E. Lee I have decided that I will debate you on this forum. My only requirement of you, is if you disagree, kindly say I disagree. Refrain from putdowns or belittling or denigration of any manner as this is not Christian. I request that you write your responses in first person as this is the accepted style for scholarly writing today.

The issue to me is: does God condemn that which he does not specifically prohibit? If you wish to narrow or enlarge this you may. If the terms are acceptable to you, I would like you to make the first statement that affirms your position.

To the other brothers and sisters reading this thread, I ask that you refrain from posting on this thread. It is for E. Lee and myself only to respond to the other. (As in if this were a spoken debate you could not address the group in that manner.) If you wish to respond I would request that you write me directly and the same goes for E. Lee. Please feel free if you think I missed something or have not stated it well to let me know your thoughts.

I in no way assert that I am a greek scholar, but I reserve the right to use language tools in this discussion.

Finally, like one TV host often says this is just an exhibition. Meaning the purpose overall to me, for doing this is, for once and hopefully for all, to show E.Lee's arguments (and hopefully he can do this without denigrating in any manner his opponent)and my response which should show, to all, the whole of the matter before us.

-- Anonymous, November 11, 2001

Answers

Brother Umstetter:

You have said: “E. Lee I have decided that I will debate you on this forum.”

WE are pleased to see that you are willing to do this. We thank you for your sincere desire to search for the truth which is demonstrated by your willingness to engage in a formal debate on the issue of “authorization” as Sister Muse asked us to debate formally in this forum. In this regard we are respectful of the simple fact that you are willing to do that which no other has been willing to do who holds to the position that you hold. For this reason we hold you in great respect. For a fair and equitable discussion of these matters is all that Sister Muse has sought and it is all that we have sought as well.

Then you say:

“ My only requirement of you, is if you disagree, kindly say I disagree.”

WE have never done anything other than this and would not do anything other than this in our debate with you. And we will be more than happy to make this a clearly written guideline for our debate. Stating that guideline clearly in the following form. “Both proponents agree that they shall conduct themselves in this debate as Christ our Lord would have them to behave. And thus will refrain from deliberately insulting remarks, innuendo, and misrepresentations of the words of his opponent understanding that they shall direct their strong remarks against the arguments and not the person or character each other. None will be allowed to deliberately denigrate the character or person of the other.”

Then you say:

“ Refrain from putdowns or belittling or denigration of any manner as this is not Christian.”

WE have always done this and will continue to do so.

Then you request:

“ I request that you write your responses in first person as this is the accepted style for scholarly writing today.”

WE do not agree with you that the use of third person is not acceptable in scholarly writing today and therefore reject this requirement. WE reserve the right to chose our own words in this debate and speak in whatever person that we so chose inasmuch as we are not required to yield to any such needless restriction or imaginary conventions. Such a requirement has no bearing upon the fairness and equitability of the debate but is simply a personal dislike of our opponent in this debate. We will not be subject to nor yield to mere personal likes and dislikes. However, if you can demonstrate that by using the third person we shall in some way place you into an unjust, unfair and less than equitable situation. Or if you can show that we will, by the use of third person, put you at a disadvantage then we will for that reason, and that reason only, agree to your request and refrain from the use of third person. But we shall not do so based upon your assumption that such is not acceptable in scholarly writing today. WE are under no obligation to follow such if it were the case unless it would in some way unfairly place you in at a disadvantage in this debate. So, we will negotiate this matter with you and if you can convince us that the use of third person will disadvantage you then we will agree to avoid it. But as it now stands we reject that condition.

Then you say:

“The issue to me is: does God condemn that which he does not specifically prohibit? If you wish to narrow or enlarge this you may.”

We need to do more than enlarge on this. We need to have this stated as a clearly and each person to agree that each opponent will at the outset of his affirmative define and clarify exactly what each significant word in his proposition means so that there is not misunderstanding of the issue we are discussing. We need to both have stated propositions written in clear terms that we will both affirm and deny concerning this issue. I will contact you directly via email for you and I to agree upon the wording of the propositions that we will affirm and deny. The wording of the proposition of any formal debate is extremely important so that we are certain that we specifically state our propositions in a way that makes the difference between us clear. The above wording is not acceptable. We envision that there should be a fair give and take in this discussion. Wherein we affirm our position in a positive proposition and then you deny it and that you in turn affirm your position in a positive proposition and we deny it. This way we all share equally the burden of proof and the responsibility to deny.

Then you say:

“If the terms are acceptable to you, I would like you to make the first statement that affirms your position.”

We wish to have more input on the terms of this debate. The above terms are, in the main part, acceptable with the exception of the lack of clearly stated propositions for both sides and the needless restriction upon the use of third person and the lack of clearly written rules or guidelines that will govern how the discussion will proceed. And we have requested that each of us have a moderator to ensure that we are both following our agreed upon guidelines. And also missing is a set time and date for the debate to begin which is agreed upon by both parties and will be announced in the forum so that all can “attend” this debate from the beginning to the end.

Then you say:

“To the other brothers and sisters reading this thread, I ask that you refrain from posting on this thread. It is for E. Lee and myself only to respond to the other. (As in if this were a spoken debate you could not address the group in that manner.)”

TO this we also agree. Our debate should be handled as if it is in fact a spoken debate an others should refrain from interjecting anything into it. We believe however that both parties to this debate should agree to have a specific thread assigned to them after the debate is over to allow all of our readers to ask questions of each opponent. And that there should be a thread concurrent with the thread in which we are debating which would allow for our audience to make comments as they please concerning the debate as it is in progress. With the understanding that neither opponent is required or expected during the debate to respond to anything outside of the debate itself.

Then you say:

“ If you wish to respond I would request that you write me directly and the same goes for E. Lee. Please feel free if you think I missed something or have not stated it well to let me know your thoughts.”

I am at work presently, Brother Umstetter, but I will contact you via email to discuss the proper arrangements that need to be agreed upon before the debate begins.

Then you say:

“I in no way assert that I am a greek scholar, but I reserve the right to use language tools in this discussion.”

WE agree with this and would not have it any other way. For we are talking about the word of God and since the New Testament was written originally in Greek it is reasonable to expect that we will want to know the meaning of the original words in their context in order to arrive at the truth which is our objective.

Then you say:

“Finally, like one TV host often says this is just an exhibition.”

WE would hope that this debate would take on more significance than a mere “exhibition”. The purpose of any honorable debate is to seek for and find the truth. This is our objective and we hope that others would share that purpose with us. But we do not require that Brother Umstetter share that objective. If all he wants to do is have an “exhibition” we hope that he will try to exhibit the truth of the word of God. For this is what we sincerely pray that God will help us to find in our search for it as we discuss the arguments that we both will present.

But Brother Umstetter explains what he means by exhibition as follows:

“ Meaning the purpose overall to me, for doing this is, for once and hopefully for all, to show E.Lee's arguments”

WE would hope that the purpose would be to determine from the word of God whether E. Lee’s arguments and Brother Umstetter’s arguments are in harmony with the truth. Who knows we may find that neither of our arguments is in harmony with the truth and that something else entirely is what God would have us to believe? Let us go to God’s word with the purpose of determining what HIS will is in this matter.

Then he says:

“ (and hopefully he can do this without denigrating in any manner his opponent)”

WE have never deliberately denigrated any of our opponents in our discussions and we wonder why Brother Umstetter seems to want to place this requirement upon us without applying the same restriction to himself? It should rather, if we are going to be fair and equitable in this debate, be stated that neither Brother Umstetter nor Brother E. Lee Saffold would conduct himself in this debate in such a way as to denigrate the person or character of his opponent. The false assumption that Brother E. Lee Saffold is the only one who needs this restriction is surely starting this debate out on the wrong foot. All men are capable of being unjustly denigrating of the character of others including Brother Umstetter. WE are convinced that he will strive to be respectful and polite but we object to his assumption that E. lee Saffold is the only one needing this admonition. If we are going to be fair and equitable in this debate everything must be shared equally including such admonitions as this.

Then he says:

“and my response which should show, to all, the whole of the matter before us.”

Now this points to the very reason that we agreed with Sister Muse to engage in a formal debate of this issue. WE want it stated from the beginning that each opponent will be required to respond to every argument and every question asked by the opposing side in this debate and neither party will be allowed to ignore the arguments and questions of the other. We what this clearly stated in writing and agreed upon before this debate begins. For we, frankly, are tired of having our arguments on other issues that we have discussed without a formal debate in this forum ignored. WE want to ensure that in this debate neither side will ignore any of the arguments as they are presented.

Brethren:

You can see that we have much to do and several matters to work out before this debate can begin on a fair and equitable footing.

First, we must have written propositions that require both sides to share the burden of proof equally.

Second we must have written and agreed upon guidelines which are to be published in this forum before the debate begins.

Third we must chose moderators who will agree to keep order in this debate and ensure that both sides follow their agreed upon rules.

Fourth we must set a date and time convenient to both parties for the debate to commence. The purpose of this is to ensure that both parties have the time to conduct the debate.

Fifth, we need to agree upon the limits of how long the debate. Such as how long it will last and how many “speeches” will be allowed upon each proposition.

Sixth, WE need to state in writing the responsibilities of both the affirmative and negatives will bear in the debate. Such things as the affirmative will speak first and the negative will respond with the negative having the last speech etc. These things are important matters that the opponents in this debate must work out before this debate begins.

WE are pleased that Brother Umstetter has agreed to debate this issue with us at least initially. But we must understand that he has not actually finalized any agreement to debate this issue until we negotiate the terms upon which we will debate it. For this reason we will contact him directly and make these agreements and then the results will be published and the date and time will be set and we will begin this discussion.

We are especially thankful to Sister D. Lee Muse for her wisdom, insight and courage demonstrated in her wise suggestion that this matter of authorization be debated formally in this forum. And we are thankful to Brother Umstetter for expressing his willingness to engage in such. And we look forward to his following through upon his intention by agreeing with us upon so fair and reasonable terms and guidelines which will ensure that our debate is fair and equitable to both sides concerned.

WE are happy to see that we can indeed debate our differences in this the 21st century. We had almost given up hope that such was even possible today.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

E. Lee:

Would you mind telling me who you are referring to when you say "WE?" Your post is signed with just one name. I am not sure I understand. Infact I am SURE I do not understand.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

I nominate Sister Muse as moderator!

