It has been asserted by me that the doctrine of use of instruments in worship is prohibited by God, was origniated in the 1800's just after the civil war. Due to the poverty of the southern churches, they could not afford an instrument.

My question to you acapella brethren (and E. Lee feel welcome to write what ever you would like), is this: can you document any source from beginning from pre 1860, that any church or any preacher espoused this doctrine of the damnable effects of using instruments in worship. I want to know factually if it can be documented that this doctrine was preached ot held by a specific group of people before 1860.

In dealing with the early church councils and writing of the early church fathers, it has been written that instrumental worship can easily be traced back to the first millenium. Give me a couple of days to substantiate that remark (that means give me a break on this E. Lee so I can have time to make good on my end).

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Answers

Brother Umstetter:

You have asked:

“It has been asserted by me that the doctrine of use of instruments in worship is prohibited by God, was origniated in the 1800's just after the civil war. Due to the poverty of the southern churches, they could not afford an instrument.”

Now this is simply meaningless. For we are not concerned with what might have been some person’s reasons in the 1800’s for not using instruments of music in the worship. They may have been the same as ours, which is that the New Testament does not authorize it and it might have been for them nothing more than lack of funds. We do not know nor care. What is important is what does the NEW TESTAMENT teach! Christians did not use instruments in the worship of God in the church of Christ in the New Testament. And we are interested in WHY that was the case with the Christians who were inspired by the Holy Spirit and were directly guided by Him. We are interested in the fact that those who through inspiration delivered to us the very word of God did not use instruments in their worship and did not instruct anyone else to use them. WE are talking about the doctrine of Christ as taught by the apostles of Christ. The doctrine that all Christians are supposed to “continue in” (Acts 2:42). This question makes your question concerning the uninspired men of subsequent generations pale into insignificance. For at a time when men were being directly and miraculously guided by the Holy Spirit the Church of Christ did not choose to worship God with an instrument of music. And plenty of instruments were readily available and they could afford any number of them. But they did not use them and they were guided by the Holy Spirit and not by the opinions, doctrines and commandments of men. And that is a very significant fact that we are ready for you to take up in a formal debate of this matter.

But the 1800’s mean nothing to us and honestly should have no bearing on this important and significant subject at all. It does appear that this is just another “smoke screen” being used to avoid the real issue as you deliberately avoid a fair and equitable formal debate of the issue in this forum.

Now, it is clear that you have withdrawn from the debate of the authority issue and now you appear to want to debate the instrument issue. If you wish to discuss these matters with us we will be happy to engage in a formal debate of the subject. You stated that your reason for withdrawing from the debate was because it would be a waste of time to debate anything with E. Lee Saffold as follows:

“I am inclined to accept that this is unprofitable and useless because as I see it is a foolish controversy.”

But now that you are not under the constraints of fairness required by a formal debate you suddenly find the discussion worthy of your time. And you do not any longer believe that it is a “foolish controversy” and all of this is less than 24 hours after you abandoned a debate concerning a subject that is somewhat related to this issue.

And you further stated that your reason for withdrawing from the debate was that you did not like our writing style as follows:

“I want to stick to the issues but I know E. Lee’s style of writing often goes to the person.”

And you further said:

“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.”

So, you withdrew from the debate because you did not like our style of writing but now you come in here asking us to answer questions for you. What has changed except the fact that you are now no longer under the requirement of a formal debate to be fair and objective?

And you also said concerning this discussion with us when you were giving your excuses for withdrawing from the debate the following:

“5 – No minds will change – our beliefs are too set – so what good is it.”

But now that you are no longer under the requirement of fairness in a formal debate you suddenly decide that it is worth discussing even though you claimed to believe that no minds would be changed and our beliefs are too set and you wonder what good is it? Ha!

WE are still prepared to debate this issue and the issue of authorization with you if you no longer believe the discussion of the subject is a “waste of time”.

Then you say:

“My question to you acapella brethren (and E. Lee feel welcome to write what ever you would like), is this: can you document any source from beginning from pre 1860, that any church or any preacher espoused this doctrine of the damnable effects of using instruments in worship. I want to know factually if it can be documented that this doctrine was preached ot held by a specific group of people before 1860.”

Now we are no longer simply “brethren” and “fellow Christians” to Brother Umstetter. No, now we are, in his sectarian way of talking, “Accapella Brethren”. He does not even notice that he has denominated us and named us by using a word that means “In the manner of the church”. Singing without instrumental accompaniment was so much know to be the style of the church that Vocal music has been defined by a word that means in the style or manner of the church! He is saying that we are the brethren who worships the way the Apostles and the inspired members of the CHURCH of Christ worshiped when they were being directly guided in their worship by the Holy Spirit. We are worshipping, as did the inspired members of the church worshipped. We are worshipping in the church, as did the apostles. And because of this Brother Umstetter denominates us as “accapella” Brethren and inadvertently accepts the truth that we are doing as did the early Church while simultaneously attempting to make it appear that the early Church use instruments in the worship. And in doing this he has put himself into quite a contradictory situation. So, if he will bring this into a formal debate he would not last long in making such absurd assertions. We are no longer, in his eyes simply brothers in Christ but rather Brothers of a certain “brand” distinguishable by our determination to worship as did the inspired church of Christ we read about in the New Testament. We do not over look how much he has complemented us but we denounce his sectarian and denominational spirit, which is contrary to the truth of the doctrine of Christ. For we are all brothers in Christ and we are not to be “branded” in this way and set apart as some “sect’ as brother Umstetter has done with the use of this language.

Nevertheless, will be happy to suggest that you read the New Testament where God specifically commanded vocal music instead of instrumental music and where you do not find one single case of a Christian using an instrument in worship to God in the church of Christ. And then if you wish to discuss the matter our offer to debate this subject formally still stands.

Then you say:

“In dealing with the early church councils and writing of the early church fathers, it has been written that instrumental worship can easily be traced back to the first millenium. Give me a couple of days to substantiate that remark (that means give me a break on this E. Lee so I can have time to make good on my end).”

You are welcome to bring such documents, if you ever find anything like it, into a formal debate and we will deal with them there. But the truth is you are going to be looking for those things for a very long time. Now you may find those who would like for this to be true and have even imaged that it was. But you are not going to find real documentation of such in any of the writings of the early “church fathers” no matter how much time you have to find them. And we would be happy to examine anything that you wish to bring up in this regard in a formal debate of this subject. But you do not want to allow your arguments to be put forward in a formal debate now do you? You consider a debate to be a waste of your time but you do not consider an informal debate to be a waste of your time. If your contentions are so strong why do you think that they cannot be brought into a formal debate? And if you could really prove from any source that the early Church used instruments believe me you would not have ever forgotten where you found such information. That information if it ever existed and you had ever seen it would be right on the TIP OF YOUR TONGUE at all times! And you would have no fear of bring such information into a formal debate so that we could examine it in a fair, equitable and objective environment.

SO, you have asked us to respond but you are not willing to debate. WE are constantly being called upon to answer your questions of us but you are not willing to allow a formal debate to happen where you will be required to answer some questions yourself. You can ignore us at will in this format but in a debate you would not be allowed to do such.

SO, if you want our answers to these things, and we have plenty of them, you will need to agree to a formal debate in this forum. It is interesting how you run from a formal debate and come back to start an informal one! A debate with E. Lee Saffold is a waste of your time. But asking questions of him outside of a fair and equitable debate you deem to be very much worthy of your time. The legs of the lame are indeed unequal, Brethren.

Brethren:

If Brother Umstetter ever manages to find what he thinks is “genuine documentation” of the use of instrumental music in the worship of the church of Christ in the New Testament times. We would ask him to agree to debate the matter with us formally. Then bring that documentation into a debate for us all to see and examine openly and in a fair and equitable situation wherein both parties can have their say without being interrupted by a lot of “heckling” from the “peanut gallery”! And of course we will give Brother Umstetter a “break on this”. He can take as long as he likes to find such documentation. So, there is your “break” Brother Umstetter. Do not say I never gave you a “break”, OK?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Bill -- you asked for it!

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Hey Everyone,

I'm just about convinced that E. Lee is not a real person but some persona someone here has taken on to fool everyone. This guy cannot be for real! Please -- tell me he's a fictional character!

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Brethren, Brother Davis has said:

“Hey Everyone, I'm just about convinced that E. Lee is not a real person but some persona someone here has taken on to fool everyone. This guy cannot be for real! Please -- tell me he's a fictional character!”

Well, Brethren, what we see with the above ignorant and down right stupid remark from Brother Davis is that he loves delusion. He cannot, and therefore will not engage in a formal debate of any of the issue between us. He wants us to just go away and knows that we are not very likely to do that. So the next best thing he can do is deceive himself into believing that E. Lee Saffold is not “real”. And that he is instead just a “nightmare” that Brother Davis is hoping to wake up from to find that it was all just a silly dream. For then he can then feel better about the fact that he cannot answer any of our arguments on the subject of baptism for the remission of sins and he is afraid to face us in a formal debate on the authorization or even the instrumental issue. So, he is trying to convince himself that we do not really exist. In his own words he has “about” convinced himself that E. Lee Saffold “is not a real person”. And he is therefore asking all of us in this forum to please help him delude himself by confirming his stupid self- delusion. For this reason he BEGS us “PLEASE—tell me the he’s a fictional character”! HA! Such pathetic ignorance has not been seen since the sectarians were allowed to write in this forum. And even they were not so pathetically in search of self-delusion.

WE do hate to inform Brother Davis of the extremely bad news that we have for him. The truth may be that E. Lee Saffold is without doubt a CHARACTER but it is unfortunate for those who seek to delude themselves, as does Brother Davis in his above post, that E. Lee Saffold is not by any means whatsoever a “FICTITIONAL CHARACTER”. He is very much real and prepared to formally debate the authorization issue as well as the instrument issue with anyone in this forum who has the knowledge and courage and time to engage in such a debate. And anyone wanting to find out the truth of whether we are “real”, as Brother Davis puts it, is welcome to meet us on the polemic platform for a formal debate of these issues that have divided the precious body of Christ. It is a shame indeed that none, except the very real E. Lee Saffold, are willing to engage in a formal debate of these matters in this forum. All most want to do is avoid any fair discussion of the issue. And as we see from Brother Davis’ comments above that some want to avoid it so desperately that they must delude themselves into believing that one of their brothers in Christ who opposes their teaching doesn’t really exist or if he does he is not a “real person”.

