the first century Christians never used instruments of music in their worship, from the Scriptures themselves, or are you merely starting from a false assumption because of your own bias in the matter?”

Yes, I can prove from the SCRIPTURES that they never used instruments in the worship. And if you would like to engage in a formal debate of the issue and assert that the scriptures teach that the apostles and New Testament Christians used instruments of music in the worship of God I would be more than happy to deny that proposition. For you see no one is obligated in a formal debate to affirm a negative proposition. They are always required to affirm a positive and deny a negative proposition. Thus if you are unwilling to affirm the positive proposition that the scriptures teach that the early Christians used instruments of music in their worship then I have no positive proposition to deny, now do I? And if you are not asserting that first century Christians used mechanical instruments of music in the worship then we have no argument, now do we? Now one way that you could prove that early Christians used instruments of music in the worship would be for you to affirm that the use of such is commanded in the New Testament. And your argument would go something like this:

Major premise: The New Testament commanded the use of instruments of music in the worship

Minor Premise: Faithful Christians obeyed the commands of God given in the New Testament

Conclusion: Therefore early Christians obeyed the command of God to use instruments in the worship.

But you are not willing to make that argument, are you? If you did I would be more than happy in a formal debate to deny its truthfulness. For as you say there is absolutely no evidence from the scriptures that they used instruments of music in their worship and I agree with you about that. And since there is no evidence that they ever did such a thing there is no need for me to prove that they didn’t do it, now is there. For if you are trying to teach that you use instruments because they used them then the burden of proof rest with you to give the evidence that they did and for me to discredit that evidence if possible. But there is no evidence to discredit is there? For we have not one ounce of evidence that shows Christians in the New Testament times ever used instruments of music in their worship to God. Therefore it is impossible for you to assert that they did. And if you cannot prove that they did you cannot argue that you use instruments because of any example that you have from the New Testament that such was the practice when the church was being lead directly by the Holy Spirit, now can you. And you cannot find any place in the New Testament where it is COMMANDED that we use them in our worship. Therefore you must argue that we are at liberty to add anything to the worship of God that he has not expressly forbidden us to add. And if you cannot make this argument stick then you cannot by any means justify its use.

Now if you wish to engage in a formal discussion of the matter then write out your proposition that you intend to prove and I will deny it if I find that it is in error. For if you wish affirm:

1). The New Testament commands the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship.

Or

2) The silence of the New Testament concerning the use of instruments in the worship grants us the liberty to use them as an expedient matter.

Then I would deny either proposition. But you would have to notice that you couldn’t reasonably affirm both propositions simultaneously. For if instrumental music is commanded then it is not a matter of opinion and liberty or an expedient. If it is commanded then we must all use them or sin against God by failing or refusing to do so. But if it is a matter of Christian liberty it is NOT COMMANDED. So, if you believe one of these two propositions you must give up the other. Now which of these two propositions would you like to give up as being untrue? For you cannot argue both ways. And this is the reason that I insist upon a formal discussion of the issue. For in a formal discussion the proposition that you are trying to affirm and prove must be clearly and defined at the beginning and cannot be changed or shifted in the middle of the discussion. You could affirm the first proposition and if it failed you could then drop back to the second and affirm it. But you cannot affirm both to be true simultaneously for they are diametrically opposed to one another.

Then you say:

“ If you can, I'd like to see it.”

You will see it if you wish to state your proposition clearly, define it, and defend it in a formal discussion of the matter. For as I have maintained I will discuss this matter in detail with anyone willing to do such. My position on that has not changed one bit. And it will not change either.

“If not, it's best not to be dogmatic about it.”

Why?

“ Because for the life of me, I can't find in my Bible where they never did ... nor where they did.”