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Come on Duane ... it is so easy to see that Brother E Lee has been absorbed by the collective and is now a part of The Borg.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Well, right off I can see this is not going to be a fair debate nor is it going to accomplish anything. For the first thing that comes out of E. Lee's virtual mouth is "WE", after Bill specifically wrote, "I request that you write your responses in first person."

Now who is this "We" he refers to? Perhaps he means all of us in the forum. I can assure you he does not speak for all, or even for most. Perhaps it is the royal "we", in which case he is displaying quite an arrogance. Perhaps it is the editorial "we." But one would wonder whom his constituents were. Or perhaps he is schizophrenic and there are more than one voice in his head?

But perhaps he's just being a sarcastic smart aleck, which seems the most likely and evident. Which tells me he's not going to even make an attempt at being fair or impartial. Since these are the first words from him, what is the point of even thinking about going farther with this farce?

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

It doesn't look like it will be fair to me either... to E. Lee.

First, just because he was 'requested' to do something in the debate... doesn't mean he HAS to. He should be able to use whatever words he wants to!!!! And, besides he indicated a willingness to discuss this point with who matters... the one he is going to be debating!!

Also, he already addressed why he chooses to use 'we' in another thread (which I couldn't locate quickly).

I wonder if there could EVER be a thread where just the two wrote in... I think somebody would always jump in with something 'smart' to say....

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Hey, how about giving him a chance to answer? I have found in the past that Lee is both level-headed and intelligent. Maybe he means himself and his wife. Maybe he means "we" as the acapella brethren. Lee?

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Brother Duane:

You have asked a question that we have answered once before as follows:

“E. Lee:

Would you mind telling me who you are referring to when you say "WE?" Your post is signed with just one name. I am not sure I understand. Infact I am SURE I do not understand.”

Brother Duane, we refer you again to our previous answer to this question raised by Brother Davis, which we now quote as follows:

“Brother Davis: You have asked: “E. Lee, Who is the "we" you keep referring to?” Perhaps, a simple reading of the definition of the word “we” and how it is used by writers of the English language will help you understand our use of the word “we” as follows: “Main Entry: we Pronunciation: 'we Function: pronoun, plural in construction Etymology: Middle English, from Old English wE; akin to Old High German wir we, Sanskrit vayam Date: before 12th century 1 : I and the rest of a group that includes me : you and I : you and I and another or others : I and another or others not including you -- used as pronoun of the first person plural; 2 : 1I -- used by sovereigns; used by writers to keep an impersonal character.” “Now, as you can see, writers, to keep an impersonal character, often use “we”. That is how “we” are occasionally using it in our writing in this forum. It is correct to do so and it is our right to do so and we will continue to do it and there is simply nothing that anyone can do about it, now is there? We most certainly are not using it so as to make anyone other than ourselves responsible for what we have said, and you know it, don’t you Brother Davis. Your concern over this matter exists solely because you need something to say other than responding to the arguments that we have made, don’t you? For it is much easy to discuss things that do not matter in the least and it is especially convenient when you need some way to avoid dealing with arguments that you cannot handle, isn’t it?”

So, Brother Duane, as you can see from our above response we have been in on many occasions but certainly not most or all occasions, using the word “we” to keep an “impersonal character” as any good dictionary will reveal is the prerogative and custom of writers. In our case it is a conscious choice to do so. And it is right and proper to use the word in this way and we reserve our right to do so.

But we have not on all occasions simply sought to avoid the “personal character”. We have on several occasions been speaking not only for ourselves but also for those outside of this forum who hold to the same position that we hold to in certain matters which have been discussed in this forum. And we will not go through all of our discussions over the last two years to specify which one’s were following the convention of the use of the word “we” as a writer to avoid the “personal character”. And when we used it to include those who agree with our positions taken. We explain this again to you and everyone else so that you can understand how and why we use the word “we”. We reserve the right to chose our own words and see no good reason why anyone should be confused by it or any good reason why we should not be allowed to speak in this way.

In fact, for over one year in this forum we used exclusively the first person and we determined from the responses that we had received that our use of the “personal character” was being perceived as abusive. And we thought that by using the word “we” to avoid this “personal character” might on occasion be a better way to speak. It turns out that it was more effective.

But we remind you that some people continued to ignore our arguments even when it was our habit to speak in only first person. And the only thing these persons have ever been able to do when they could not respond to our arguments was to sidetrack the discussion into complains about the length of our post and the style in which we write. Now, they have added complaints about the “person” that we chose to use in our communications. These matters have nothing whatsoever to do with the issues. They are only being used as a “smoke screen” to avoid the real issues. And if we did none of these things they would find some other ways to attempt to divert our reader’s attention away from the facts. And we see no good reason to eliminate everything from our writing that displeases these men. And our correct use of the word “we” to avoid the “personal character” does not really confuse anyone who knows the English language. For a writer can use the word “we” to refer to himself and those who agree with him or he can use it simply to avoid the “personal character” as the above quotation from the dictionary clearly demonstrates. We have used it in BOTH ways. And we are not going to change it just because some have chosen to use it as a means of avoiding the real issues.

And we also point out the simple truth that the majority of our writing in this forum has been in the first person and no one responded to our arguments then either. The only complaint they could find to distract others from the real issues was the length of our post.

But you can rest assured that we are not going to allow anyone to dictate to us concerning our writing style in this or any other forum in which we chose to participate. Everyone is welcome to not like our style and to complain about it as much as they feel they need. But they have no right to dictate that we will “REFRAIN” from using a certain style on the basis that it is not “acceptable in scholarly circles”. None have proven that such is not acceptable in scholarly circles and we would not care if they did. For we could care less what is acceptable in “scholarly” or any other “circles”. WE will chose our own style of writing and we will use the word “we” in this way because it is correct and it serves our purpose. And we have less desire to depart from this usage because our opponents are the ones seeking to dictate concerning this matter to us. We will not be dictated to in this matter. It is that simple and we see no real good reason other than personal taste that anyone should complain of our usage of the word “we”.

But, we have stated that if anyone can show that Brother Umstetter would be unfairly disadvantaged in any way by our use of the word “we” to avoid the “personal character” that we would on that basis alone refrain from it in this debate. We believe that such is fair and reasonable on our part. We cannot do anything better than that, now can we?

I am happy, Brother Duane, to explain this matter to you as you have always been fair, reasonable and equitable in this forum with me. I thank you for the question because I believe that it was your intent to give me the opportunity to once again explain the matter for those who had forgotten my earlier explanation of it.

However, I will not explain it again. This is sufficient to make it clear that I have good reasons for such usage and I have every right to make it a part of my style of writing and no one has a right to forcefully deny me such a right. And I will now turn my attention to the more important matter of the debate itself.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Brother Duane:

One other thing that I want to say in response to your question. You are correct when you say that sometimes I am referring to the brethren who agree with me when I use the word "we".

For example, when I was debating the subject of baptism with Barry Hanson the majority of our brethren, even in this forum, agreed with the position which I defended and I often used the word "we" to refer not only to myself but those other Christians, both in and out of this forum, whom I knew agreed with the arguments that I was making. For I knew that they had made similar arguments.

And believe it or not there are many Christians outside of this forum who agree with the position that I take on the subject of "Authorization" and I have the right to use the word "we" to refer not only to myself but other Christians who hold to these same truths. Just as I would when I discuss the subject of baptism.

It may be that the real objection to my use of the word "we" is that it forcefully highlights the simple fact that E. Lee Saffold is not the only one holding to this point of view though he is the only one, with the present exception of Brother Kevin, in this forum who holds to it. There is actually a large number outside of this forum who are Christians that hold to the same position that we affirm on this issue.

Nevertherless, it is true in many cases that I have used the word "we" simply to avoid the "personal charater" as I stated in my last post. But there have been several ocassions when I used the word to include others whom I knew agreed. In fact, I believe that the first instance of my beginning to use this form was when I was debating Barry Hanson about baptism.

It does seem possible that the real objection to my use of this word is the fact that some do not want to face the simple fact that E. Lee Saffold is NOT by any stretch of the imagination the only one holding this position. ANd my use of the word "we" denies them this delusion.

There is simply no good reason for anyone to object to my use of the word "we" as I have explained now more than once. But they have the right to dislike it and complain about it though they have no right to forcefully prevent it.

Your Brother in CHrist,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

E. Lee You have said:

“ My only requirement of you, is if you disagree, kindly say I disagree.”

WE have never done anything other than this and would not do anything other than this in our debate with you. And we will be more than happy to make this a clearly written guideline for our debate.

I say: I beg to differ with you sir. You have denigrated me with such terms as lazy and pathetic. This is why I state empahtically. There will be none of this. You insult me once, and I point it out to you, and if you will not make appropriate reparations, I will no longer debate. I want you to understand this clearly.

Then you request:

“ I request that you write your responses in first person as this is the accepted style for scholarly writing today.”

WE do not agree with you that the use of third person is not acceptable in scholarly writing today and therefore reject this requirement. WE reserve the right to chose our own words in this debate and speak in whatever person that we so chose inasmuch as we are not required to yield to any such needless restriction or imaginary conventions.

I say: Sir, I have received multiple feedbacks on this one item. I made a request in good faith. First person makes for clearer thoughts and quicker response. I did not say that 3rd person was wrong or unaccepted. I pointed out to you that in this day and age, it is now the accepted practice to write in 1st person. So I ask for your grace in this request, would you please use 1st person. This is not a "needless restriction or imaginary convention" it is a simple request.

Then you say:

“The issue to me is: does God condemn that which he does not specifically prohibit? If you wish to narrow or enlarge this you may.”

We need to do more than enlarge on this.

I Say: It is fine by me to enlarge on this. I will await your thougts.

Then you say:

“If the terms are acceptable to you, I would like you to make the first statement that affirms your position.”

We wish to have more input on the terms of this debate. The above terms are, in the main part, acceptable with the exception of the lack of clearly stated propositions for both sides and the needless restriction upon the use of third person and the lack of clearly written rules or guidelines that will govern how the discussion will proceed. And we have requested that each of us have a moderator to ensure that we are both following our agreed upon guidelines. And also missing is a set time and date for the debate to begin which is agreed upon by both parties and will be announced in the forum so that all can “attend” this debate from the beginning to the end.