But he would like so much to believe that E. Lee Saffold is not a real person that he is asking some of you to please help him to believe such nonsense by confirming his suspicions. He wants you to help him strengthen his much-needed self-delusion by begging you to please tell him that E. Lee Saffold is not real. He is now begging, “ Please” let this “pestilent fellow” be nothing more than his worst nightmare! Ha! It is a pathetic situation when one is so desperate to avoid what he knows down deep inside is the truth, isn’t it?

WE have not read any comments in this forum as stupid as this one from Brother Davis in a very long time.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

IT WAS A JOKE, I'M SURE! GOOD GRIEF!

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Barry.....

Please don't make silly responses like that....which only bring out the worst in people.

I assure you...not only is E. Lee a real person....but he is also a person with a great love for the Lord...just like you and me. He and I have talked on the phone a number of times.

It may make it easier for you to simply..."demonize" someone...or "fictionalize" them....but it does nothing to further the discussion.

E. Lee and I will never agree on the instrument issue....but I can still respect his heart that leads him to be guided by the Scriptures only. I feel happier in his company than I do in the camp of those who grasp at "every wind of doctrine."

In other words Barry....stick to the issues....and do not "stick the man."

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Danny,

Don't you have a sense of humor? It was a joke!!! Man, you guys need to lighten up a little bit.

Along these lines though, why is it wrong for me to make a joke, but in several of your posts on this forum you refer to people as "idiots" and other derogatory terms, but that is okay?

IHS, Barry

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Because the person I was dealing with at the time...namely Connie...was an idiot....and I still maintain that. Just take the time to read some of the idiotic things she said....and you'll come to the same conclusion.

At the point you quit dealing with Scripture....and start operating on "emotions"...."your feelings"...etc...etc....I'll probably be inclined to call you an idiot.

But as long as you continue to at least operate from a Scriptural perspective....wrong as I may think it to be....I'll do my best to refrain.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Brethren:

Brother Davis has stated that he was only “joking” when he said the following:

“Hey Everyone, I'm just about convinced that E. Lee is not a real person but some persona someone here has taken on to fool everyone. This guy cannot be for real! Please -- tell me he's a fictional character!”

After being corrected, and justly so, for making such remarks he defended himself and his remarks as well as condemned those who were offended by them for not having a “sense of humor” as follows:

“Don't you have a sense of humor? It was a joke!!! Man, you guys need to lighten up a little bit.”

Now, we wonder just how it is that Brother Davis has designed in his writing to indicate that he is “joking” or serious? It does appear when he says something which appears to be a serious attempt to insult or denigrate and it is treated as such he falls back on the idea that he was “just joking”. And then chides everyone who took him seriously with the admonition to “lighten up”.

So, we deem it important to take a look at just what a “joke” really is and examine Brother Davis’ above quoted remarks to determine just what portion of his words were in fact designed to be humorous. In other words, if it is a joke it should have some kind of “punch line” or sudden twist, which incites the involuntary response toward laughter. And we have searched his above words and have yet to find any such thing that could have been considered “funny” especially by the person who was the intended object and target of this alleged “joke”. What exactly is funny about the idea that E. Lee Saffold is not a real person? Were you moved to laughter by the idea expressed in the above that this “persona” has taken on the task to “fool everyone”. Is deception, especially deliberate deception, humorous to anyone in this thread? And the assertion, “this guy cannot be real” doesn’t strike the object of such a statement with any irresistible urge to laugh. Does it strike you with that feeling? And if it does please tell us WHY it makes you feel the irresistible urge to break into laughter? Could it be that you so despise the object of the joke that such a statement makes you feel like laughing? And if this is true is it not more of an insult to the object than a joke? And do tell us just exactly what is so funny about a real person being thought of as a “fictional character”?

No Brethren, we all know for certain that Brother Davis was not “joking” when he make those remakes but he defended himself for making them by lying to us, didn’t he? He came in here and claimed that he was “joking” when he cannot point to a single thing in his above remarks that could have been considered humorous by any intelligent person who understands what a real joke truly is. If we had made similar remarks concerning him we would have been deluged with admonitions telling us to be more “Christ like” etc. But one thing Christ never did was to make statements that were serious and then hide from responsibility for making them behind the lie that he was really just “joking”.

No, Brethren, Brother Davis was NOT JOKING and there is not a person in this forum, including Brother Davis that can demonstrate anything about his above remarks that were designed by the writer of them to be a “joke”. It may have surely been a “snide remark” or a deliberate “scoff” or an intentional “slight” against the character of the object of those remarks. But there is no reason for any intelligent person to perceive of those words as being a “joke”. In fact, we are convinced that those words did not become a “joke” until it became apparent that they were pathetically stupid and clearly intended to denigrate a brother in Christ. THEN, and only then, did anyone comment about how they were a “joke”. Usually, when something is actually a joke you have others quickly joining in to share in the laughter or add to the joke. But that was not what happened in this case, now is it. The reason was that some were offended by those remarks. Others were satisfied with what they saw as a successful denigration of the person of one E. Lee Saffold whom they despise in common. But none responded to enjoy the laughter created by such a remark because it was not intended to create such a joyful response and was not taken as such by anyone. And then when Brother Davis was justly and accurately rebuked for making such remarks he could only escape by saying it was a “joke”. And those who enjoyed his remarks, until they were exposed for what they truly were, could only join in his defense by claiming that they were a “joke”. But who can prove that those words actually have the true ingredients of a real joke?

Read the following definition of a joke:

“something said or done to provoke laughter; especially : a brief oral narrative with a climactic humorous twist b (1) : the humorous or ridiculous element in something (2) : an instance of jesting :”

No, Brethren, Brother Davis was not “joking” but instead he was seeking to deliberately “demonize”, marginalize” or “fictionalize” the one who is persistently opposing his attempts to teach false doctrine that is contrary to the doctrine of Christ our Lord in this forum. He failed, and now hopes to maintain his own “credibility” by pretending to have been “only joking” after all.

It is certain that Brother Davis’ remarks do not possess the above characteristics of what is commonly called a “joke”. And Brother Davis defense that he was only joking is nothing short of a lie. And that is NO JOKE. WE are certain that our intelligent readers can see the hypocrisy demonstrated by Brother Davis in his remarks and the deception couched in his pathetic attempt to defend them. Beware of such men, Brethren.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 15, 2001

Good grief! The moment I saw his post, I knew he was joking.

-- Anonymous, November 15, 2001

I also took it as "an instance of jesting." Did you have your funny bone amputated, Lee?

-- Anonymous, November 15, 2001

Brethren:

Brother Darrel has said:

“Good grief!”

Is that a “Christian” euphemism for a curse word? For I sincerely do not believe that anyone would think that there is much “good” about “grief” do you?

Then he says:

“ The moment I saw his post, I knew he was joking.”

But he does not answer our questions about this “so called” joke, now does he? WE asked for anyone to explain to us just what there is in this statement of Brother Davis that was humorous and would have been considered humorous by persons on BOTH sides of this issue?

Brother Darrel you say that you “Knew he was joking “ the moment that you first heard it. Well, do tell us just how it was that you KNEW THIS? What exactly was it in his language that made it so abundantly clear to you that it was a joke and not a snide remark intended to slight the person to whom it was directed?

It must be, brethren, that we just do not know the fine art of insulting others and then defending ourselves by saying “it was just a joke”! Ha! Maybe that is what we should say when we are accused of being so unkind and unChristian in our “style of writing”. Maybe we should just lie and say “it was just a joke”! Ha!

No, Brother Davis was not joking, he knows it, you know it, and most important of all God knows it. And the scriptures are clear about what happens to “ALL LIARS”. And Brother Davis has made it abundantly clear with all of this nonsense that he is willing to tell a lie if he must just to defend himself from his ignorant remarks.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 15, 2001

Brethren:

Brother John also says that he thought Brother Davis was joking as follows:

“I also took it as "an instance of jesting." Did you have your funny bone amputated, Lee?”

But he too does not make any attempt to justify his claim or to explain to us just exactly WHY the “took it as an instance of jesting” does he. We asked you Brother John to please tell us just what it was that Brother Davis said that particularly “struck” you as being funny. In fact, tell us just exactly what he said that could have been taken as being funny?

Then he asked us:

“Did you have your funny bone amputated, Lee?”

WE know that we did not have our funny bone amputated Brother John. Because every time we hear something that we know is intended to be a joke and strikes us as funny we cannot resist the urge to laugh. But we did not hear or see anything that was actually intended to be funny in Brother Davis remarks and NEITHER DID YOU. And if you claim that there is really something funny that we all should have been able to see immediately upon reading his ignorant remarks why do you not just explain it to us. Tell us which one’s of his words struck you as FUNNY”. No, Brother John you did not see it as a joke either. You saw it for what it was. It was a deliberate attempt to slight and denigrate a brother in Christ whom you disagree with and you enjoyed seeing it. And that was all that you found pleasure in. But you saw nothing humorous that all in the forum could equally sense. Believe me when I say that if Brother Davis is practicing to be a “stand up comedian he had best not “quit his day job” for if the above is an example of his ability to be humorous. Then we can say that if he had to make a living telling “jokes” he would starve to death.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 15, 2001

There is nothing to be justified. If you can't see the humor, then I'm sorry for you.

re: "good grief" 1. Ever read the Peanuts cartoons? 2. True, it's this foolishness is starting to cause me grief.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

And Lee, it's amazing how you can know just what Barry, John, or I were thinking. Almost miraculous, wouldn't you say!?!?!?!

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Maybe if we added "knock, knock" before our statements we would understand it to be a joke.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Brethren:

Brother Darrel says:

“There is nothing to be justified. If you can't see the humor, then I'm sorry for you. re: "good grief" 1. Ever read the Peanuts cartoons? 2. True, it's this foolishness is starting to cause me grief.”