If this is true then you cannot argue that the Holy Spirit taught us by their example that we should use instruments in our worship, now can you? You are left then with the situation that you must prove from the scriptures that we are COMMANDED to use instruments of music in the worship. For if they were never commanded to use instruments of music in the worship. And we have no example in the scriptures of them ever using instruments of music in the worship then you have absolutely NOTHING from the scriptures that would AUTHORIZE you to introduce them into the worship of God. For you have no evidence from the word of God to support such action. It would then mean that you use them, not because God commanded you to use them or taught you by any example in the New Testament to use them. But only because you conclude from the silence of the scriptures on the subject that you have been given the liberty to introduce them. In other words you would not be using mechanical instruments of music in the worship because you have a “thus saith the Lord” concerning it. But for some other reason not even related to anything that Lord had to say about it. So, I agree with you that you will not be able to find anything in the scripture that proves that the apostles and the first century Christians ever used such in their worship.

Now, whether this proves conclusively that we should not use them depends upon, as Brother Danny says, how we are affected by the silence of God in the matter. Does that mean we are at liberty to do as we please in the matter or does it forbid us from doing that for which we have no authority from God to do? And that is the question that I would be willing to deal with in a formal debate that makes us clearly state our positions and define them and stay with them until the discussion is completed. For we will never make any progress on this issue until we are clear about what we affirm and why we believe that it is true. And if you wish to contend about the silence of God on the matter then join with me in a formal discussion of it.

But I cannot be arguing with one group of you that believe that instrumental music is COMMANDED and simultaneously be carrying on a discussion with those of you who deny that it is commanded but that it is an expedient because of the silence of the scriptures. And then having to deal with those who argue that we do not even need any authorization for what we do in our worship. And then arguing with those who believe that worship should be something that we do all the time and therefore whatever we do is worship to God whether it is even mentioned in the scriptures or not. No one can contend with so many various and self -contradictory arguments simultaneously. But in a formal debate we can take up those various propositions one by one and deal with them in an orderly, fair and just manner.

So, unless you can prove from the scriptures that the silence of God authorizes you to do anything that you please in the matter you cannot justify the use of instruments of music in the worship. And unless I can prove that the “silence of God” on the matter forbids us to introduce them then I cannot object to their use.

But if it is COMMANDED of God in the scriptures the issue of silence of the scriptures is MOOT isn’t it? WE would all then have to use them, and I mean ALL. Even those who do not own any instrument would have to go out and get one and learn to play it and they ALL would have to come in and use those instruments in the worship if Ephesians 5:19 is a command to use instruments. For that verse is a command to each individual Christian respecting his duty as an individual Christian. Which would mean that you could not do my “playing for me” any more than you could do my “praying” for me. So, everyone would have to get some kind of instrument. But then the issue arises as to what kind of instrument must we all play. For if the instrument were SPECIFIED in the command then any instrument other than the one specified in the command would not be acceptable as a substitute for what God commanded now would it?

My comments were in response to those who were claiming that we are COMMANDED to use instruments of music in the worship. If it was commanded and no one used instruments in the New Testament church then it would follow that they all disobeyed God’s command to use it wouldn’t it? And that was my reason for talking about that matter.

Then you say:

“ The New Testament seems to be silent on the matter entirely. Remember the old RM axiom, "... where the scriptures are silent, we are silent"?”

Brother John, if you will notice by reading this thread and the archives that it is not E. Lee Saffold that keeps bringing this subject up. In this case it was Brother Davis who was trying to escape from the arguments that we had made against his false doctrine on the subject of baptism that brought this subject up. And we ignored him because we wanted him to deal with the issue of baptism and not run from it. Then Brother Darrel brought it up again because as he stated the question had been ignored. So, finally I said something about it. But if you think we should be silent about it because the scriptures are silent about it then why aren’t you silent about it? Why do so many of you insist that it is important for everyone in this forum to be reminded that E. Lee Saffold does not use instruments of music in his worship? While most of you would not “walk across the street” to discuss it in a formal debate with me because you think it is not important? Especially when we are discussing some other matters not even related to the subject. I know why Brother Davis does it. He does it solely to “poison the wells” before we “drink from it” so to speak. He uses it to prejudice our readers against us so that they will not hear what we have to say about other subjects like baptism. And he uses it as a tactic to cause strife and division long enough for him to escape his responsibility to answer hard questions that he would rather forget and ignore and that he would prefer that our readers forget as well. But I have been perfectly willing to be “silent on the matter”. But if you read the archives you will find numerous occasions where those who used instruments pushed the issue even calling me out by name in the title of a thread to “straighten me out on the matter”. And it was not until I was asked if I was among those who do not use mechanical instruments, that I even told anyone that I was. This information was not even offered voluntarily because I was trying to avoid the type of prejudice and unjust practices as I have described above. So, Physician, heal thyself.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 19, 2001