I say:

On Moderator - Darrel or Duane is fine by me but what can a moderator do, get on the forum and write a "handslap"?

On guidelines and format - I suggest alternating postings - 1 - affirm your position 2 - rebut your opponents position 3 - apology against your opponents rebut 4 - concluding remarks

On Time - There is no time, once guidelines are established, all will begin when you decide to affirm your position. Opponents will need time (maybe a day or so) to rebut or reaffirm. This must be understood.

Then you say:

“To the other brothers and sisters reading this thread, I ask that you refrain from posting on this thread. It is for E. Lee and myself only to respond to the other. (As in if this were a spoken debate you could not address the group in that manner.)”

TO this we also agree. Our debate should be handled as if it is in fact a spoken debate an others should refrain from interjecting anything into it. We believe however that both parties to this debate should agree to have a specific thread assigned to them after the debate is over to allow all of our readers to ask questions of each opponent. And that there should be a thread concurrent with the thread in which we are debating which would allow for our audience to make comments as they please concerning the debate as it is in progress. With the understanding that neither opponent is required or expected during the debate to respond to anything outside of the debate itself.

I say: I like your idea of concurrent thread for questions to be asked.

Then he says:

“and my response which should show, to all, the whole of the matter before us.”

Now this points to the very reason that we agreed with Sister Muse to engage in a formal debate of this issue. WE want it stated from the beginning that each opponent will be required to respond to every argument and every question asked by the opposing side in this debate and neither party will be allowed to ignore the arguments and questions of the other.

I say: I agree with your point - but to make your point you sliced a sentence of mine in half, thus misquoting me, and making it sound like I was calling attention to my view point only and not yours. My statement was calling for the WHOLE of the matter to be laid out. Please sir do follow what you suggest, do not misquote my words.

Again I, in good faith, lay a ground work for this debate. It is my desire to commence quickly.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Brother John:

You have said:

“Well, right off I can see this is not going to be a fair debate nor is it going to accomplish anything.”

And what PROOF do you have Brother John of this fine assertion?

Your only stated reason is:

“ For the first thing that comes out of E. Lee's virtual mouth is "WE", after Bill specifically wrote, "I request that you write your responses in first person."”

And can you please explain to us just what exactly there is about this fact that you consider being “unfair”?

Then you asked:

“Now who is this "We" he refers to?”

WE had already explained this to everyone in our response to Brother Davis’ question in this regard in the thread entitled “YIPEEEEE”. And we have repeated our explanation in our above post to Brother Duane. You already had been provided with the answer to this question but you had either forgotten it or simply ignored it. But even if we did not explain the matter to you why would such give you reason to believe that the debate is going to be “unfair”?

Then you gave many speculations, all of which were wrong concerning why we use the word “we”.

“ Perhaps he means all of us in the forum.”

If you had read my previous explanation of that matter you would have know that such was not the truth.

And you say:

“ I can assure you he does not speak for all, or even for most.”

And no one has ever said, least of all me, that I speak for ALL in this forum. And in fact, on this issue everyone knows that I do not speak for any in this forum except myself and possibly a few others like Brother Kevin Walker. But on some of the issue that I have debated in this forum I have spoken for the majority, especially when I debated the subject of baptism with Barry Hanson. And there have been other occasions when such was the case. So, while it is true that on this issue I do not speak for the majority IN THIS FORUM, I do speak words that a large number outside of this forum would agree. And we are certain that we speak according to the word of God.

Then you say:

“ Perhaps it is the royal "we", in which case he is displaying quite an arrogance.”

And you knew I was not using the word we in the “royal” sense.

Then you say:

“ Perhaps it is the editorial "we." But one would wonder whom his constituents were.”

Now if you could read my email you would have the answer to that question. My inbox is often flooded with comments from others who state that they agree with what we are doing in this forum and specifically agree with our arguments on many issues. But this particular issue we have not discussed up until this point except to work toward a formal debate of the matter. Nevertheless, I am sure that you are aware that there are many Christians outside of this forum who may be reading it or may not be reading it who currently agree with our position on this issue. I know many of them and they know me. I may invite some of them to read the debate. And I have the right to include them as well and the use of the word “we” would in that case be perfectly acceptable in the “editorial sense”.

And we have the right to use the word “we” as we have shown in our post above to avoid the “personal Character”. In either case we are justified in our use of this word. And we have every right to do so and will not give up that rights unless anyone can show that our use of this word in this way would by any means unfairly disadvantage Brother Umstetter in the debate. And you have not shown us just yet how our use of that word was in any way whatsoever “unfair” now have you?

Then you say:

“ Or perhaps he is schizophrenic and there are more than one voice in his head?”

Now you are pretending to be an expert in psychology! What evidence do you have that such is even a possibility? What evidence do you have that would prove that we are hearing any “voices” in our heads. Such nonsense is for those know to be either insane or who are “Pentecostals that think they are hearing the Holy Spirit talking in their head. And there is not evidence that I am in either of those tow categories. But, we are prepared to hear your diagnosis Dr. John. Who knows? We might be insane. But based upon the evidence that you have thus far presented we have no reason to believe such nonsense, now do we?

Then you say:

“But perhaps he's just being a sarcastic smart aleck, which seems the most likely and evident.”

You say this “seems to be evident”. What evidence causes you to think that such might be “evident”? How can you say something is “evident” when you have no “evidence” to sustain it? What evidence can you provide Brother John that E. Lee Saffold is “most likely” being “a sarcastic smart aleck”? We are waiting for you to present the evidence. For if such is “evident there should be some evidence that makes is so, shouldn’t there? Then why did you not give us the evidence that makes such “evident”? I will tell you why. Simply because you have NO EVIDENCE to support such nonsense now do you?

Then you say:

“ Which tells me he's not going to even make an attempt at being fair or impartial.”

So, with the word “which” you refer to your above assertion that I was being a smart aleck which you did not and yet cannot prove to be the truth as your “reason” for assuming that E. lee Saffold is not going to be fair? You cannot prove that E. Lee Saffold was being a smart aleck but that is the reason that you conclude, without one shred of evidence that you are absolutely certain that He is not going to be “fair” in this debate. It seems to me that the ONY one not being “FAIR” in this matter is John Wilson, isn’t it?

Then you say:

“ Since these are the first words from him, what is the point of even thinking about going farther with this farce?”

What “words” are you speaking of Brother John? It seems that you are speaking of the one single word “we” properly used by E. Lee Saffold. Just because we used the one word “we” you conclude that there is no point in even “thinking about going further” in this debate which you unjustly call a “farce”? None could be more ridiculous or absurd in their thinking than you are at this point Brother John. Our use of the word “we” gives no thinking person any reason to think that the debate, which E. Lee Saffold did not request, is in some way a “farce”. We are certain that Sister Muse, when she asked if E. Lee Saffold would be willing to engage in a debate of this subject with anyone in this forum intended to perpetuate a fraud or impose a “farce” upon anyone in this forum. And you cannot present any just reason or evidence that anyone else is trying to make this debate into a “farce” unless that is your intent. It might be that you never wanted to see this subject fairly debated in the first place and you are seeking to prevent it from going forward by attempting to make it appear that it is nothing more than a “farce”. But if you are going to convince the thinking people who read this forum that it is a “farce” you will have to do much better than you have thus far. You will have to give us evidence and proof that supports you pathetic assumptions that you state above.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

"There is simply no good reason for anyone to object to my use of the word "we" as I have explained now more than once. But they have the right to dislike it and complain about it though they have no right to forcefully prevent it."

How about not worrying about who has what "rights" and agree to use first person in order to "smooth the way" for this debate to take place? Instead, it becomes a "I'm not gonna do it 'cause I don't wanna do it" issue ... and that, friends, is not the way brothers should act with one another.

I have noted at least four people who have questioned the use of third person ... add me to the list. It would be smoother and easier to read if presented in first person. Even if "we" denotes more than one person, which other people other than the writer would it include in any given sentence? You MAY have included even myself in the discussion on immersion (maybe yes, and maybe no, depending on which post it was) but you do not include me in the "we's" having to do with instruments, etc.

In other words ... go the extra mile to make things simple for the forum ... certainly that would be a Christ-like thing to do.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Brother Umstetter:

I am at work right now and will have to respond to your entire post later. But for now I want to respond to only one part.

You correctly quoted us as follows:

“Lee You have said: “ My only requirement of you, is if you disagree, kindly say I disagree.” WE have never done anything other than this and would not do anything other than this in our debate with you. And we will be more than happy to make this a clearly written guideline for our debate.”

To which you responded as follows:

“I say: I beg to differ with you sir. You have denigrated me with such terms as lazy and pathetic.”

WE knew that you would differ with us about this matter but we disagree with you about it. We sincerely believed that your objections to lengthy post, both the writing and reading of them, was an indication of laziness and we said so. We were attacking your arguments against lengthy post. And you were deliberately insulting my writing lengthy post, which was in my mind intended by you to denigrate me. And I am sincerely convinced that some despise my lengthy post because they are too lazy to read or write enough to respond to them. And we think such was the case with you as well as others. And we cannot imagine why you would denigrate our lengthy post unless you do not want to read that much and this made us think that you were too lazy to do so. If you are not just too lazy then we apologize for the mistake and will not repeat it again.

But you were definitely denigrating us with your words concerning our lengthy post. And when you proceed to denigrate others do not be surprised when you receive a reply that seems to denigrate you. Just go back and read your own words and you will see that you were far less than complementary with a criticism that a person who cared about not being denigrating would have sent via email instead of in a public forum. Now I do not care if you speak harshly to me in this forum but I reserve the right to respond in kind should I chose to do so. So, if you will stay in line in this regard we will as well. It is that simple Brother Umstetter. Your attempt to paint yourself as one who has never spoken a word that could be taken, as denigrating is false to the core.