Notice that Brother Darrel still has not pointed to anything in Brother Davis comments that he can show was in fact humorous and funny. We are expected to believe that it was such without any reason for believing it. We have not asked him to “justify” anything. Instead we have asked him to explain to us just which words in Brother Davis remarks cause him to immediately realize that he was in fact just “joking”. And what have we received in reply to our question? Nothing. That is what we have received. He has simply avoided any attempt whatsoever to show that the Brother Davis comments were a Joke. And he will not likely show us anything either because of the simple fact that there is nothing actually funny about what he said.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Brethren:

Brother Darrel decided to again respond to us while ignoring completely the question that we had asked as follows:

“And Lee, it's amazing how you can know just what Barry, John, or I were thinking. Almost miraculous, wouldn't you say!?!?!?!”

WE have not judged anything concerning the hearts of anyone. But we are told “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh”. And we are examining the words that came from Brother Davis’ “mouth” or his pen and we are searching for anything that could have been taken as being funny or in any way might have been intended as such. We do not see anything in Brother Davis’ remarks that he or anyone else is willing to show was without question intended and written to actually be a “joke” or humorous or funny. And no one will state what words were intended to be funny and defend it as being without doubt humorous.

So, there is nothing “miraculous about this matter just as there is nothing funny about what Brother Davis said. And if his words were not funny then it is reasonable for us to perceive that he did not intend for them to be such.

In fact, his words are not at all the kind that anyone would write who was actually making a serious attempt at humor. It might be a good example of “scorn” or mocking or a snide remark or some kind of deliberate “slight” but humor it definitely was not. And Brother Darrel is deliberately avoiding any attempt to explain to us just what was funny or humorous about Brother Davis’ remarks. Is that because he cannot find anything humorous about them? I think it is.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Brethren:

Brother Davis has said:

“Maybe if we added "knock, knock" before our statements we would understand it to be a joke.”

Now there is no doubt about the fact that if one is intending to make or tell a “joke” he must do or say something that makes it very clear that he is in fact only “joking”. Otherwise he most certainly opens himself up to being taken seriously instead of engendering the laughter that he sought. But when one says nothing that can signal at some point that he is in fact “joking” he is most likely not really “joking”. Or at the very least if he is “joking” he will have failed miserably in achieving his objective. And this is especially the case when one selects a fellow Brother in Christ, with whom he is in constant disagreement, to be the object of and to bear the brunt of his “joke” isn’t it?

So, indeed, if the only signal that Brother Davis is competent to give us to indicate that he is about to, or is in the process of, making another of his feeble attempts at humor is to add “knock, knock” before his statements. Then we highly recommend that he do so. For in his statements about which we have been talking he said not one single word that would signal that he was in fact joking, now did he? And we have asked him, since he is the author of his words, to point out exactly which word in his statement did he write which he intended to be a signal to the rest of us. Especially the brother who was the object of and expected to bear the brunt of his supposed “joke”, that he was in fact actually “joking”. The reason, Brethren, that he cannot find such a word is simply because he was not “joking” as he falsely claims, now isn’t it? Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that we have asked him now three times to show us such words that he intended to serve such a purpose when he wrote them and he has yet to even attempt to do so.

No Brethren brother Davis was not “joking”. Instead he was treating his brother in Christ with “scorn” and ridicule and to those who do not appreciate E. Lee Saffold in this forum took pleasure in how Brother Davis was scornfully ridiculing him and found it to be funny. But they were not laughing because Brother Davis had actually told a “joke”. They were laughing because they took particular pleasure in the ridicule. And all of this is coming from those who are constantly complaining that we should be “more Christ like”. Such hypocrisy is pathetic indeed, Brethren.

Brethren, beware of such men.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

E. Lee said: No Brethren brother Davis was not “joking”. Instead he was treating his brother in Christ with “scorn” and ridicule...

I don't know if you are my brother in Christ or not to be honest with you. You've yet to show a Christ like attitude on this board. In addition, if I understand your position correctly, you deny the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit (please correct me if I'm wrong on this). If a person denies the central tenets of Trinitarian doctrine they are not my brother in Christ, but a heretic.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Brethren:

Notice now what Brother Davis has said as follows:

“I don't know if you are my brother in Christ or not to be honest with you.”

Well, we are please to see that you have finally decided that it is time to come clean and actually be HONEST with us for a change. For so far you have been deliberately lying about having been “joking” in your remarks and you have thus far been pretending that you perceived us as Christians and your Brothers in Christ. SO, it is about time you got around to some measure of HONESTY. For if you consider yourself a Christian HONESTY should have been what you displayed among us all along. But you have not thus far been very honest now have you? And we wonder when you will manage to repent of your dishonesty up to this point?

All we did thus far was to ask Brother Davis to explain to us just what words his initial remarks to us were intended to signal that he was “joking”. And what we get from him is an effort to explain why he was not “joking” after all! Ha!

And he goes further with his self-justification of his obvious and undeniable ridicule of what we thought he believed to be his brother in Christ as follows:

“You've yet to show a Christ like attitude on this board.”

He demonstrates that he has lied about the fact that he was deliberately ridiculing us. And that he has not been honest with us by pretending that he perceived of us as his brothers in Christ. And now he wants to tell us what it means to be “Christ like” and that we have failed to display such an attitude but he does not prove or tell us just HOW we failed to show a Christ like spirit. But we would not think that a liar and a dishonest man would have any idea of what it means to be like Christ.

Notice how he does not deny the ridicule of his brother in Christ. He now denies that the one he ridiculed was a brother in Christ after all. But he does not deny the ridicule, now does he? The reason he doesn’t is because he cannot deny it. It is obvious and apparent, isn’t it? SO, according to this thinking he is convinced that it is at least reasonable to ridicule someone if they prove themselves not to be a brother in Christ. And what proves to Brother Davis that one is not a brother in Christ is if he does not have what is considered, in Brother Davis’ opinion only (not the scriptures), a less than Christ like attitude. This is what makes one not a Christian in his eyes. Now he fails to prove from the scriptures that our attitude in not like the attitude of Christ. And he also over looks the simple fact that even if our attitude was not like Christ such would not make us less than Christian would it? It would instead only make us Christians that need to be corrected etc. Yet he pretends to believe in God’s grace! Ha!

Then he says:

“ In addition, if I understand your position correctly, you deny the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit (please correct me if I'm wrong on this).”

WE do not need your “permission” to correct you when you are wrong. You can rest assured that we will do that as often as possible. For this is exactly what we are supposed to do with those who teach the false doctrines that you teach. And we do not deny the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Christians. Though we do deny that any person is inspired of God today and we believe that the gift of the Holy Spirit was received only by the lying on of the apostles hands and therefore none of us receive such today. WE believe however that the Holy Spirit still works within our hearts through the inspired word of God which was delivered to us by those who did in fact have the very Holy Spirit dwelling within them which was in fact the means of their inspiration. In the New Testament we read of inspired men and those inspired men delivered the inspired word of God and through it the Holy Spirit of God guides us. Now that is a brief statement of what we believe to be true about the matter and we have discussed it several times in this forum. But this is a far cry from saying that we deny that the Holy Spirit is working in us. WE deny that he is literally dwelling in us for none of us have the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit today. Instead we have the miraculously inspired word of God and it is sufficient to furnish the man of God thoroughly unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16). But, if you wish to debate this matter we will be more than happy to engage you in a formal debate of the subject for it is a detailed an intricate subject that cannot be fairly and productively discussed in anything less than some organized fashion.

Nevertheless, even if we were wrong about this particular matter, and we do not think that we are, it would not change the fact that we are Christians. For, if the Holy Spirit does dwell in all Christians then he would have dwelt in us the day that we became Christians and our failure to understand such would not make him just get up and leave us now would it? Now notice how Brother Davis answers this question, Brethren, because we will remind him of his foolish words concerning how much one must understand when he becomes a Christian, won’t we?

The real truth is that Brother Davis is angry that we do not accept his false doctrines. And that we resist his teaching of them. And he was angry with us and decided to ridicule us and we called him on it and then he lied and said he was only joking and we called him on that and now he has decided that we are not even Christians. But his decision is not based upon our understanding of the “indwelling of the Holy Spirit", but rather because of our lack of tolerance for his false doctrines. Anyone that cannot see this is just plain blind.

Then he says:

“ If a person denies the central tenets of Trinitarian doctrine they are not my brother in Christ, but a heretic.”

Now we are not sure just what Brother Davis thinks is the “central tenets of Trinitarian doctrine” really is. The word “trinity" is not in the word of God and we are not sure that what Brother Davis considers the “central tenets" of a doctrine that he has not described to us are found there either. But we do very much believe in the truth of the doctrine of Christ concerning the GODHEAD. WE very much believe that God, the father is God, and Christ the Son is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God and that these three are in fact ONE GOD. There is only one God and there will never be any other before him. In Christ dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead Bodily (Col. 1:18). So, we would like for Brother Davis to show where we have ever even discussed the “central tenets of Trinitarian doctrine” much less where we have ever denied it. For you see we cannot deny that we we have not yet hear asserted, now can we?

And you can be assured of one thing. The idea of a personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit within any person who has not received the gift of the Holy Spirit through the lying on of the apostle’s hands is definitely not any part much less a “central” part of the scriptural doctrine of the Godhead. And we do not know even if it might be (and we doubt that it is) a central tenet of what ever it is that Brother Davis believes to be the doctrine of the trinity. For you see we are following the word of God and not the creeds of men. If you want us to understand something you will have to use language of the scriptures for we do not understand this professional and specialized language of these high minded self styled “Theologians” among us.

But we ask again for Brother Davis to quote anything written by us that would indicate that we have even discussed the doctrine of the trinity much less that we deny its “central tenets”! Ha! Now if you are accusing us of denying the central ideas of the Godhead then we deny it and call for you to prove otherwise.

But even if he did not consider us, to be his Brother in Christ. Is that what he believes justifies his deliberate ridicule and his lies designed to cover up his hypocrisy which was apparent in his ridicule of this one that he has now decided is not his brother in Christ. WE are convinced that he always thought we were not his brothers in Christ because we do not accept his doctrines that are contrary to the truth. And worse than that we are convinced that he does not consider us his brother in Christ because we do not want disobey our Lord in the use of instruments of music in our worship. That is where his real problem lies with us more than anything else does. Now Brethren that is a shame isn’t it? Brother Davis shows his true colors finally. Most liars and deceives do sooner or later, don’t they? If you want to convince Brother Davis that you are not a Christian and therefore not his brother in Christ all you obviously have to do is strongly oppose his false teaching and you can “join the club” of those who have been excluded from Christ and Christianity. Excluded, mind you, not by Christ but by Brother Davis who is ever in rebellion against the truth that is in Christ.