Brother John:

You have said:

“One observation that was disturbing to me: Lee wrote that "the apostle Paul, Peter, James, John, and the first century Christians ... followed their teaching under the guidance of the Holy Spirit ... because they never used instruments of music in their worship." Meaning that those who use instruments of music in their worship are not led by the Holy Spirit? (Which comes very close to saying they're not Christians IMHO.)”

Brother John let me say what I have said often in this forum. I believe firmly that those of my Brethren who have obeyed the gospel of gospel of Christ are in fact Christians even those whom I believe to be in error on some things including those who use instruments of music in their worship. Therefore in this case you are not being “disturbed” by anything that I said but rather by your own complete misunderstanding of what I said. For you say that I meant by my words that those who use instruments of music in their worship are not being lead by the Holy Spirit. And that they are therefore not Christians. That is not what I said. The full quotation of my words is as follows:

“I do not believe that the apostle Paul, Peter, James, John, and the first century Christians who followed their teaching under the guidance of the Holy Spirit were disobedient to God and were false teachers because they never used instruments of music in their worship.”

What I meant to convey is that during the time when the church was under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit they did not use instruments of music in the worship as far as the record of the New Testament is concerned. And thus they were never guided by the Holy Spirit to do such. And that means that those of us who are guided to day by the Holy Spirit indirectly through his word have no guidance from the Holy Spirit that would lead us to use instruments of music in the worship.

So, I have not said that the Holy Spirit through the word of God does not guide those of you, of my brethren, who use instruments of music in your worship. Rather that you have not been guided by the Holy Spirit in the word of God to use instruments of music in the worship. For the Holy Spirit has provided no guidance to do such. And the fact that he has not guided you to use instruments of music does not imply in the least that E. Lee Saffold was asserting by such a statement that you are not Christians. For he was not making any such assertion.

But if you follow the teaching of the word of God and obey it in all else that it teaches the Holy Spirit, through it, is guiding you. For this is the only way that the Holy Spirit “guides” or leads us to do anything. But in the matter of the use of instruments of music the early Church was never guided to use instruments of music and therefore those who use it today do not do so because the Holy Spirit has guided them through his word to do it. And that is what I meant. You are not justified to draw from those words the conclusion that E. Lee Saffold has accused his brethren of not being guided at all by the Holy Spirit. For he said no such thing. For he believes that they are being guided through the teaching of His word but not in things that are not taught in His word. Now, if you think that E. Lee Saffold believes that you have no direct guidance of the Holy Spirit then you are correct for he does not believe that any Christian receives such today. And that is a different subject than the one that we are currently discussing in this thread.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 19, 2001

Brother Darrel:

You have said:

“Lee, I never said non/anti's were false teachers ... NEVER!”

Yes, Brother Darrel, your post implies it. And the fact that you asked about whether a false teacher is one who simply teaches that which is false and the illustration that you chose to use was the issue of instrumental music. Why would you choose that subject instead of something else unless you meant to imply something by it?

“ Quit putting words in peoples mouths!”

One cannot “quit” doing what he has never done! And you have not proven that I have in any way “put words into your mouth”. I have responded to your very word that you wrote yourself.

Then you say:

“ It happens way too often.”

Now that is a fine assertion but now give us the proof that your assertion is true. The only time people seem to think that I have “put words in their mouth” is when I am in the process of “shoving the words” that came out of their mouths back “down their throats” so to speak and they do not like the taste of them!