We really do not know for a fact that you are lazy but we thought that you might be because of your complaints about the length of our post, which had absolutely noting to do with the issue at hand, in the thread in which you were responding. And for that reason and having discussed this mater with Sister Muse who corrected us regarding it we apologize to you for calling you “lazy”. But we point to the obvious fact that you were simply trying to avoid the issue by denigrating me for the style in which I write. Which is your right if that is what you chose to do. But you will get a response to such nonsense and you will not always like the response. These comments about the length of my writing could have been sent via email and we could have talked about the issues in the forum. But you wanted to make a public condemnation of me personally in the forum for my writing style. Yet you see yourself as one who is always kind, sweet and never denigrating. But that is not the truth and the sooner you realize it the more you will be able to act in harmony with what you believe to be the way one should behave himself as a Christian. But that is your business and not mine. But if you denigrate me may receive a response that does not make you feel good. And that is just the way it will be. SO, I will agree to not denigrate you provided that you do not try to avoid the real issue by denigrating me. And that is about as fair as I can be in that matter.

And you made arguments that I considered being pathetic. I did not call YOU personally pathetic. And you know that such is the case. If your arguments are pathetic and I refer to them as being such, then I am not in any way whatsoever denigrating you personally. I am denigrating your arguments and that is what we all have the right to do. You are welcome to call my arguments hypocritical and in fact have done so and then asserted that you were not calling any person a hypocrite as follows:

“What I said was: Summation - the same logic that says it is sin to use musical instruments must be applied to these other issues other wise it becomes a hypocritical smorgasbord of accepting what one likes. Unlike you sir, I attacked the argument, not the person(s) invovled. One can have a hypocritical conundrum without purposely being a hypocrite. Therefore, I did not call anyone a hypocrite.”

Now, the truth is that just like you, sir, I called your arguments pathetic I did not call you, the person pathetic. Now if you can refer to a certain position as being hypocritical without calling the persons who hold that position hypocritical then I can call an argument made by you or any other person “pathetic” without calling the person pathetic, can’t I? And that is exactly what we did. For this is exactly what we said to you:

“It might make your post a little longer if you would attempt to PROVE some of your pathetic assertions.”

WE did not call you “pathetic” Brother Umstetter, any more than you called us hypocritical. For just as you attack what you called our “arguments” I attacked your unsupported assertions. I called your assertions pathetic and I still think that is just what they are. But I did not attack you personally and call YOU pathetic.

Then you said:

“ This is why I state emphatically. There will be none of this.”

We do hope that you will refrain from such behavior for if you do we will also and we have stated already that we would agree to such and stated the exact words which would require us both to stay in line about this matter. And you have not even acknowledged that we have already agreed with you about that issue. You are expected to follow this requirement as much as I and for the same reasons.

Then you say:

“You insult me once, and I point it out to you, and if you will not make appropriate reparations, I will no longer debate.”

And if you insult me once and my moderator will point it out to you and if you do not make appropriate reparations I respond as I see fit and you can like it or not and leave the debate any time you so desire.

But anyone can see from the tone of your above language why we need moderators who are the one’s who are supposed to “point out” when either opponent in this debate has violated our agreed upon rule to not to denigrate one another.

Then you say:

“ I want you to understand this clearly.”

We do understand clearly as you could have recognized by reading our agreement to your words concerning this in our initial response to you. And we want you to understand us clearly. WE will not allow you to denigrate us without an appropriate response in kind. You are just as susceptible to the possibility of being denigrating as anyone else is. And we want you to be clear on that fact. We are not going to allow a debate to proceed upon the assumption that E. Lee Saffold is the only one most likely to violate our agreements. You are human as well, Brother and you can violate any of these rules as well as we can and we will not tolerate it any more than you will but we will not leave the debate no matter how much you denigrate us. And we expect you to “understand this clearly”!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

It is the opionion of this writer that Darrell's last post makes much sense. In fact, a purely scholarly discourse could exclude both "I" and "we".

Since it is the truth which is being sought, and since the standard by which truth is determined is the word of God, there is no need to use either "I" or "we".... Here is an example:

"There is no passage in the New Testament that prohibits the use of musical instruments in worship, either directly or by logical inference. Since this is the case, Christians are at liberty to use musical instruments in their worship. Further evidence of this assertion is found in the examination of early church history, where it has been discovered that...."

Think about it, oh beloved Forum readers. To what end doth a writer have need to refer to himself or the group he purports to represent?

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Furthermore, it makes sense to stipulate that NONE of the aforementioned words are used. Neither I, me, us, or we. Certainly this would help to avoid personal attacks, for it is of little difference to say "I believe" or "we believe" except that "we believe" carries a little more clout; similarly, "you are a smart aleck" or "you all are smart alecks" both carry the same insult.

Instead it would be wiser to exclude all pronoun references and focus only on what thus saith the Lord. The reader will notice that both of these posts were written in such a style with no loss of clarity.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Brother Combs:

You have correctly quoted my words as follows:

"There is simply no good reason for anyone to object to my use of the word "we" as I have explained now more than once. But they have the right to dislike it and complain about it though they have no right to forcefully prevent it."

To which you reply:

“How about not worrying about who has what "rights" and agree to use first person in order to "smooth the way" for this debate to take place?”

If this matter is not so important why can’t we “smooth the way” by allowing both proponents, including E. Lee Saffold, to use what ever words they so chose to use in this debate? And we have not said that we are determined to deliberately not use the first person. What we are refusing to do is to allow any, NOT ANY restrictions upon our words and our freedom of speech in this debate. And we do believe that it is Christian to assert and sustain one’s rights. Paul did so on several occasions and it is not less than Christian for one to insist upon his right to speak freely and chose his own words.

Then you say:

“ Instead, it becomes a "I'm not gonna do it 'cause I don't wanna do it" issue ... and that, friends, is not the way brothers should act with one another.”

Brother do tell us just where anyone has said that we “don’t wanna do it cause we don’t wanna do it”? We have said nothing about whether we shall use first person or third person in this debate. We are simply reserving the right to use whatever we shall deem appropriate. We will not agree to any request and we have stated that we will discuss the matter with Brother Umstetter via email negotiate how this matter will be handled. He has himself stated that this is not a rule or a requirement but is instead a request. And if it is nothing more than a request we shall try to honor it but we will no0t agree to be bound by it or any requirement or rule that would prevent us from using it. So, you need to pay attention, Brother Combs. No one is simply refusing to use first person. But E. Lee Saffold is refusing to be restricted via any agreement concerning the words he is allowed to use in a debate. And believe me, if you had ever been involved in a formal debate you would understand that no one goes into such an endeavor with his “hands tied” or his “virtual mouth” (as Brother John calls it) taped. So, we might speak in first person most of the time just because we like Brother Umstetter and want to honor his simple request. But we will not be TOLD that we must AGREE to always refrain form the use of any words, especially those that are so simple and easy to understand as the simple word “we”. You, and others have made entirely TOO much of this matter.

Then you say:

“I have noted at least four people who have questioned the use of third person ... add me to the list”

It is fine for you and the others to “question anything that you like. In fact we encourage questioning everything. But none of you have any right to insist that we refrain from the use of any words in this debate. And this is what you are doing. If you want things to go “smoother” you could easily yield to my right as a human being, not to mention a brother in Christ, to enter into a discussion without being restricted in any way concerning the use of any single respectable word in the English language.

Then you say:

“ It would be smoother and easier to read if presented in first person.”

That is your opinion and we do not share it. We see absolutely NO REASON that the word first person is any more “smooth or easier to read or understand than “third person’ and you have not proven in any way that you opinion of this matter is in the least bit correct. Then you say:

Even if "we" denotes more than one person, which other people other than the writer would it include in any given sentence?”

It does not matter. If you do not agree with what I am saying it is quite easy to determine that I am not including you, now isn’t it? That is the reason that the word “we” can be used to avoid the “personal Character” and that is the very reason that it is an effective device for this purpose.

“ You MAY have included even myself in the discussion on immersion (maybe yes, and maybe no, depending on which post it was) but you do not include me in the "we's" having to do with instruments, etc.”

And that fact is not very difficult for you to figure out, now is it? And our readers know that in this debate when I say “we” that I do not include Brother Umstetter because he is denying what I say. And I do hope that we included you in our use of the word “we” when we discussed baptism with Brother Hanson but only an idiot would fail to figure out that we did not include Barry Hanson in our use of the word “we”! WE are sure that you had not trouble figuring it out, aren’t we?

Then you say:

“In other words ... go the extra mile to make things simple for the forum ... certainly that would be a Christ-like thing to do.”

The use that I have made of the word “we” in this forum is certainly “simple” enough for anyone who is not an absolute idiot to comprehend. And I do not see any difficulty that you and the others could have with it. You just do not like it and you are not telling me the true reason that you do not like it. Because so far you have not given one good reason that I should refrain from its use other than being nice to Brother Umstetter. And we do not object to that be we will not agree to any such restriction.

And as far as being “Christ –like is concerned we do not believe that Christ avoided the use of any words just to satisfy those who opposed the truth that he taught, do you? So, in what way could we be more like Christ if we do that which he never did? And we have argued this point many times in this forum about your false image of Christ as one whom would never say anything harsh or shocking or unsettling and even derogatory to another person. For such is definitely not true. It is the man who pretends to be “kind, sweet, and loving who will not speak the truth boldly and will restrict his words just to placate others that are not “Christ-like”. SO, you can give up on the idea of making me conform to your false image of Christ. I do seek to ever be transformed by Christ and to be as he was and this includes teaching and defending the truth with the same attitude that he had. And this includes not only his attitude in dealing with the woman caught in adultery but also in his driving out the money changes from the temple. So, we are convinced that we are being Christ-like in our attitude. We know you do not agree but we do not have time to deal with your petty grievances at them moment. And this grievance about the word “we” and our use of it is in fact very PETTY and it is certainly not Christ-like to be so petty with the same attitude that he had. And this includes not only his attitude in dealing with the woman caught in adultery but also in his driving out the money changes from the temple. So, we are convinced that we are being Christ-like in our attitude. We know you do not agree but we do not have time to deal with your petty grievances at them moment. And this grievance about the word “we” an our use of it is in fact very PETTY and it is certainly not Christ-like to be so petty,

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Brother Duane:

You have said:

“It is the opinion of this writer that Darrell's last post makes much sense. In fact, a purely scholarly discourse could exclude both "I" and "we"”

It is the opinion of this writer that Brother Darrel’s last post is pure nonsense. Even though this writer also agrees with you that a scholarly discourse could exclude both “I” and “We”. And if this is what is sought by the parties who will debate this subject and each proponent agrees to write entirely in third person excluding the use of “I” and “We” in order to give the debate a scholarly air. This particular proponent might be more than happy to agree to such. But did the proponent opposite of this writer propose such. This writer is convinced that he did not. Instead it was requested of this writer, and this writer only, that he would refrain from the use of the third person “we” by speaking particularly in first person and specifically using the pronoun “I”. Now it is to this that that this writer objects. For each proponent of a certain proposition in a formal debate must adhere to rules that they have agreed upon and those rules apply to all as much as any.