Beware of such men Brethren.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Instead of this thread being an "open question to accapella brethren" it appears instead to have been designed or at the least perverted to become an unjustified "open season" on the faith and character of our Brethren who do not use instruments in the worship, doesn't it?

We do not object to attacks on our arguments, even harsh and brutal ones. But we do object to deliberate lies, retentious joking intended to hide veiled ridicule,deceptions, ridicule and scorn. And we should object to those things, shouldn't we?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

Your Brother in CHrist,

E. Lee SAffold

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2001

[Pss 150:1] Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.

[Pss 150:2] Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.

[Pss 150:3] Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.

[Pss 150:4] Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.

[Pss 150:5] Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.

[Pss 150:6] Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.

**********************

The compromise should be obvious. The "non-acapella" crowd can focus on verses 3, 4 and 5. The "acapella" crowd can focus on verse 6. A blessed Thanksgiving to everyone.

Kindest Regards,

Craig Miller

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

Brother Darrel has said:

“Good grief!”

Brother E. Lee has said:

Is that a “Christian” euphemism for a curse word? For I sincerely do not believe that anyone would think that there is much “good” about “grief” do you?

what about "blessed are they who mourn"

what about rejoicing in our sufferings?

What about grieving for our sins?

Yes, Virginia, there is a good grief.

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

Someone send Lee a tape of Charlie Brown's Christmas :-)

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2001

Brethren:

Brother Duane says:

“Brother Darrel has said: “Good grief!””

Yes he did say that.

Then he accurately quotes my words as follows:

“Brother E. Lee has said: Is that a “Christian” euphemism for a curse word? For I sincerely do not believe that anyone would think that there is much “good” about “grief” do you?”

Yes we did say that and Brother Duane has not shown us yet just how those words were not being used as a “euphemism for a curse word” now has he?

But he does seek to correct us by attempting to convince us that “grief is good” as follows:

“what about "blessed are they who mourn"”

God will bless those that morn but it is the blessing of God that is good, not the morning. Morning is not in itself a “good thing”. People do not go around looking for reasons to “mourn” because it is such a “good thing to do” Christ did not say it is good to mourn. He said God would bless those who mourn. It is good that people can morn over their sins but it is not good that they have sins to mourn about. The next time you see a widow morning the loss of her husband be sure to pass on the idea taught by Duane and not by Christ. WE are just sure that she will be glad to know that her morning is really good. And therefore be sure to encourage her to enjoy it to the full and tell her just how happy and thankful you are that she is morning.

Then he ask:

“what about rejoicing in our sufferings?”

Indeed what about it? Does that prove that suffering itself is good? Or does it not point out the truth that when we suffer for Christ sake we will be ultimately blessed in it. But the suffering itself is nonetheless painful and not actually in and of itself “good”. And there is no passage of scripture, which says sufferings are in the present that is while you are undergoing them, "good".

Then he ask:

“What about grieving for our sins?”

It is a shame, though true, that we have sins to “grieve” over. But sin, which causes the “grief” is not good now is it? And the fact that we recognize the terrible affront to God that our sins present is good. But the grief in itself is not necessarily “good”. It is painful to have sins for which we should grieve. But there is nothing good about grief. The fact that our conscience is so well trained that we can be brought to grief over our sins so that we will ultimately repent of them is indeed a good thing. But grieve itself is not good for if it were such a good thing one might be tempted to stay in a state of grief instead of turning from in.

Then he says:

“Yes, Virginia, there is a good grief.”

Well, Virginia, whoever and wherever you are don’t you believe it! For there is not a place in the entire word of God that teaches that grief is GOOD. And if you will avoid sin you will lessen your encounter with grief. And these foolish preachers who are constantly taking the word of God completely out of its connections to teach such nonsense are leading men to perceive of Christianity as being just as foolish as the millions of absurd “superstitions” in the world that are creating an atmosphere tending toward atheism. So, Virginia, Christianity is for the strong as well as the weak. And grief is not, in and of itself, good for anyone even though they might be lead by it to turn from evil. For it is the simple fact that grief is not good that causes persons to so seek relief from it that they may go in the right direction and come to Christ for relief. But it is the relief that is good. If you enjoy grief you would not seek relief from it, now would you? SO, that which may ultimately lead to good does not necessarily have to be “good” at all.

But, even if grief were in some way good, which I do not believe, it would not mean that Brother Darrel used the word in a good way, now would it? For he obviously was not trying to point out to us that grief was in fact a good thing, was he? Instead he was simply using other words to curse so that he could curse without sounding like he was cursing. As we believe that such idle words are condemned by the word of God and should be avoided as any other cursing. “But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.” (Matt. 12:36).

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2001

Brother John:

You have said:

“Someone send Lee a tape of Charlie Brown's Christmas :-)”

Now, Brother John we do doubt that you are sincerely wanting someone to actually do this. And the reason that we doubt it is because if you sincerely thought that such would be a good idea then you could have simply sent us a copy of it instead of publishing in the forum and asking others to do what you could have done yourself. In fact, you have a job now and we think that you could probably afford to send us a copy as much as anyone, couldn’t you? So, if you would like to send me a copy of “Charlie Brown’s Christmas”. But honestly a good commentary on the word of God would be far better, if you happen to know of any. So, send me any gifts that you like, including Charlie brown’s Christmas. But, if you are tying to help and do something good then Charlie Brown’s Christmas is useless.

We appreciate your willingness to persuade others to send things to us. But, there is something hypocritical about your lack of desire to do the job yourself, isn’t there? And you also have not shown anything in Brother Davis’ words that were in the least bit intended to be humorous, now have you? You see this is how you respond. You cannot answer our questions but you can in some underhanded way insult us, can’t you? Therefore that is all you do. Your responses are indeed pathetic, aren’t they?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2001

Lee, you remind me of Star Trek's Mr. Spock or Commander Data. Neither one of them understood what humor was either.

And I agree with Duane that there is such a thing as "good" grief, elsewise James' words in James 4:8-10 make no sense whatsoever.

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2001

If you have access to one of the original cuts of "Charlie Brown Christmas" I suggest highly you use it for a youth group night, or adult night, during the upcoming Christmas season. A great re-telling of the Gospel, especially at the end.

BTW -- Virginia is the young girl who didn't believe in Santa Claus. Sometimes I gotta wonder ...

And thanks to everyone who DOES understand humor, and uses it to make these threads a bit easier to navigate!

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2001

Oh No! I just noticed: SANTA ... SATAN! Same letters, oh no!

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2001

For those who might be having a problem in this area:

SATIRE n 1. literary work that exposes or holds up to ridicule human vices or follies, usually in a witty or ironic way. 2. branch of literature composed of such works, or the art of writing them. 3. Any work, production, or presentation similar to such literary works in purpose, content, or techinque: i.e. That movie's a clever satire on the advertising industry. 4. use of wit or irony, often in such forms as caricature, or parody, to expose, attack, or ridicule human vices, follies, or abuses or evils of any kind.

Thanks to those of you who seem to understand satire, irony, etc. You make reading and posting on these threads just a bit more interesting. Humor is so very important ... if we can't laugh, either at ourselves or at situations, then we'll just dry up and eventually blow away ... and there may be some out there who need to be watching that a strong wind doesn't blow in their direction, lest they blow away.

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2001

E We Saffold said:

"But, even if grief were in some way good, which I do not believe, it would not mean that Brother Darrel used the word in a good way, now would it? For he obviously was not trying to point out to us that grief was in fact a good thing, was he? Instead he was simply using other words to curse so that he could curse without sounding like he was cursing."

Sorry Lee, but in this case (at least) you have no idea what you are talking about. It is such a wonder that you have the power to read my mind and tell others what I was thinking, and trying to do. Nope, no cursing here. But you would have to understand humor, satire, and good old Charlie Brown to understand just what I was saying. Had NOTHING to do with cursing ... overtly or covertly.

So, maybe you were lying? Certainly speaking out of turn and without a proper knowledge of the situation. You weren't giving your opinion of what I was trying to say ... you made it clear that I was cursing, and again, I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

Maybe it would be better if you stuck to saying what YOU believe rather than trying to tell others on the board what they are trying to say or what they are thinking.

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2001

Hey all - it's been a few months, just popped in again to see all that I had been banned from, what a pathetic waste of time.

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2001

Brethren:

Notice that Brother Darrel has said:

“E We Saffold said:”

Well, we are not sure who this person is. But it appears, since E. Lee Saffold is the only person here with the name “Saffold”, that either Brother Darrel cannot spell the simple word “E. Lee”. Or he is making some feeble attempt to insult us for our proper and acceptable usage of the word “we” in third person in order to avoid the “personal character” which many good writers occasionally and properly use. WE are not sure which is the case. But we strongly suspect, given Brother Darrel’s hypocritical efforts to appear on the one hand as a nice person that always behaves in a “Christ-like” manner by never insulting anyone. And then he constantly uses jokes to do the very thing that he condemns others for doing. Because of this hypocritical habit it seems that he is, indeed, taking a stab at insulting us. But he has covered himself so that if we complain of such he can always whine and cry that he was, after all, “only joking”, now can’t he?

Then he accurately quotes our words as follows:

"But, even if grief were in some way good, which I do not believe, it would not mean that Brother Darrel used the word in a good way, now would it? For he obviously was not trying to point out to us that grief was in fact a good thing, was he? Instead he was simply using other words to curse so that he could curse without sounding like he was cursing."”

Which we did in fact actually say and we stand by it as being the truth. For that is the purpose and use of such euphemisms. They are designed to allow a person to “curse” without using words that are clearly recognized as cursing.

But he says to us:

“Sorry Lee, but in this case (at least) you have no idea what you are talking about.”

Now why would you be “sorry” if we had no idea what we were talking about? Is you apology only inserted for “effect” without any sincere intent to apologize for something?

Yes, we do have a very good idea of what we are talking about. And if you would like to get into our hearts and determine what ideas are there concerning what we are talking about you are welcome to try though we doubt that you will have much success.

Then he says:

“ It is such a wonder that you have the power to read my mind and tell others what I was thinking, and trying to do.”