Then you say:

“ I simply asked the question ... that is all!”

That is not true. You were trying to make an argument and it failed and now you were “innocently asking a question”. Hogwash!

Then you quote my words as follows:

"For you have not proven that there is a command of God which demands that Christians worship God with instruments of music and you cannot prove such nonsense to save your life. And if you did you would make false teachers out of every Christian that we read about in the New Testament for there is no reliable record that they ever used instruments of music in their worship."

Then you say:

“Again, Lee, I NEVER SAID THAT! Wow, how hard is this to understand?”

You said the following:

“Be that as it may, IF any teaching that goes against apostolic teaching is false (a good definition of false teaching, in my opinion) then were does this leave the non/anti-instrumentalists with regards to the above passage?”

Now if you did not mean to imply by this question that those who do not use instruments of music in the worship might justifiably be considered false teachers “if it goes against apostolic teachings” then what exactly could you have meant by using those words?

Then you say:

“If the NT church was directed by the Apostle Paul to include the Psalms in their singing, and if some of the Psalms "suggest/require" the use of instruments, then wouldn't Paul have been instructing his readers at the Ephesians congregation to use instruments in their worship? If not, why not?”

Now if you did not mean to imply from this that instrumental music is COMMANDED in Ephesians 5:19 and therefore those who do not use instruments of music in their worship are refusing to obey that command then what did you mean?

Then you gave the illustration of how you had used this argument in another place with one that does not believe in using instruments in the worship as follows:

“I posed this question to a good friend of mine here in Indiana County who has preached for the non/ani-inst church of Christ for many years. His answer was that, since God does not want us to use instruments in our NT worship (he starts with his premise), then the early Christians would only have used Psalms that did not direct/cpommand the use of instruments.”

And I do not believe that any knowledgeable brother among us would have given the weak answer that you claim he gave to your question. But, it is possible that one who was weak in knowledge would reply in such a way. However this proves that you have been claiming not only in this thread but also in other places that the scriptures command instrumental music. But now you want us to believe that you “never said it”! But you have said it as your above words show. So, as you have said, “WOW! How hard is that to understand?”!

I believe you started out to take this position and found that it was not a good idea and now want to pretend that you never said it. You can remain in denial if you wish. But if you ever want to argue that instrumental music in the worship is COMMANDED again we will be prepared for you to deny that you ever said it once you are corrected.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 19, 2001

No, Lee, I have NEVER taken the position that the NT commands the use of instruments in worship ... NEVER. It does not command to, and it does not command not to. Period. Again (and I don't understand why this is hard for you to understand, or believe), I am only asking quesitons in order to learn more ... that is it.

It is sad that you have the tendency to read into people's posts. It has happend quite often. Instead of thinking what someone is "implying" why don't you ask them directly what they mean. It would save a lot of time in posts and re-posts, from a number of people.

I am on this forum to learn. That is why I posted the original and other questions. I don't come on the forum to push particular views. Some may, I don't. I will share my views when asked, or when appropriate. But when I do, there should be no doubt ... not like this case where I pose questions looking for honest answers.

For you to imply that I had an agenda and "got caught" and tried to make it something it wasn't offends me greatly.

I try to wade through your posts to glean some nuggets of truth and learning ... and I appreciate that I have been able to learn from some of them ... but no more. I am tired of your claims as to "what I meant" or what you THINK I am implying when you have no idea whatsoever. From this point on, I will be using the scroll button, or the end button, to "fast forward" through any posts you write. I do this for myself, not suggesting anyone else do the same.

Again, it is a shame, because I may be missing out on the occasional nugget of truth, but for me, it is better this way in order to keep my blood preasure in check, and not get upset at what I perceive to be the continued drivel that surrounds those occasional good nuggets.

-- Anonymous, August 19, 2001

Lee,

I am going to make an attempt at peace-making... knowing that often results in the peace-maker taking a hit or two....

After looking over Darrell's original post, I do believe you have come down way too hard on him. There are enough "IF's" in his post along with the LARGE initial disclaimer, that convince me that HE was not 'making an argument'....