And should Brother Umstetter wish to discuss it with this writer, he will be more than happy to consider it.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Duane,

You posted: “I nominate Sister Muse as moderator!”

I thank you for the nomination, but this would not be physically possible for me at this time. I have been ill for quite some time and am almost constantly in pain. This pain has been so extreme of late that I have been put on the drugs percocet and morphine in an attempt to control it. No telling how badly I would mess things up:)

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

"But none of you have any right to insist that we refrain from the use of any words in this debate..." I('ve nevedr inisted you refrain, just asked that you refrain.

"It is the opinion of this writer that Brother Darrel’s last post is pure nonsense." Lee, yes, it is your opinion, and that's fine, but it is statements like this that have caused others on this forum to dislike your posts. Many times your statements, opinion or otherwise, have been caustic in nature, be it a statement made against a person, or a statement made about another person's posts.

By being Christ-like, I mean that he would go the extra mile ... and be the first to do just that ... rather than hold so tightly to something as trivial as the wording being used. I see that in his life, and truly believe he would do the same thing here.

Of course, I personally don't believe he would immerse himself in a debate on the issue of instruments in NT worship, etc. But that, of course, is another story all together.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Thanks, D. Lee; My prayers are with you.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Brother Combs:

You have correctly quoted my words as follows:

"But none of you have any right to insist that we refrain from the use of any words in this debate..."

To which you replied:

“I('ve nevedr inisted you refrain, just asked that you refrain.”

And we have denied your request. It is that simple, now isn’t it. But you are not satisfied with our rejection of your “request” and therefore you continue to insist upon our accepting your “request” and we continue to deny it and you continue to insist. SO it is definitely not true that you have never “insisted” that we refrain.

Then you again correctly quote my words as follows:

"It is the opinion of this writer that Brother Darrel’s last post is pure nonsense."

To which you respond as follows:

“Lee, yes, it is your opinion, and that's fine, but it is statements like this that have caused others on this forum to dislike your posts.”

And that is fine too, now isn’t it? We do not expect others to always like what we have said. And the simple fact that they do not like it does not make our statements wrong, unchristian or any way whatsoever something that we should regret or apologize for having said. They are welcome to not like what we say and we are free to say what we believe to be true. It is that simple.

Then you say:

“ Many times your statements, opinion or otherwise, have been caustic in nature, be it a statement made against a person, or a statement made about another person's posts.”

Well, what is wrong with being “caustic” if “caustic” is the truth. And I seldom have said anything about another person that was “caustic” in nature that I could not prove was true with the exception of a few instances which I have apologized after learning that what I said was not correct. Now there is simply nothing wrong with such. And if saying something caustic about another person’s posts is wrong then what about the many caustic responses to our posts by others including yourself. Is it wrong when we do it but right if you do? We have no objection to caustic responses to our post. Everyone is welcome to contend strongly against what we say if they are convinced that we are wrong. But they need to expect a reply in kind and they need to at the very least attempt to prove their assertions concerning our words, no matter how caustic is their reply, is in fact the truth. If they convince us of the truth we will accept it and appreciate the correction even if it was “caustic”. In fact, we might even appreciate the caustic nature of the reply because it was caustic enough to gain our serious attention.

But what we have seen from you and others like you in this forum is that you can be as unkind, caustic and blunt as anyone. You even like to make others the brunt of your silly Jokes and then hide behind the joke as if the fact that you were joking made everything you said all right. And then when someone responds in a sharp way to you begin to whine and complain that THEY are not Christ-like. While you sit in the corner with you little halo over your head pretending to be so “righteous” and “loving” and caring and kind and the perfect image and example of a “Christ-like” person. And this hypocrisy which you display in these this is pathetic. And any one who thinks that such hypocrisy is being Christ-like needs to turn their TV off and return to his Bible and read it.

Then you say:

“By being Christ-like, I mean that he would go the extra mile ... and be the first to do just that ... rather than hold so tightly to something as trivial as the wording being used.” You see, there you are telling us, as if you really know just how to be “Christ-like” when the Christ that you describe is nothing like the Christ that we find in the scriptures. We recommend a serious study of the life of Christ taking note of how many times he was down right caustic in his words to the Pharisees and others. If you had been there when Jesus “cleansed the temple of the money changes we can just see you running around our Lord pointing you finger in shame toward him and telling him in your infinite wisdom how “caustic” and “unloving” he was. This is why we said that you post were pure nonsense and it is why we are convinced the more you write that we are correct in our view of your post

Be all of that as it may, we would like to see you go the extra mile so to speak on a few occasions yourself. We have often gone the extra mile and we will do it often as possible. But in this case it is a matter of holding to a principle. WE have not said we will use the word “we” in this debate we have simply said that we reserve the right to do so if we deem it appropriate. But you and others want us to promise to “refrain” from doing so and we will not do that and it is our right not to. WE do not believe Christians should make promises that they do not believe they can or will keep. Therefore we refuse to make any such promise. And we are seeking fair treatment in this debate. We do not see anyone calling for Brother Umstetter to refrain from using any words. He is free to speak in any way those he sees fit and we insist upon having the same freedom. If we are to be restricted in any way then the same restriction should apply to our opponent as well. This is not unreasonable.

And you complain that we are “holding so tightly to something as trivial as the wording being used”. Ha! You do not seem to be treating this matter as a “trivial” one. If it is so “trivial” then why do you not just drop the matter and accept the fact that we should be allowed to be free to use any of the words in the English language as we see fit as is our opponent. And I might add just here that it was not E. Lee Saffold that had any concern about what you consider such a “trivial” matter. It was you, Brother Umstetter and a few others. If you really believed that it was so “trivial” then why did you make an issue of it and why do you continue to argue about it? Why don’t you set the example of how one should “go the extra mile” by dropping this pathetically trivial matter? The reason is that you do not really believe it is so trivial, now do you?

Then you say:

“ I see that in his life, and truly believe he would do the same thing here.”

Here you claim to know what Christ would do in this matter. We do not know what he would do and neither do you. But we have as many good reasons to believe that he would probably ignore all of your comments and complaints and simply discuss the matter using whatever words He deemed appropriate without caring whether you particularly liked them or not. In fact, I can just see you trying to tell Jesus what words he should be using! Ha! It would not be out of Character for those who care very little about what he says in the first place, now would it?

Then you say:

“Of course, I personally don't believe he would immerse himself in a debate on the issue of instruments in NT worship, etc.”

You seem, just here to be on the wrong page. We are not discussing instrumental music in this debate. We are discussing the authority of Christ and our need for authority from Him for all that we do in our service and worship to him. And he had much to say about His authority and he would without doubt discuss the matter. We do not know if he would “immerse himself” in any discussion. But we are commanded to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) and when one does this he will often be called upon to “immerse himself " in many discussions that Christ never was called upon to engage. And we are doing just as Christ Commanded us to do by engaging this debate of the subject of the authority of Christ.

Then you say:

“ But that, of course, is another story all together.”

Indeed it is and one wonders why you brought it up in the first place. Is it your purpose to keep us as distracted as possible before the debate even begins? It seems that way with your preoccupation with such “trivial” matters as whether we will refrain from using the simple English word “we” in the debate. Ha! You often meet yourself coming back, don’t you? And this would not be so bad if you could at least recognize yourself when you do so.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Brothers and Sisters;

I have prayed about this debate. Due to many concerns, many responses I have received and many other posts I have read, I am withdrawing from the debate.

First and foremost, I apologize and ask forgiveness to any that may feel I have let them down.

Second, my reasoning for this is as follows

1 – I don’t feel right about this. Within me, my spirit is not right about this debate. There is too much animosity and controversy. 2 – I shared with my wife(whose opinion I value), comments made by my opponent and she says it is not a worthwhile endeavor to debate with this man 3 – There are many things about E. Lee that I do not understand. I think I wanted the debate just to have someone stand up to him, but that is a wrong purpose 4 – Much reasoning for the non position is already given by Kevin Walker – I don’t think E. Lee could give much more substance and be as concise in presentation. 5 – No minds will change – our beliefs are too set – so what good is it. Titus 3:9 says: But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. I am inclined to accept that this is unprofitable and useless because as I see it is a foolish controversy. 6 – E. Lee has posted much, and one thing I see, he has never accepted that he is wrong in attitude or even hinted that he might be. I know he will accuse me of the same – but he has never acknowledged that maybe he could try to make some adjustments or be conciliatory in any way – but no he likes his way, so willing to let others know they are wrong. (By the way E. Lee, we have been writing longer posts lately. So we have tried your way, and we find it doesn’t suit us.) I want to stick to the issues but I know E. Lee’s style of writing often goes to the person. I just don’t need that. 7 – I appeal to the scriptures that no one can prove that either side, has a specific thus saith the Lord. It is not in the NT.

Here is an example of why I believe it is not best to debate with E. Lee: This is from one of his posts. He quotes me then answers. Then he says: “The New Testament does not forbid the use of instruments” We will affirm that it does if Brother Umstetter will deny it in a formal debate. If Brother Umstetter would like to state the New Testament authorizes instrumental music in the worship of God as a proposition and affirms it in a formal debate we would be more than willing to deny it. If it is a fact where is the proof of it? Are we to believe it just because brother Umstetter says it is a FACT? This is not enough for us we would like to see him prove it to be the truth

As you can see, I did not say the NT authorizes instrument use and if I say the NT does not forbid, the proof is that E. Lee must show a scripture that says, Thus saith the Lord, no musical instruments or something to that effect. But the scriptures do not say it. So I cannot argue with this kind of logic. It is a non-sequitor.