Well, we can do that as well as you can. But we were not getting directly into your mind and have made no attempt whatsoever at “reading your mind”. In fact, we are not sure that there is much there to read that would be of any real value to us. Instead we were, in fact, referring to what came out of your mouth, which is directly related to the condition of your heart or mind. “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh”. And your words betray the condition of your heart. And a person who feels the need to curse but wants to be able to appear that he is not cursing and one who deals in cursing will make use of such euphemisms as you have used. And you did use such language and you were not trying to teach us that “grief was good”.

Then you say:

“ Nope, no cursing here.”

Yep, there was cursing there.

Then you say:

“ But you would have to understand humor, satire, and good old Charlie Brown to understand just what I was saying.”

We understood exactly what you were saying. And much cursing is done in the name of humor. And often such cursing is designed to be satirical. And even Charlie Brown is known to use such Euphemisms to appear to be cursing without actually using the real curse words with the editor knows will offend people. And we remind all of those who would like to be Christians that we follow Jesus Christ and not “Charlie Brown”. And Jesus Christ never used such euphemisms in his teaching, public or private. And if you wish to convince us that using such language is acceptable you will have to go to Jesus Christ and the word of God for “Charlie Brown” is not very convincing to those who follow Christ.

But, OLE Charlie is cursing just as surely as was our Brother Darrel. If you ask him the real meaning of his words he will not be able to give you any answer, now will he? Did you begin your post to us with the words “good grief” with the intention of conveying any idea to us other than expression of how “feed up” and extremely frustrated you were with us? Much like a person does when cursing. He is feed up with something or frustrated and just cannot take it any more and he blurts out words intended to “curse” the situation that he cannot change. It does seem that way, now doesn’t it. But since you are a Christian man you cannot use the curse words that the world uses so you have to disguise curse words with words that have good meanings and use them in such idle ways simply to express your anger and vent your frustrations. Oh, yes, Brother Darrel, there was “cursing” going on in your words.

But you say, without offering any evidence or good reasons for us to believe it is true, the following:

“ Had NOTHING to do with cursing ... overtly or covertly.”

Yes it did and it was OVERT and not covert. We did not claim that you were being covert only that your use of euphemisms was designed to soften the blow of such cursing so that others would take little notice of it. And that others would find it difficult to condemn it and therefore would not say anything about it. But you were wrong about that, now weren’t you?

Then you must shift responsibility for your actions onto the one that has sought to correct your behavior as follows:

“So, maybe you were lying?”

Why do you say “maybe”? Do you not have the courage to call us a liar and then make some effort to prove that you accusation is true? The reason is that you know that we are not lying, don’t you?

Then you say:

“ Certainly speaking out of turn and without a proper knowledge of the situation.”

How could we be speaking “out of turn” when no one else is even in line to speak with you about this matter. So, we could not have done anything “out of turn”. We have not “jumped ahead” in any line and therefore could not have been out of turn. And our “knowledge of the situation is right on target. And it is interesting to note that you have not even attempted to explain what we did not know that would have caused us to draw a different conclusion, now have you? The reason is that there is nothing deficient in our knowledge of the “situation” now is there?

They you say:

“ You weren't giving your opinion of what I was trying to say ... you made it clear that I was cursing, and again, I'm sorry, but you are wrong.”

Yes, we were taking accurate notice of your words, which were euphemistic and used as curse words. And we did make it clear that you were cursing and you have said nothing yet that has made it any less clear, now have you? All you can do is say that we are “wrong” without proving that such is the case. We have at least explained why we believe that you were cursing. The least you could do is show us how you really intended to convey some meaning with your use of those words other than as an expression of your frustration and an outlet for your anger. And we are waiting for you to show us what you actually meant by the use of those words if you were not using them in the same way that many gross curse words are used and for the same purpose and intended effect. But you do not even attempt to do such. All you do is assert that we are wrong. No, we are convinced that we are very right about this matter unless you can give sufficient reason for us to think otherwise we will continue to stand on the ground that we were correct in our understanding that you were using the words “good grief” euphemistically as curse words. Then you say:

“Maybe it would be better if you stuck to saying what YOU believe rather than trying to tell others on the board what they are trying to say or what they are thinking.”

We will stick to speaking what is true as we have always done and nothing can be better than that. And we were not “trying to tell others” anything. WE actually told them the facts. You said the words and we took notice of how you used them. And we said that you used them as curse words. And on that basis we were justified in saying that you were cursing. And we said noting about your heart. Your words were your own choice. Why you chose to speak in a euphemistic curse we cannot tell but we can tell that you actually spoke in that way. That is the truth and just because you do not like the truth because the words you used leaves an impression of yourself that you do not want to leave in this forum does not change the fact that you truthfully used those words in that way. Now, if you wish, in the future to not leave us with such an impression of you them it “would be better” if you stopped using such euphemistic curse words, now wouldn’t it. Because every time you use such words we will perceive of them as idle words use for not better purpose then to vent frustration as one does when he is cursing. And we will point it out as we have time and opportunity every time that you use such language.

Now, we do not expect you to appreciate the truth we have conveyed to you. But it has been conveyed and we will not turn from having said it. We maintain that our understanding of your words is accurate and we urge you beware of the use of such “idle words”.

Brethren let us receive the admonition of our Lord, “But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.” (Matt. 12:36). Words that have not their intending meaning but are rather used for no good purpose. WE will be judged by our use of such words and we have warned our Brother Darrel to avoid such and we encourage the rest of us to avoid them as well.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2001

I said "sorry" 'cause I was sorry ... sorry that you have no grasp whatsoever on me, or what I was, or am trying to say.

Again, good ole'Charlie Brown would say, after reading the above post ... "Good grief!"

btw -- thanks for the warning. And yes, I DO mean thanks, and I don't mean anything else by saying that.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2001

Well, Darrell, according to We.Lee, if you can't prove that you were NOT cursing, then you must have been cursing.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2001

Kinda like a Police State -- instead of inocent until proven guilty, you are guilty until proven inocent.

Sadly, that is the way it is with some folks in the non/anti churches of Christ, though I am happy to report it's not that way with everyone. The evangelist at the non-church of Christ here in Indiana is just about the oposite of E We. He's strong on his position of not using the instrument, but he understands it's a belief comeing from silence of Scripture and doesn't make it a test of fellowship. In fact, he says he's looking forward to our time together in heaven ... even if I DO continue to worship with instruments.

After all this hooey, it's refreshing.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2001

Darrell, Duane and John,

Gentlemen, why do all of you feel the need to constantly belittle E. Lee on this thread?

Comments such as: 1. "Someone send Lee a tape of Charlie Brown's Christmas :-)" 2. "Lee, you remind me of Star Trek's Mr. Spock or Commander Data. Neither one of them understood what humor was either." 3. "E We Saffold said:" 4. "Well, Darrell, according to We.Lee, if you can't prove that you were NOT cursing, then you must have been cursing." 5. "The evangelist at the non-church of Christ here in Indiana is just about the oposite of E We."

That is just a small sampling on this thread. Is any of this really necessary? How hard is it to just say "I am sorry" or "I apologize" or "I didn't know it offended you" or "please forgive me" and move on.

It isn't that difficult gentlemen, well at least I hope it isn't. It seems to me that this thread moved from "open season on acapella brethren" to open season on E. Lee, first because he made a comment to Barry, then others felt it necessary to jump in and comment. I see nothing wrong with that because that is what should be done however, the tone of the posts changed from making comments on the original post to Barry about his "joking" to open season on E. Lee's use of the third person in his posts. E. Lee has justified his use of the third person in his posts more than once on this forum and yet you still seek to belittle him for his use of this writing style. I don't understand why you do this? I won't try to read your minds, but it makes me wonder why you feel it is necessary to continue harassing him on this point? Enough said on this subject.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2001

And the use of E We was not to belittle at all. IT WAS A JOKE, PLAIN AND SIMPLE, and it doesn't matter if it was taken as a joke or not. If it was not taken as a joke, when offered as a joke, then the problem is with the "taker" and not the "takee."

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2001

Okay... I'll say "I'm sorry I offended you" if he will say "I am sorry I got offended"

I have lovingly teased E.Lee in the past for his long posts... at times I read them, but can scroll through the cutnpasted stuff pretty well; and he has always been gracious and capable of taking pokes (and giving them!) He is a big boy, Kevin, and he doesnt need you to stick up for him(or them?), that's for sure.

Along those same lines, his recent tendency to speak in the plural, in this Forum, is open game for any comments one wants to make. For me, I have a hard time buying his reasoning on this one; i.e. "I speak as 'we' to minimize personal attacks..."

It appears at the very least that the strategy is not working; for it appears that the "attacks" do not stop.

Secondly, saying "we" all the time has the appearance of being disingenuous, because certainly he doesnt have time to go out and consult with whoever this "we" is each time he posts a message!

I tease everybody, especially those I love. Everyone in this Forum knows that if they don't like the Forum, they can pick up their marbles and go home... and most of us have... again and again.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2001

And another thing!

It all started when Wee Wee accused Darrell of cursing for using the phrase "Good Grief"

Think about it for a minute. I agree that I cringe when I hear children (and adults) say "darn" or "gosh" or "gee whiz" because I know that these are really substitute swear words, or "euphemisms".

Now there are euphemisms which are not necessarily substitute swear words, but rather substitute words for other unpleasant realities.

But "Good Grief" is not in this category; it is rather an expression or exclamation, like "wow" or "ouch".

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2001

Is a joke worth offending a brother or sister in Christ?

I didn’t take Barry’s comments as a joke, didn’t see anything funny in them and also don’t see anything funny in the ridicule E. Lee is now getting from Duane, John, and Darrell.

If you realize that a “joke” you have made offends another, and that person has made that abundantly clear, why would you as a brother or sister in Christ persist in the joking. It may not be offensive to you, or even everyone as is the case here…BUT if the one the joke was aimed at says I have been offended by this joking….then the joking should STOP.

From Duane: Okay... I'll say "I'm sorry I offended you" if he will say "I am sorry I got offended"

And from Darrell: And the use of E We was not to belittle at all. IT WAS A JOKE, PLAIN AND SIMPLE, and it doesn't matter if it was taken as a joke or not. If it was not taken as a joke, when offered as a joke, then the problem is with the "taker" and not the "takee."

Both WRONG! How do you men square this with God’s Word on loving one another, treating others as we want to be treated, treating others as better than self????