Later, Barry came on and said, "Yes, the anti-instrumentalists are in direct opposition to Scripture here and are teaching falsely. They are in rebellion against God's clear commands on worship." This is NOT what Darrell was saying... it is Barry's conclusion.

Later, Scott said, "Although I have never thought of it in these terms, Darrel seems to make a case for an implied command. " Again, I don't beieve that Darrell was 'making a case'....

Anyway, for what it is worth.... In my opinion, you have wrongly alienated Darrell, and I hate to see anyone decide to not read your posts... for they do indeed have 'nuggets of truth' and I have learned much from reading your posts... but do believe that you 'just to conclusions' about what others are saying a bit too much (a fine assertion!!).... :-)

-- Anonymous, August 19, 2001

Oops! I meant 'jump to conclusions' not 'just to conclusions'... it is early!! Have a great Lord's Day!

-- Anonymous, August 19, 2001

Lee....

There is a possibility that I may personally know Darrell Combs better than most on this forum.....as Darrell and I have served together in various forms over a number of years.

Therefore, I have to concur exactly with what Robin said.

-- Anonymous, August 19, 2001

Brother Robin:

You have said:

“Lee, I am going to make an attempt at peace-making... knowing that often results in the peace-maker taking a hit or two....”

I cannot object to the work of a genuine peacemaker for I know that you are indeed genuine. And our Lord said, “Blessed are the peacemakers”.

Then you accurately say:

“After looking over Darrell's original post, I do believe you have come down way too hard on him. There are enough "IF's" in his post along with the LARGE initial disclaimer, that convince me that HE was not 'making an argument'....”

I looked again at his post and I agree with you that he did in fact have enough “if’s” to make it clear that he was not directly asserting that Instrumental music is COMMANDED in Eph. 5:19. However, he did make it appear that it was very possible that such was the case. And then you correctly observe that:

“Later, Barry came on and said, "Yes, the anti-instrumentalists are in direct opposition to Scripture here and are teaching falsely. They are in rebellion against God's clear commands on worship." This is NOT what Darrell was saying... it is Barry's conclusion.”

And indeed this was Brother Davis’ conclusion. And he began his words with “You are correct Darrel” meaning that he concluded from Darrell’s words that he too believe it was commanded. And the problem I have is that Darrel did not say one word to correct him for concluding that he believed that Eph. 5:19 was A command to use instruments. It was not until I responded to him as if he did think such that he thought the correction should be made. Now, if I wrote something and someone tried to use my words to implied that I agreed with something that I did not believe I would correct them post haste! But when Brother Darrel did not make this correction it made the impression with me that he did in fact agree with Brother Davis.

Then you also correctly observe:

“Later, Scott said, "Although I have never thought of it in these terms, Darrel seems to make a case for an implied command. " Again, I don't beieve that Darrell was 'making a case'....”

This was another statement that Darrel “seems to make a case for an implied command. Another opportunity for Darrel to say, “I did not intend to “make a case” for an “implied command”. But he did not correct Brother Scott either, now did he. It was not until I responded to him because it “seemed” also to me that he had sought to “make a case” for an implied command that he decided that it was time to deny it.

Be all of this as it may I agree with you that:

“Anyway, for what it is worth.... In my opinion, you have wrongly alienated Darrell”

Corrections from anyone are appreciated but corrections from one, such as yourself, who has demonstrated a love for the truth is “worth” a lot to me. And I see your point and agree that I have wrongly alienated Brother Darrel.

Now, because of your Correction, and also the just correction of Brother Danny, based upon good evidence which you have presented I apologize to Brother Darrel for making him responsible for an argument that he never intended to make. For I see that he has never thought that instrumental music is commanded in the New Testament and would not ever contend that it is a command.

Brother Darrel, please accept my sincere apology for it was my mistake to think that you actually believed that instrumental music was commanded of God in the New Testament. I am happy to know that you do not believe that nonsense to be the truth.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 21, 2001