Finally, I hope you can give me grace in this decision.

Thank you, Bill Umstetter

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Wise decision Bill! It would have been a total waste of your time and effort.

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Sorry to see it, Bill, but I agree, it would have been a waste of your time. As you can see from some of the more recent posts above, your observation's re: Brother Lee are correct.

You might have a better chance of having a decent debate with Kevin ... might be worth a shot. I believe you would find his discussion to be more Christlike in nature, and the two of you might even see something come of such a debate. Who knows.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Darrell and all;

I agree with you about Kevin's spirit and attitude. He is informed and intelligent but most of all does have a Christlike spirit in his posts. He would be an excellent person to discuss things with.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Brethren:

As we can see Brother Umstetter has withdrawn from the debate. Others believe it was “wise” for him to do so. We do regretfully accept his withdrawal and we maintain our respect for him regardless. For no one is expected to pursue a course that they have determined within themselves to be a “foolish” one. But we remain committed to our acceptance of Sister Muse’s proposal and stand ready to make it a reality at any time. We express our Christian love for Brother Umstetter and admire the fact that he was at least willing to seriously consider debating this subject in honor of Sister Muse’s request. And we admire his affection for the things that he sincerely believes to be the truth that motivated him to “foolishly jump" into a debate that he really did not want to do. And we also admire his courage in turning from his “foolish” impetuous action. For engaging in a debate for no better reason then the fact that you are emotionally moved by a desire to see some one “stand up” to the opponent is indeed a “foolish” reason to enter a debate of a serious and important topic. And therefore we agree that he is wise to abandon his foolish action. Though we do believe that it is unjust for him to BLAME us for his decision to withdraw. Assigning blame to others for your own admittedly foolish actions is far from a Christian thing to do. WE regret that he found it convenient to stoop to such a low level for we held him in much higher esteem than he imagined. WE therefore continue to pray that God will help our readers to see the truth on this subject through their study of God’s word. And we will continue to teach those who have approached us via email concerning this subject. WE will show them conclusively that the scriptural truths concerning the reasons for the need for authority from Christ for all that we do in the service and worship of Him. For Christ our Lord is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and he has been given all authority in heaven and on earth.

But we will now notice a few things that we believe is essential for us to give a response concerning.

Brother Umstetter has offered the following “example” of why he believes it is not “wise to debate with E. Lee” as follows:

“Here is an example of why I believe it is not best to debate with E. Lee: This is from one of his posts. He quotes me then answers.”

Then he quotes our words accurately as follows:

“ Then he says: “The New Testament does not forbid the use of instruments” We will affirm that it does if Brother Umstetter will deny it in a formal debate.”

Now notice just here that we did not ask Brother Umstetter to affirm a negative. We did not ask him to affirm that The New Testament does not forbid the use of instruments. Instead we stated that we would affirm that the New Testament does forbid the use of instruments and he would have the responsibility to deny it.

Then he continues to quote our words accurately as follows:

“If Brother Umstetter would like to state the New Testament authorizes instrumental music in the worship of God as a proposition and affirms it in a formal debate we would be more than willing to deny it.”

Now notice just here that we did not require this of Brother Umstetter we simply left him with that option should he chose to do so. And we suggested this because we believed that it was perfectly reasonable that both parties to a debate should share the burden of proof on any question. There is a positive way to affirm the above negative. For example one could easily state that “the scriptures teach that Christians are allowed to do anything, including the use of instruments in the worship, that God has not specifically forbidden Christians to do.” Now that would be a positive affirmation that clearly states Brother Umstetter’s position. But in our above statement we were leaving room for the possibility that Brother Umstetter might have wanted to argue that instruments were, in this way allowed.

And he continued to quote us as follows:

“ If it is a fact where is the proof of it? Are we to believe it just because brother Umstetter says it is a FACT? This is not enough for us we would like to see him prove it to be the truth”

With these words we called upon him to prove his assertions, all of them not merely the one that he claimed he would not affirm, by affirming a positive proposition clearly stating what he believed to be true.

Then he says in response to our words:

“As you can see, I did not say the NT authorizes instrument use and if I say the NT does not forbid, the proof is that E. Lee must show a scripture that says, Thus saith the Lord, no musical instruments or something to that effect.”

And you can also see that we did not claim that Brother Umstetter did say that the New Testament authorizes instrumental music. For we are aware that both he and I agree entirely that God has NEVER authorized the use of instruments of music in the worship of the Church of Christ. But we did say “IF” he wanted to affirm such we would deny it. We left the possibility open that he might not agree with us on this matter after all. We did not want to merely assume that he agreed with us because we could have misunderstood his position. For some have argued such in this forum in the past and we left room for the possibility that Brother Umstetter might change his mind and desire to go in that direction. But we did not require him to affirm anything that he does not believe. For that reason we used the word “IF” by which we left the ball in his court. We are happy that he ADMITS that God does NOT AUTHORIZE the use of instruments of music in the worship. Which simply means that he believes that we are allowed to do anything we want to do in the worship whether God authorizes us to do it or not. And this leads us to the fact that the debate that brother Umstetter agreed to engage us in was a debate upon whether or not we NEED authorization from God for all that we do in the service and worship of God. And so this debate was not about instrumental music but rather about the issue of the need for authorization for all that we do in the service and worship of God (Co. 3:17). And in this discussion it is possible and necessary in a formal, fair and equitable debate that both parties AFFIRM positively their position and also deny the position affirmed by their opponents. And we would have rightly expected Brother Umstetter to share the burden of proof. Let me illustrate what I mean:

Brother Umstetter could have positively affirmed something like, “resolved that the scriptures teach that Christians as at liberty to do anything in the service and worship of God that God has not specifically forbidden in the worship”. And we would have denied it.

And we could have affirmed something like, “Resolved that the scriptures teach that Christians must have scriptural authority from God for all that they do in the service and worship of God in the Church of Christ.” And Brother Umstetter could have denied it.

In this way there would have been an equal sharing of the burden of prove for both positions. But instead Brother Umstetter is upset that we would expect him to share the burden of proof in this way. We would not expect him to affirm that our position is wrong and offer proof of it. We would have expected him to allow us to affirm our position and then deny the truthfulness of our arguments. And we would not seek to affirm that his position was wrong but rather we would have expected him to affirm his position and take up the burden of proof to sustain it and we would deny it. We expected both of us to affirm positively our position and the both of us to deny the position of the other. For this is the only way to have a fair and equitable debate where people can hear the arguments which both sides use to support their affirmations and the response from the opposing side to them. It is right and good to do this and no one can prove that it would have been a “waste of time” to engage in such activity.

Then he says:

“ But the scriptures do not say it. So I cannot argue with this kind of logic.”

The scriptures indeed do not authorize the use of instruments in the worship but this debate was about the issue of authority, not instrumental music. The idea of having this particular debate was to rightly discuss the issue of authority before discussing anything like instrumental music or dancing in the worship etc. because until this matter is resolved all other issues cannot be settled. For our objection to instrumental music and Dancing is based upon the more important principle of the authority of Christ as the head of the Church. For we are convinced that Christians must have authority from Christ for all that we do in the worship and service of God in the church of Christ of which He is the HEAD. So, we are sure that Brother Umstetter could not argue that we do not need authority from Christ for all that we do. For to do so would put him in the impossible position of “affirming a negative” which no one can do. And we did not expect him to do such in this debate. But it is possible for Brother Umstetter to have affirmed the positive of his position which would have been something like “Christians are at liberty to do anything in the service and worship of Christ that God has not specifically forbidden.” And we would expect him, rightly, to have made and defended such an affirmation for it is indeed what he believes to be the truth.

The scriptures indeed do not support Brother Umstetter’s position, which appeared to be that Christians are allowed to do anything in the service and worship of God that God has not specifically forbidden in the scriptures. And it is indeed impossible for him to show scriptural support for such a position. But we were willing to give him the opportunity to do it by affirming his position positively stated as we have shown above and we would deny it.

Then he says:

“ It is a non-sequitor.”

Not if he stated his position positively as we have shown above. Which he could have done if he really believed that he could defend such a position.

Then he says:

“Finally, I hope you can give me grace in this decision.”

Brother Umstetter we are respectful of your decision and can understand it. But we would be more gracious if you would have been more gracious in stating your reasons for withdrawing. You withdraw not upon the grounds that you sincerely believe it to be a waste of time but rather because you do not like the manner or style of E. Lee Saffold’s writing. It seems to me that you could have been more gracious with your opponent when choosing to withdraw from a debate that you originally and boldly claimed that you would engage him. And just think of all of that time that you wasted pretending that you would participate in this debate. If you were truly concerned about wasting time you would not have done such a thing.

And we know that everyone in this forum would be willing to debate this issue with E. Lee Saffold if he would simply to agree to not insist upon fairness and discuss the matter in such a way that gives the opposing side EVERY ADVANTAGE. For they would like nothing more than to have the opportunity to come at E. Lee Saffold from all sides with no clearly stated propositions and varied arguments based upon completely opposing and contradictory propositions. Especially if none of them are required to defend and sustain such positions. And they would love to be asking hundreds of questions while answering NONE. They would enjoy pressing their arguments while completely ignoring all that E. Lee would say in response. Now these activities they do not consider to be a “waste of their time”. They consider this type of activities a very profitable use of their time. For this way they can ignore e the truth and delude themselves into believing that they have sufficiently established their position as being true without ever having to subject their arguments to close and undistracted scrutiny that a fair and equitable debate would require.

So, it is not that these men believe it is a waste of time to debate E. Lee Saffold but rather that it is a waste of time to debate him in a format that is fair and equitable and allows their arguments to be fairly and reasonably examined. Now that is a waste of time for them. And we agree. For it is indeed a waste of time for these men to attempt to prove their position in a fair and honorable debate for they know as well as we do that such is impossible for them to do. So, while we graciously accept the fact that Brother Umstetter does not want to pursue this debate which was requested by Sister D. Lee Muse, one who happens to agree with him. We do not accept the false notion that the only reason that he does not want to pursue such is because he does not like E. Lee Saffold’s manner and style of writing. For he already knew of our manner and style of writing when he initially agreed to debate us. And if that were his reason for withdrawing from the debate it would have been a reason that would have prevented him from agreeing to it in the first place. For the words of which he complains from us were ALL written before he agreed to debate this matter with us?