If you are making a joke about me, or about something I do, and I tell you it has hurt me or offended me, is it right, good, Christ- like to continue doing the same?

It does matter if it was taken as a joke or not. If it was not taken as a joke and the person is hurt, yes there could be a problem with the one the joke was aimed at. But the BIGGER problem lies in the one who after knowing they have hurt a brother or sister in Christ continues to offend and hurt for no good reason other than: It was a joke and you should have taken it that way and I will not apologize for it unless you apologize for being offended OR it was a joke and too bad if you did not take it that way that is your problem.

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2001

As for Duane saying to Kevin: “He is a big boy, Kevin, and he doesnt need you to stick up for him(or them?), that's for sure.”

Come on Duane don’t even go there…even you have “stuck” up for others and for what they believe on this board.

Kevin…feel free to stick up for E. Lee all you want…as you can see he is outnumbered here.

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2001

Brethren:

Notice how brother Darrel has said:

“I said "sorry" 'cause I was sorry”

No, Brother Darrel, you are lying. You are not sorry in the least.

Then he tells us what he is sorry for:

“ ... sorry that you have no grasp whatsoever on me”

Again he is lying. He does not want us to have any “grasp” on him and he mistakenly thinks that we have ever sought to have any “grasp” on him. We have never sought to have any “grasp” upon anyone. WE mistakenly thought that Brother Darrell was sufficiently in the Lord’s grasp. Thus we assumed that he would avoid continuing to belittle someone who had already informed him more than once that he does not see his deliberate attempts to belittle and insult our good name as the joke that he pretends to have intended it to be. Even if he did intend for it to be a joke when he first said it there is absolutely no way in the world that he can maintain that it was a joke when he deliberately repeats it after we have objected to it. And he does this just because he despises us so much that he cannot resist doing it now at every opportunity. And all those who repeat this so called “joke” after we have told them that we are offended by it cannot pretend that it is a “joke” every time they repeat it. But, they are welcome to continue to belittle our good name if they wish. But they cannot do so and at the same time honestly, without deliberately lying, claim that it continues to be intended as a “joke”. For we do not now, nor will we ever, take it in that way. Thus, it is now impossible for them to say it in a public forum as if it is intended as a joke for we disallow that to be the case by our objection to it. For it is not a “joke” when someone deliberately says something to another that they know without doubt is offensive to the person they are speaking to our about, especially in a public forum. So, from this point forward every time a person uses the term “Wee Wee” or “E. We” he can only do so with the deliberate intend to insult and belittle our good name for we have made it abundantly clear that such is how we will forever take it. And we do not accept it as being a common reference to us because we do not like it. And if it we a “joke” it would be finished after everyone got their laugh from it. But the fact that they repeat it in every post addressed to us is even further proof that it is not a “joking” as these liars claim that it was intended to be. So, if they wish to deliberately belittle and insult us that is their business. But everyone in this forum who is able to read will know that if they say this to us again it will be because they are deliberately intending to insult and belittle us. We cannot stop them from doing such things but we can expose their hypocrisy when they do it and simultaneously pretend that they are merely “joking”. That path is now closed to them forever. Now, we have no expectation that these men will stop doing something that they know is offensive to us. For we know that it is their real intend to belittle, insult and offend us as often as possible. They do this because they despise us. And we do not object to the fact that they despise us. We only object to their hypocrisy which they display when they pretend that they are “lovingly teasing” us or merely “joking” us when in fact they are deliberately belittling us because we have told them the truth. Now, if you wish to continue to belittle us you are welcome to do so. That is your choice and God will judge you for it. But, we are convinced that you cannot any longer convince our intelligent readers that you are merely “joking” any longer because we have stated clearly that we do not see it as a joke and are in fact offended by it. But we are used to being offended and we do not expect your deliberate intent to offend us to stop. But at least we have put a stop to the hypocrisy that says that you are being “loving” and “friendly” and “respectful” and “Christ-like” when you do it, now haven’t we? Yes, Brother Darrel, that door is now forever closed thanks to your constantly and overzealously repeating words that we have now told you often is offensive to us. Once, you could have been joking though we doubt it seriously. But after being told that such deliberate misuse of our name is offensive to us you continued to do it anyway. And when you did so you proved beyond any doubt in any intelligent person’s mind that offense was without doubt your intended purpose after being informed that it was offensive. Now, if you speak the truth of the word of God and that offends us then it is just too bad. For we must change to become what God says for us to be. But to offend someone over something not even related to the word of God just because you do not particularly like his writing style is sinful.

But brother Darrell is right about one thing. WE do not have any grasp upon him and we have never had any grasp upon him for we have never sought such. And it is equally apparent that our Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Word has no grasp upon Brother Darrel either. And Christ, not us, does expect everyone to be in his “grasp” or under his authority. And he does this just because he despises us so much that he cannot resist doing it now at every opportunity.

Then he says that he is sorry that we did not understand what he was saying as follows:

“or what I was, or am trying to say.”

Again we have brother Darrel telling yet another lie. He is more than pleased that we do not accept his words as a joke and that they offend us. Now that he has this knowledge that we are offended by his words he has increased his use of them so that he can say to us exactly what we thought he was saying when he initially chose to belittle our name. For one could claim that he was “joking” initially and we would not be able to prove that he wasn’t though we did not take it that way. But when he is informed that we are offended by his words and he afterward uses it yet a second, third and fourth time. And then he claims to be “sorry” that we do not understand what he means by it. He can only be telling a deliberate lie. And we know what is the fate that God has assigned to all those who tell deliberate lies, don’t we?

Then Brother Darrel says:

“Again, good ole'Charlie Brown would say, after reading the above post ... "Good grief!"”

And again, following “Charlie Brown”, whose cursing denies him the title “good OLE” and rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ we have Brother Darrel continuing to use euphemistic curse words. But, if a man will lie he might as well curse. What more could we expect.

Then he says:

“btw -- thanks for the warning. And yes, I DO mean thanks, and I don't mean anything else by saying that.”

WE know that he does not take our warning seriously and therefore he could not really be thankful for it. But, if he is indeed thankful for the warning, even if he does not take it seriously. Then maybe he could explain why he continues to deliberately belittle our family name, which we have said, has much meaning to us because it is a good name, in response to our warning? Indeed it does appear that he is telling yet another lie, doesn’t it?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2001

Good points, D. Lee. Are you related to E. Lee? (just kidding)

E.Lee, I have a question. Do I recall correctly that the "we" you refer to is all of those acapella brethren who agree with you concerning the authorization issue? And if so, is this the same "we" you refer to in your last post? All of these brethren are also offended at the misuse of the Lee name? Or does we now refer to the Lee family? When you wrote, "But, they are welcome to continue to belittle our good name if they wish" are you now referring to the Lee family?

When I address a post to you, who am I addressing? If I offended you, and need to apologize, who else am I apologizing to?

All non-instrumental Church of Christ people? The Saffold family? Just Lee and Kevin?

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2001

Brethren:

Notice these comments from Brother Duane:

“Good points, D. Lee. Are you related to E. Lee? (just kidding)”

Yes, Sister D. Lee did make some good points to which Brother Duane has no good response, didn’t she? And do not kid yourself about Brother Duane is actually “kidding”. He is a hypocrite that pretends to be kidding too much for anyone to really know when he is in fact kidding or trying to insult someone without being subject to condemnation for it. And he knows that Sister D. Lee is not related to Brother E. Lee. Yet he pretends not to know. That is simply a lie, he knows it and he will not repent of it.

But then he has a question for me as follows:

“E.Lee, I have a question. Do I recall correctly that the "we" you refer to is all of those acapella brethren who agree with you concerning the authorization issue?”

No, you do not. We have explained our use of the word “we” in our writing style as being the use of the third person to avoid the “personal character” which is according to all good dictionaries a legitimate use of the word. There are entire commentaries written in this style by some of our best commentators, Brother J. W. Mcgarvey among them. And there is a book by Brother T. W. Brents entitled “The Plan of Salvation” which is written entirely in this style. And there are numerous other very well written books that use this style. We have explained this to brother Duane so many times that we are convinced that he is not simply too stupid to understand it, rather he is only pretending to be that stupid.

Then he ask:

“ And if so, is this the same "we" you refer to in your last post?”

Well, we have already shown that such is not always “so”. And the we that we refer to is the third person used to avoid the personal character as we have now explained, even quoting the dictionary to show that this usage by a writer is legitimate even if Brother Duane does not like it. But he read our post. And correctly figured out whom to address his response to and we see no reason that he should not, on the same basis that he determined whom to address his response that he already knows to whom the “we” refers, now doesn’t he? And by correctly addressing his post he inadvertently let the “cat out of the bag” so to speak. He demonstrates clearly that he knows exactly to whom the word “we” refers, now doesn’t he?

Then he says:

“ All of these brethren are also offended at the misuse of the Lee name?”

He did not address “all of these brethren” in his response. He correctly addressed the writer of the post whom he knew was using the third person “we” as a device to avoid the personal character. And hence he did not address a bunch of unknown brethren but he address his question to the person whom he knew full well was writing the post to which he responded, now didn’t he? And by doing this he demonstrate that he is not having the trouble understanding us that he pretends to have. Which means that he is lying to us about his not being able to understand our use of the word “we”, now isn’t he?

Then he says:

“ Or does we now refer to the Lee family?”

DID Duane address his question to the “Lee Family? No, he properly addressed his questions to “E. Lee” whom he knows to be the author of the post to which he was responding and he knows that E. Lee is using the word “we” in the third person as a device to avoid the personal character. And he again demonstrates that he knew and understood our use of the word. And if he does not understand it he is without excuse for we have explained it to him enough times for him to get it. And we know that he does understand it for we are certain he is not as stupid as he makes himself appear to be. He knows that it does not refer to the “Lee Family”. For we have explained, more than once, to him that we are using a legitimate device which is designed to allow writers to avoid the personal character by using the third person “we” when referring to the writer himself. So that using the word “we” the writer is able avoid the personal character seen in the constant use of the very personal first person “I”. It is legitimate to so use this word and we reserve the right to do it by doing it. And we could care less if anyone particularly likes it. Even though there is no good reason for anyone to not like it except when they are trying to avoid the real issues.

Then he says:

“ When you wrote, "But, they are welcome to continue to belittle our good name if they wish" are you now referring to the Lee family?”