Yes, indeed, our readers can see the true reasons why Brother Umstetter and others have NOW decided that it is not “wise” to engage in a debate of this subject. For it is indeed “wise” of them not to debate in a fair and equitable format a position that one CANNOT by any means prove to be in harmony with the truth of God’s eternal word.

Sister Muse, we have honored your request to debate this subject and we will continue to honor it. But our Brethren who hold to the position that you sought to have examined just are not willing to debate the mater with us, now are they? And we ask you just what you think we can do about their unwillingness to engage us concerning this matter? We love and respect you and are praying daily for you. And we have done our best to honor your request. And we remain willing to do so. But in order for such a debate to take place you will have to somehow persuade those of our Brethren on the opposing side of this matter to take the next step. For now, as Brother Umstetter put it “the ball is in their court”.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

E. Lee, you wrote:

Brother Umstetter could have positively affirmed something like, “resolved that the scriptures teach that Christians as at liberty to do anything in the service and worship of God that God has not specifically forbidden in the worship”. And we would have denied it.

Well, DUH! I would have denied it to! God has not specifically forbidden strip tease in a worship service. Doe that mean He permits it? Sheesh! Sounds like you want Bill to set up a straw man so you can knock it down.

E. Lee also wrote:

And we could have affirmed something like, “Resolved that the scriptures teach that Christians must have scriptural authority from God for all that they do in the service and worship of God in the Church of Christ.

Oh really? I must have Scriptural authority, not only for what I do in worship, but also in service.... Sounds like God micro- managing me. I would need extra special revelation on a daily basis. Hmmmmm... I want to serve Christ by joining a health club where I can meet new evangelistic contacts... but I have no Scriptural authority... Nix that idea... In fact, even if God spoke to me audibly and told me to do it.... it would not be Scriptural....

Accapella brethren silence on my "two-sentence" only thread is quite revealing.... Can they tell me, in 2 sentences or less, where in the NT instrumental music in worship is forbidden? Apparently not. Instead they would rather take two pages to describe a concept of the prohibition of silence.... All I am asking for is one verse.... Gee, maybe there are manuscripts out there that have the REAL version of Acts 2:38, "Repent, be baptized, and refrain from instrumental music in your worship, and you shall receive the forgiveness of your sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit"

One more note... can anyone out there confirm or deny the historical beginnings of ANTI-instrument hysteria mentioned earlier to have begun during the Civil War--the defeated and financially devastated Christian slave owners suffering from a bad case of pianist envy. That makes more sense than the silly sophistry I have heard so far.

No offence to my brother E. Lee, whom I still love and respect... I do take some comfort in the knowledge that when we all get to heaven, we will look back on our debates and smile together.... I'll then pick up my guitar, E. Lee will grab a banjo, and we'll be jammin for Jesus. Now that's Scriptural.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Duane,

You said: "Accapella brethren silence on my "two-sentence" only thread is quite revealing.... Can they tell me, in 2 sentences or less, where in the NT instrumental music in worship is forbidden? Apparently not."

My Reply: Please show me in your Bible where it states in the New Testament that instrumental music is authorized. I can't seem to find it in mine, and I was hoping that you could find it in yours. The notion that you can do anything in worship unless it is expressly forbidden, causes all kinds of departures from the word of God. Have we been forbidden to use hamburgers on the Lord's table? No, but we have been told what to use, and it would be profaning the Lord's Supper for us to add anything else. In the same way, musical instruments profane worship. It is something God has not commanded.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

So this is what it comes down to--Silence forbids vs Silence permits. Either can be made to look silly by its opponent; where does that leave us?

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Again, from Duane's short post thread:

"Inference to use instruments in worship: Ephesians 5:19 & Colossians 3:16. My translation uses the word "psalms" from the word psalmos. Not being a greek scholar, I consulted Vines:

"PSALMOS primarily denoted a striking or twitching with the fingers (on musical strings); then, a sacred song, sung to musical accompaniment, a psalm.

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

While I won't go so far as to say this is a command, it is certainly an inference. It comes from God, not man.

Unless someone is going to dredge up the tired old argument that the word DOESN'T mean to pluck (or, as the Kentucky version says, pick at that old guitar :) ) then we certainly DO have at least an inference to using instruments (specifically plucked instruments) in our worship to God.

Now, maybe this would be a prohibition against pianos, drums, trumpets, tamborines, etc., since they are not plucked to make music. :)

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

You say: Silence forbids.
I say: So silence forbids microphones?

I say: Silence permits.
You say: So silence permits hamburgers?

One thing we agree on: God is silent.

So, from here on out, I will do the same.
I will speak where the Bible speaks (like Acts 2:38)
I will be silent where the Bible is silent (forbidding instrumental worship)
If someone wants to refrain from the piano, I will not judge them as hell-bound Pharisees. They can take their chances. I will be silent.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

This is what the Bible says:

1. Jesus said: "the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day." (John 12:48)

2. "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man's all." (Ecclesiastes 12:13)

3. "This is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, that as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in it." (2 John 6)

Who are we to add to God's Word? Do we suppose that we are better than God? We would all do well to remember these words: "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;" (Philippians 2:12)

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

AMEN!!!

We agree....let's keep His commandments...That makes sense!

And, as Kevin so eloquently says, "Who are we to add to God's Word?"

This should be a stern warning to those who have added "thou shalt not" commmandments to the New Testament.

Thank you Kevin, for making it simple and easy to understand.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Smooth, Duane ... real smooth! :)

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

It is explicitly stated:

1) Do not go beyond what is written,

2) It is the word that Christ spoke that will judge us in the last day.

3) The dead are going to be judged by what is written. If this is the case, and inspiration says it is, then we should never concern ourselves with that which is not written.

We can all agree that Jesus wrote "on the ground" (John 8:6). However, we cannot agree on what he wrote on the ground for the simple reason that the Bible is silent concerning it. Therefore, let us stay with that which we can agree on, that which is written. Jesus used, "It is written" three times to defeat Satan (Matt. 4:4,7,10) and asks in Luke 10:26, "What is your reading of it?" Paul tells us in 1 Timothy 4:16 to, "Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine, Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those that hear you."

Doctrine is a "big deal" if you want to go to heaven someday. We are admonished to find out what is acceptable to the Lord (Eph. 5:10). The above scriptures prove this to be true. If you have been taught any other doctrine (2 John 10) then you have been deceived (Rom. 16:17-18). Unless the Lord teaches it, they labor in vain who practice it. "If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing..." (1 Tim. 6:3,4). Let's take the guess work out and let us take Peter's advice and speak where the Bible speaks and keep our mouths shut where the Bible is silent (1 Peter 4:11). Only by following this God given rule (Deut. 12:32) can one be speaking "the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15).

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Brethren:

Brother Duane has accurately quoted my words as follows:

“Brother Umstetter could have positively affirmed something like, “resolved that the scriptures teach that Christians as at liberty to do anything in the service and worship of God that God has not specifically forbidden in the worship”. And we would have denied it.”

To which he replies:

“Well, DUH! I would have denied it to! God has not specifically forbidden strip tease in a worship service. Doe that mean He permits it? Sheesh! Sounds like you want Bill to set up a straw man so you can knock it down.”

Well, Brother Duane, we are happy that you would also deny the above stated proposition. But, it does accurately state what you and brother Umstetter believe, doesn’t it. You say, in your own words, “silence permits” don’t you? So, according to you God’s silence about “strippers in the worship” would permit it. If not why not? Do tell us for it would be interesting to hear your answer. And if you really believe this is a “straw man” then why not word your position in a positive affirmation that you are willing to defend and we can debate the issue. For the issue we were trying to discuss here was the issue of whether or not we must have authority from God for all that we do in the service and worship of God. Brother Umstetter was trying to avoid stating his proposition that he would affirm in a positive way that he would assume the burden to prove. So, we tried to give some possible way that it could have been stated so that he would take up the burden to prove his position just as we would state our proposition and do the same. So, if you would change the wording to say that “”resolved that the scriptures teach that Christians are at liberty to do some things in the worship and service of God which God has not specifically forbidden” then fine. Or if you would have worded it some other way, fine. But we were simply illustrating that it is possible that your position can be stated in a positive affirmation, which would allow you to assume the burden of proving it, and we would deny it. And the same was true of our position. I was not saying that the way that I worded it was something that I expected Brother Umstetter to actually accept. Simply stating that there is a way for him to positively state his position and defend it. That is the reason that I used the words “something like” by which I meant to indicate that my following words were nothing more than an illustration of how a proposition can be turned into an affirmative affirmation.

And your attempt to make it appear that we were actually wording the proposition as we would prefer that Brother Umstetter word it is unreasonable for we never said any such thing.

Then Brother Duane says accurately:

“E. Lee also wrote:

And we could have affirmed something like, “Resolved that the scriptures teach that Christians must have scriptural authority from God for all that they do in the service and worship of God in the Church of Christ.”

To which he responds:

“Oh really?”

Yes really.

Then he says:

“ I must have Scriptural authority, not only for what I do in worship, but also in service.... Sounds like God micro- managing me.”

Yes you must regardless of how it “sounds” to you. That is what we are willing to affirm if you are willing to deny it that is fine. The offer to debate the matter is still open.

Then he says:

“ I would need extra special revelation on a daily basis.”

No, not at all, you might have to read your Bible daily and “know the will of God as you are commanded to do (Eph. 5;18) but you would not need any more revelation than you now have in the word of God.

Then he says:

“ Hmmmmm...”

We hope that means you are “thinking”.

Then he says:

“I want to serve Christ by joining a health club where I can meet new evangelistic contacts... but I have no Scriptural authority... Nix that idea...”

Who said that you do not have scriptural authority for such? If you would like to take up this debate and ask such questions in it we will be happy to show you the scriptural authority for such things.

Then you say:

“ In fact, even if God spoke to me audibly and told me to do it.... it would not be Scriptural....”

If God told you to do it would most certainly be something that you would have authority from Him to do, now wouldn’t it?

Then you say:

“Accapella brethren silence on my "two-sentence" only thread is quite revealing....”

Not half as revealing as is your “two sentence” restrictive thread. For you see it is clear that you are not willing to debate the issue in a fair manner without restrictions on person’s ability to explain. We have not responded to argue the issue in any format, two sentence or otherwise because we have insisted upon a formal debate of the matter. If we wanted to debate the issue outside of a formal debate we would respond to any format that you provide whether two sentence or otherwise. And our absence from your two sentence restrictive thread is no less revealing than your absence from a formal debate of the issue, now is it? But we have not said that because you refuse to debate the matter formally in this forum, as Sister Muse requested. That one can conclude from such that you do not have the ability to defend your position on this matter as you like to imply concerning our unwillingness to join in your two sentence thread discussion of the subject, now have we? The reason we haven’t is because we know that such is not the case or the truth. And you also know that our absence from your two-sentence thread is no evidence that we cannot defend our position. If you would like to bring your questions in that two sentence thread into the formal debate of this matter we will be happy to answer them for you. And who knows we might even agree to give you a two-sentence answer. But we will do so in a formal debate with clear propositions stated and bo0th sides assuming equal responsibility in regard to the burden of proof. This is fair and reasonable and we wonder why you must avoid such a debate?

Then you say:

“Can they tell me, in 2 sentences or less, where in the NT instrumental music in worship is forbidden?”

The debate between Brother Umstetter and myself was about “AUTHORITY” and not instrumental music, Brother Duane. But if you wish to debate instrumental music we can do that also if you will agree to a formal debate of the matter. And if you do that we will promise to give you a two-sentence answer to your question stated above.

Then you say:

“ Apparently not.”

Just because we do not accept your restrictions of the two-sentence thread does not mean that we cannot give you a two-sentence answer. We can do so. And as we have stated if you will agree to a formal debate we will provide you with a two-sentence answer just to demonstrate that we could do it. And just because you do not agree to a formal debate is no proof that you cannot defend your position in such a format but we could level the same charge at you about that now couldn’t we. But what if the truth concerning this matter took three sentences instead of two. Are you saying that our readers should reject anything as untrue that cannot be stated and proven in two sentences? We sincerely hope you are not that ignorant.

Then you say:

“ Instead they would rather take two pages to describe a concept of the prohibition of silence....”

No one is requiring two pages to describe anything. We are seeking a formal debate of the matter as we promised we would do. We will answer your questions in such a format. WE have said nothing about how much space the truth should occupy.

Then you say:

“ All I am asking for is one verse....”

Good then agree to debate the subject so that we can make similar demands of you and debate the subject in a fair and equitable manner and we will give you more than one scripture. So, what do you say are you willing to formally debate the issue or are you still avoiding that? All of these arguments and statements that you are making could have already been made in a formal debate and we could have given you the answers you sought by now. But we want a formal debate because we also have some questions for you to answer and we will not restrict or limit your space to answer them at all. For outside of a formal debate it is easy for you to ignore our questions and for others to interrupt and interfere with the line of argument and though that is going on between us. So, if you are willing to debate the issue formally we will be happy to not only answer you questions but ask you to answer so with the expectation that you would be required to respond. Now, in your case we believe that you would respond to us even without a debate but we want to ensure fairness and prevent the interference of comments not related to our discussion. So, we can answer these things easily and if you would like to see whether we can or not all you need do is agree to debate the matter and find out.

Then you say:

“ Gee, maybe there are manuscripts out there that have the REAL version of Acts 2:38, "Repent, be baptized, and refrain from instrumental music in your worship, and you shall receive the forgiveness of your sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit"”

Now, Brother Duane, are you trying to be pretend to be stupid? We know that you are not as ignorant and stupid as this comment makes you appear. Acts 2:38 is not discussing these matters. If you are interested in the scriptures we would use to answer your questions agree to debate the subject under fair and equitable conditions of a formal debate and we will demonstrate that we can give scriptures that support what we are convinced is the truth of God’s word.

Then you say:

“One more note... can anyone out there confirm or deny the historical beginnings of ANTI-instrument hysteria mentioned earlier to have begun during the Civil War--the defeated and financially devastated Christian slave owners suffering from a bad case of pianist envy.”

This is a side issue and not important to the subject at hand. We are willing to debate the issue with you or anyone else concerning what the word of God teaches. The “history” of how men either followed or failed to follow the word of God and their historical reasons for their actions during and after the civil war is nothing more than a “smoke screen” designed to avoid the real issue between us. The issue is what God’s word teaches concerning the matter and we know that God’s word does not tell us much about the civil war or the attitudes of “slave owners during that time.

And we remind you that this thread was started not to discuss the instrument issue but instead to discuss the issue of authority. And you keep jumping from one to the other. We suggest that we debate the authority issue first and then take up the instrument issue as Sister Muse suggested.

Then you say:

“That makes more sense than the silly sophistry I have heard so far.”

You have not heard anything from us concerning either of these two issues because as we have consistently maintained we will debate and discuss these issues in a formal debate and no other way. But it is as clear as the nose on our readers face that none of you are willing to engage in such activity. And we think that there is some possibility that you are deliberately avoiding a fair and equitable debate of this issue for fear that we just might give you the answers that you pretend that we cannot give.

Then you say:

“No offence to my brother E. Lee, whom I still love and respect...”

We appreciate your love and respect, Brother Duane. And we are confident that you know that we love and respect you very much and have often said that we hold you in high esteem and nothing will change that even if you deliberately sought intentionally to “offend” us every day in this forum. We know you are a good man and we consider you one who loves the truth. But we are not agreed about these issues. And we have been asking others to agree to debate them formally with us so that we can be assured that a FAIR and reasonable discussion can be had in the presence of our readers concerning these subjects that are clearly very important to all of us on both sides. Is that such an unreasonable request? We think not.

Then you say:

“ I do take some comfort in the knowledge that when we all get to heaven, we will look back on our debates and smile together.... I'll then pick up my guitar, E. Lee will grab a banjo, and we'll be jammin for Jesus. Now that's Scriptural.”

Well, Brother Duane we hope for nothing more than we hope to se you and your faithful wife in heaven. Oh what a wonderful day that will be to be together in the presence of Christ our Lord, our KING, and our MASTER who now has all AUTHORITY in heaven and one earth. And we are certain that you have absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE that a guitar and a banjo will be there for you and I to play. And you have no evidence that we will on that day be “Jamin’ for Jesus” as you facetiously put it. And we have no knowledge that it will not be there. But we do know and are willing to prove in a formal debate that God does not authorize the use of any mechanical instrument, including a guitar and a banjo, in the worship of the church of Christ. And if you wish to engage us in a formal debate of the subject we are still here and willing to participate in a FAIR and equitable discussion of the matter. And you are welcome to imagine that we will all be laughing in heaven about our debates in this forum. We hope that you are right but you have no KNOWLEDGE that such will occur in heaven some day.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Kevin wrote:

This is what the Bible says:

1. Jesus said: "the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day." (John 12:48)

Therefore, since Jesus spoke not a word regarding musical instruments - either way - we can confidently say that we will not be judged by Him on this issue in the last day - either way.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

John,

You said: "Therefore, since Jesus spoke not a word regarding musical instruments - either way - we can confidently say that we will not be judged by Him on this issue in the last day - either way."

Since you can "confidently" say that we will not be judged on this issue, If Jesus were to ask you the following question on judgment day: "Why have you added to my word and played a musical instrument in worship when I have not commanded it?"

What would your answer be?

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

If Jesus were to ask you the following question on judgment day: "Why have you added to my word and forbidden a musical instrument in worship when I have not forbidden it?"

What would your answer be?

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Duane,

You said: If Jesus were to ask you the following question on judgment day: "Why have you added to my word and forbidden a musical instrument in worship when I have not forbidden it?" What would your answer be?

My Reply: I will say that I am an unprofitable servant and have done what was my duty to do. (Luke 17:10)

If Jesus were to ask you the following question "But why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord' and not do the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46)

What would your answer be?

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

I think I can speak for Duane and most of the others in this forum when I say we do indeed both call Him Lord and do the things which He said. But it is a far cry from "not do[ing] the things which I say" to "doing the things which I do not say."

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

I would say, "Lord, when did I NOT do what you said? I heard, believed, repented, confessed, was baptized...I went therefore into all the world....I assembled with the saints....I gathered around your table...I confessed my sins and by faith am assured that you are faithful and just to forgive me of my sins..."

and He will say, "You are right, Duane, just testing...welcome, thou good and faithful servant."

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Amen, Duane.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

GMTA

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

GMTA?

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

We made those last posts simultaneously and independently...Great Minds Think Alike.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Ahhhhhhh! (Light bulb going on! ... um, can we use light bulbs? )

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Let's see....

If Great Minds Think Alike... then the opposite must be true: Not So Great Minds Don't Think Alike (NSGMDTA). And.... if one of you was thinking GMTA and the other didn't know what it meant... you guys must have.... Not So Great Minds! :-) You think?? :-)

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

I don't understand a reason for a debate. The New Testament clearly, by definition of the word "psalms" authorizes and endorses the use of musical instruments in worship. Psalms: To sing with the accompiniment of musical instruments.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Bob,

The issue I asked sometime ago to be debated is the authorization issue. Must we have authorization from God for all we do in the worship? This debate must come before any other debate on an issue that is related to authorization in the worship such as the use or non of instruments.

Besides that, the Church is in disagreement on these issues has been badly divided over it so much so that we cannot even worship together. NOT a good thing!! I asked personally for the authorization debate, and then would like to see the instrumental debate so I could see both sides presented in a logical and orderly fashion. I do not know what will be brought out by both sides, and would like to see it happen in order to make a more informed decision...of course based on scriptural evidence.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

The corollary I've heard to "Great Minds Think Alike" is "Fools Seldom Differ"!

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

D. Lee wrote: Besides that, the Church is in disagreement on these issues has been badly divided over it so much so that we cannot even worship together.

Actually that is inaccurate. A small sect within the church (the anti- instrumentalist legalistic group) has a problem with instruments. The church is not badly divided over this at all! In fact, most have never even heard that it is an issue. And who wants to worship with people that add to the Word of God like the antis anyway? I certainly don't.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001