Well, he knew that we wrote it and that we were using the word “we” as a literary device, as some writers deliberately chose to do in order to avoid the personal character. This is a legitimate use of the word and if he does not particularly like it that is fine. But to constantly insult and belittle us in an attempt to force us to stop using it is shameful and sinful. In fact, we have not used it in all of our writing in this forum but now, because we see him and others trying to force us not to use it we are more determined than ever to use it. For we have that right and will not give it up. We will only most likely use this device exclusively because of the unjust, ignorant, and stupid opposition to its use.

Then he ignorantly asked:

“When I address a post to you, who am I addressing?”

Are you a real idiot or are you just trying to make us think that you are one? If you addressed your post to E. Lee Saffold it seems quite clear that you are addressing E. Lee Saffold. Only an idiot would have trouble with that one, Brother Duane. And for that reason we know that you are not really having any trouble understanding what we have explained to you enough times already.

Then he says:

“ If I offended you, and need to apologize, who else am I apologizing to?”

Now, think about this one, Brethren. Does Duane not know that when he called E. Lee Saffold “E. We Saffold” that it was E. Lee Saffold that he was offending? And if that is whom he deliberately intended to offend would it not be the person to whom he should apologize if he is convinced that offending that person whom he intended deliberately to offend was a wrong thing to do? We know that Brother Duane is not really this stupid and ignorant. But why he continues to make himself appear to be so stupid we cannot tell. But we recommend that he address his apologies to the one that he deliberately intended to belittle when he made referred to E. Lee Saffold as “E. We” and “Wee Wee”. Now, everyone in this forum can see that Brother Duane knows exactly whom he addressed this so- called “Joke” toward and he also knows whom he owes an apology. But he is lying now by pretending to not know whom he offended. He would have to be an absolute idiot not to know the person that he deliberately was belittling when he did these things. If he really cannot figure this one out we will at the very least have proof conclusive that he is in fact an absolute idiot or a deliberate liar. And for his soul’s sake we hope that he will figure it out and failing that we hope that he turns out to be an absolute idiot. For we all know what happens to deliberate liars, don’t we?

Then he says:

“All non-instrumental Church of Christ people?”

Well, he knows that he was not insulting the entire body of Christ when he deliberately belittled his brother in Christ. But he did insult Christ. For when Paul was persecuting Christians and Christ appeared to him on the road to Damascus he said “Saul, Saul, why persecutes thou me?” SO, when Paul persecuted Christians he was persecuting Christ. And when you deliberately insult, belittle or a fellow Christian you are belittling Christ. Now Brother Duane is guilty of this. So, he owes his Lord Jesus Christ an apology for sure. But, he could not be insulting the early Church of Christ who never used instruments in their worship any more than he was insulting the faithful members of the church of Christ who do not use it today simply by deliberately belittling E. Lee Saffold, his brother in Christ.

Then he ask if he should apologize to the “Saffold Family” as follows:

“ The Saffold family?”

Now, we are convinced that Brother Duane is not too stupid to know whom he was deliberately trying to offend when he deliberately made fun of and belittled our name. He took the good name “E. Lee” which was given to his brother in Christ by a family that loved him because they wanted him to have a good name and he belittled it. And he did so deliberately because he despises us so much simple because we do not use instruments of music in our worship as the early Church, who were guided directly by the Holy Spirit did not use them in their worship. And he does these things because he is frustrated that we have challenged all persons in this forum to debate the subject publicly and none will accept the challenge. His pride has been hurt and now he wants to belittle us. But he does not want to debate us, now does he? All he can do is belittle. In fact, that is all that these false teachers can do in this forum. None of them will reply to questions asked of them and none of them want to engage in a fair, honorable and equitable debate on any subject, much less the subject of Authorization and instrumental music. But, because they have the numerical advantage in this forum they take advantage of the situation and simply belittle us on every hand and hope that our readers will think that they have settled the issue without ever really debating it. But, we have news for them. Such tactics does not fool our readers in this forum. They can see the weakness of those who will not engage in a formal debate that ensures fairness. In fact, some of them have approached us via email and stated that they would like to discuss this subject with us and learn more about it because they are convinced that the other side has not and will never receive a fair hearing in this forum. And you know what, they are right. And we will comply with their wishes and they will have an opportunity via email to hear the other side presented.

Then he ask if he needs to apologize to just Lee And Kevin as follows:

“ Just Lee and Kevin?”

Think about it Duane? Just ask yourself whom were you intending to insult and belittle all of these numerous times that you have used the name of E. Lee Saffold, who you used to call simply “E. Lee” when you addressed that same person as “E. We” and “Wee Wee”. If you can determine whom you deliberately intended to insult, which we know you are not too stupid to figure that one out, then you will have figured out to whom, other than Christ our Lord, you should apologize.

But we do not expect an apology from you Brother Duane. For we are convinced that you have not the character to apologize when you know you have done wrong, now do you?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

E. Wee,

We do not know what we ought to say to you. We have been teasing you so long that it is impossible for us to know where to begin. If you and D. Wee would not be so easily offended we might know what to say. We are afraid that anything we might say might offend you so we choose not to say anything other than that we were joking when we called you E. Wee and are joking even now as we post these comments.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Would you guys just knock it off? I certainly do not consider playing with someone's name to be funny, whether intended to be or not. To those of you who know me personally, I have never minded a bit of good humor, like Danny calls me Scotty, after the engineer on Star Trek. I've considered that a term of a weird kind of endearment. I call Mark W. "Wiz." But that is only because we all know each other very well, have spent time together face to face and know there is no bad intention meant.

I do not care for E. Lee's use of "we" any less than anyone on here, but grow up a bit. He does not like the play on his name, therefore it should cease. If it cannot cease because you consider him a brother, as I do, then it should cease because you do not consider him one. Either way, knock it off.

I can understand the first time, attempting to be humorous. I will admit to a slight smile when I first saw it. But after that it just got silly. Once it was known He did not appreciate it, it should have stopped.

E. Lee. We dont always agree, most times we do. However, since the majority of folks on this forum are not looking for academic scholarship on these posts, it would be better, imo, to just post like you used to, simply as singular E. Lee. Besides, "we" is not third person, it is first person plural.

Now, can we stop the childishness and deal with the issues? Time for bed. Goodnight.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Now I know why Danny doesnt jump in... He is afraid of the wrath of Lee! Mr. Saffold, you wrote; We have explained our use of the word “we” in our writing style as being the use of the third person to avoid the “personal character”

Well, it is not working; your personal character is shining through quite well.

When I asked you if by "we" you meant "All non-instrumental Church of Christ people?” you responded: "Well, he knows that he was not insulting the entire body of Christ"

I guess that means that the nons compose the entire body of Christ.

Secondly, I do apologize for not having entirely read all of your explanations ad nauseum for the use of "we".

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

We are sorry too!

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Duane ... so now you are an idiot? Wow!

Maybe you should start a Bulletin Board for the "Hearts on their sleeves" club.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Brethren:

Brother Duane has said:

“Now I know why Danny doesnt jump in... He is afraid of the wrath of Lee!”

You have no way of knowing why Brother Danny does not jump in. And you can rest assured that he has no fear of “Lee” or anyone else for that matter. And E. Lee Saffold has not demonstrate any “wrath” that anyone should fear in this forum. And Duane could not find a demonstration of such wrath by us if his life depended upon it. But Brother Danny does have better sense than to deliberately belittle a brother in Christ just because he despises him for some reason.

Then Duane correctly quotes us as saying:

“ Mr. Saffold, you wrote; We have explained our use of the word “we” in our writing style as being the use of the third person to avoid the “personal character”

And in our explanation we even quoted the dictionary to show that this usage is something that writers do. And we quote it again for your edification:

“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

To Brother Scott:

I appreciate the correction. I said the word “we” was third person and that is not correct. It was late and being somewhat tired I made this error and I appreciate the correction. It is in fact first person plural.

Brethren:

But do notice brethren that this dictionary, Merriam-Webster, says that the word “we” is used by writers to “keep an impersonal character”. This is how “we” are using the word “we” and we have good reasons for doing it and could care less if anyone likes it or not. It is correct to use it in this way and we shall continue to do so when we feel like doing it. But Brother Scott has said that he liked it better when we used the first person singular “I”. Which is proof that we do use that form of expression as well. We have never exclusively used this form. And are only now, because of the absurd, unjustified, and useless objections to it, been tempted to use it exclusively because we will not be dictated to by anyone concerning our choice of words in expressing ourselves in this or any other forum. SO, when the pathetic objections to our use of this form ceases we will return to our normal use of the first person singular “I” and the use of the first person plural “we” to “keep an impersonal character as we chose or see fit to use it. But so long as there is this ridiculous effort to dictate to us how we will write in this forum we will use the word “WE” exclusively to “keep an impersonal character” and to defend our right to use the word in this way.

But Brother Duane says:

“Well, it is not working; your personal character is shining through quite well.”

Well, we are not concerned about how “well” it is working. We have chosen to use this form. And we have not said that we are using it to keep our personal character from “shining through”. We have said that we are doing it to “keep an impersonal character”. One can write to keep an impersonal character and still his personal character can shine through. But the issue is not whether it works. Even though we are convinced that it works quite well for our purpose we do not have to demonstrate that it works in order to have the right to speak in this way. We have that right whether it works or not. And Brother Duane has the right to belittle us for it if he so chooses. WE have objected to his belittling us for our legitimate use of this word and he continues to seek to belittle us. That is his choice and his right. But, it doe s not mean that he is right in doing it, now does it?

Then he accurately quotes our words as follows:

“When I asked you if by "we" you meant "All non-instrumental Church of Christ people?” you responded: "Well, he knows that he was not insulting the entire body of Christ"”

To which he says:

“I guess that means that the nons compose the entire body of Christ.”

We are Christians. We are not “nons”. And we do not comprise the entire body of Christ. Our Brethren who use instruments in worship are Christians because they have obeyed the gospel of Christ as well as we. Our use of the word “we” did not include anyone but the author of the post to whom he responded. And he responded to one person and not the “entire body of Christ” or even the portion of Christ’s body that faithfully follows his command to sing without adding their own desires to use instruments for their own entertainment in the process. But we did not intend to imply that our brethren who use instruments were not a part of the body of Christ. For that is surely not what we believe to be the truth.

Then he says:

“Secondly, I do apologize for not having entirely read all of your explanations ad nauseum for the use of "we".”’

Brother Duane need not apologize for something that is not wrong. There is nothing wrong with not reading our post either in part or entirely. And the “explanations”, often repeated at the behest of Duane’s “ad nauseum” insults and belittling f us for our legitimate use of the first person plural “we” to “keep an impersonal character could continue as long as his insults and belittling continue. And we notice that he is willing to apologize to things that are not wrong but refuses to apologize for the sinful belittling of our good name. This is his choice and his right but it points to a hypocrisy that is not right and is pathetically wrong. But, he has demonstrated conclusively that he is deliberately insulting and belittling us for our use of the word “we” which is not in any way sinful or wrong. He just does not personally like it. And that is also his right. We have not asked anyone to like it or even to read it. We write that way for good reasons when we see fit to do so and will continue to do it. We have simply asked our Brother to not “belittle” and insult us for no good or scriptural reason.

But we would also like to thank our Brother Scott, who also does not like our use of the word “we” any more than the others for his statement which was as follows:

“I do not care for E. Lee's use of "we" any less than anyone on here, but grow up a bit. He does not like the play on his name, therefore it should cease. If it cannot cease because you consider him a brother, as I do, then it should cease because you do not consider him one. Either way, knock it off.”

Brother Scott, we sincerely appreciate your above just, fair, wise and reasonable suggestion. We cannot imagine why anyone would ignore it.

And Brother Scott also offered us some good advice as follows:

“E. Lee. We dont always agree, most times we do.”

This is true and we do not love you any less when we disagree than we do when we agree and we are sure that you know this to be true.

Then he says:

“ However, since the majority of folks on this forum are not looking for academic scholarship on these posts, it would be better, imo, to just post like you used to, simply as singular E. Lee.”

WE agree with what you have said and are more than willing to go back to our normal way of using either of the methods as we chose to without much concern about the matter. For we have more often used the first person “I:” than the first person plural to “keep an impersonal character”. Yet we reserve the right to use this form anytime that we chose and cannot stop using it while others are demanding to control how we write in this forum. We will not give these men, who are deliberately using this as means of avoiding the real issues, the power to control in any way whatsoever our writing style. And especially is this true when the majority in this forum do not really care how we write or in what style we chose to express ourselves. These men who are so upset about this matter that they must insult and belittle us over it are the one’s that have caused this problem. But, when they stop belittling us we will return, at your suggestion, to our normal usage, which is to write in either way when and if we chose to do so. You might feel the same way if someone were trying to dictate to you how you should write your post. We refuse this deliberate intentional effort to belittle us into writing, as they want us to write. So, when the belittling stops, if it ever stops, we will go on to using our own chosen style of writing which will include both the use of the first person singular “I” and the first person plural “we” to “keep an impersonal character” as we see fit. And there is really nothing that anyone can do to prevent us from doing so, now is there?

Then Brother Scott says:

“ Besides, "we" is not third person, it is first person plural.””

You are correct as we have shown above and we made an error in our last post when we said that it was “third person”. And, as you will notice from the above definition, “writers to keep an impersonal character” properly use this word. Thus, we are correct in using it in this way. And we will not stop doing it just to satisfy the whims of persons like Duane who do not believe that it works to keep an impersonal character. But, if he is correct in stating that he cannot tell to whom we are referring when we use it, then it would seem that it works quite well in maintaining an impersonal character, doesn’t it? And, we agree with him that it does not “work” so well because he actually knows exactly to whom we are referring when we use it and because of it he accurately chose the right person to “belittle” for using it, now didn’t he?

Beware of these kinds of men, Brethren, who are constantly pretending to be something that they are not. Watch out for those, Like Duane, who tell you in one breath that they respect you as a brother in Christ and in the next “belittle” you over your use of something that does not fit their personal preferences. This is called hypocrisy and such is condemned in the word of God.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Now Brethren:

Notice how Brother Davis joins in with the ridicule as follows:

“E. Wee, We do not know what we ought to say to you.”

Now this is a deliberate lie. We have shown that all persons here are free to say anything that they so desire to say to us. And we do not even care if you deliberately belittle us or ridicule us or not. This is your right. But, what we have done is to object to the hypocrisy of these men who deliberately do these things while simultaneously attempting to appear “justified” and faithful to Christ when they deliberately belittle their brothers in Christ for reasons not related to anything they have done in disobedience to God.

Then he says:

“We have been teasing you so long that it is impossible for us to know where to begin.”

This is yet another lie, isn’t it? Brother Davis is not “teasing us”. He is instead deliberately belittling us because he despises us so much.

Then he says:

“ If you and D. Wee would not be so easily offended we might know what to say.”

Here is yet another lie. First of all we are not “easily offended” instead we are rightly and justly offended by such deliberate and intentional and unjustified ridicule. And we have said often that we do not mind if you ridicule us. But we do very much mind if you ridicule us and then lie about it by pretending that you were only Joking. It is your deliberate lies that we are condemning. We point to your ridicule just as evidence that you are a liar. We do not point to it because we care whether you apologize for it or stop doing it. For that we care nothing about. We simply want everyone to see you liars for what you really are. You are deliberate liars that care nothing for the truth. And the more you ridicule us the more your lies become evident. So, if you wish to continue lying we hope that you will also continue the ridicule. For the more you belittle us the more evident it is that you are a liar. For anyone who belittles another and then says he was just joking is a liar. And that is what Brother Davis has shown himself to be often in this forum. And we are warning our brethren to be careful of such deliberate liars.

Then Brother Davis says:

“ We are afraid that anything we might say might offend you so we choose not to say anything other than that we were joking when we called you E. Wee and are joking even now as we post these comments.”

Now this is yet another LIE isn’t it? How could you be joking, Brother Davis, when we have asked you to not make such plays on our name because it is offensive to us. After knowing that we do not like that play on our name there is no way that you can be telling the truth when you say that you are only Joking by deliberately offending us, now is there? And you are not “joking as you write these comments. You are simply lying about that. And you have not been “joking” in any of the places where you claimed to be “joking”. So, Brother Davis, all that you have written above is nothing short of a deliberate and pathetic lie that you knew was a lie when you said it.

And that is the point that we are trying to get across to the readers in this forum. WE cannot trust a person who lies to us with such impunity, now can we brethren?

Brother Davis is enjoying the opportunity to ridicule us. Especially since he cannot answer any of our arguments in the various issues that we have discussed with him in this forum. And he pretends that he is only joking when in truth he is lying about it pure and simple. So, beware of men who deliberately lie as Brother Davis does and at the same time claims to be a servant of Christ. Christ said that Satan is the father of lies. And he is the father of the deliberate lies he has told in his above post. He should be ashamed but he has not the capacity for shame. For he is a false teacher who cares nothing about the truth and for this reason he can lie with impunity.

Beware of such men, Brethren.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Brethren:

Notice how Brother Darrel deliberately misrepresents what we said to Brother Duane as follows:

“Duane ... so now you are an idiot? Wow!

Now what we actually said about Brother Duane was as follows:

But he is lying now by pretending to not know whom he offended. He would have to be an absolute idiot not to know the person that he deliberately was belittling when he did these things.”

Now with these words we have said that the only way that Duane COULD fail to know the person that he deliberately offended in this matter would be if he were an absolute idiot. And this is true. He would have to entirely be incapable of conscious thought to be able to actually not know whom he has offended in this case. But our above argument is that we know that Brother Duane is very much aware of whom he has offended because we know that he is not an absolute idiot. SO, we have not called him an idiot unless he is truly incapable of determining whom he has offended. For if that is the case he would in fact be a complete idiot. So, we have not YET called him an idiot. But if he honestly is unable to know whom he has offended in this case we will consider him to be an idiot. But Brother Darrel seeks to leave the false impression that we have actually called him such. The truth is that we know he is not an idiot and therefore we know that he is very much aware of whom he has offended in this matter.

Then we said:

“ If he really cannot figure this one out we will at the very least have proof conclusive that he is in fact an absolute idiot or a deliberate liar.”

Now Brother Darrel has chosen to deliberately ignore our use of the word “IF”. WE are saying, what we had said in the sentences preceding this one, that IF Brother Duane is unable to figure out whom he has offended in this matter he is an idiot. But we will not call him an idiot until we are convinced that he truly cannot figure out whom he has offended in this case. So, far we are not convinced that he is unable to know whom he has offended.

Then we said:

“And for his soul’s sake we hope that he will figure it out and failing that we hope that he turns out to be an absolute idiot.”

By which we express our confidence that he is not an idiot and is in fact capable of figuring out whom he has offended. And we further express the hope he would rather be found out to be an idiot than a deliberate liar. But we have not said that he is in fact an idiot. Only that it would be better if he were an idiot then if he was, as it appears, deliberately lying to us about his inability to determine whom he has offended in this case.

Then we say:

“ For we all know what happens to deliberate liars, don’t we?”

And we do know what happens to deliberate liars and would rather believe that out brother is an idiot than to know that he is in fact deliberately lying to us about his inability to know whom he has offended. But it does appear to us that Brother Duane is not an idiot but rather deliberately lying about the idea that he does not know whom he should apologize to because he is unaware of whom he has offended. That is just a lie unless he is an idiot. But we know he is not an idiot and therefore we regret that we have no other alternative but to know that he is a deliberate liar. And this is sad indeed for he would not lose his soul for being an idiot. But he would lose his soul for being a liar. Indeed it is a sad case isn’t it?

Then Brother Darrel says:

“Maybe you should start a Bulletin Board for the "Hearts on their sleeves" club.””

There is no need for such a “club” for our hearts are not on our sleeves. We are simply making the hypocrisy of those who deliberately belittled us and ridiculed us and then lied about it by claiming that they were only Joking apparent for all to see. And they are helping us to make our point by their continued ridicule after being told that we do not appreciate it and do not consider it a joke. Which means that they were not joking in their continuance of this insult and foolish play on our good name.

But, if they did start a “hearts on their sleeve club”, they would have to make those who are so concerned about our proper use of the simple first person plural “we” to “keep an impersonal character” that they must ridicule us constantly for using it charter members. And they could make Brother Darrel the mascot.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Lee (notice I didn't say "We"?): how is it that you know that people are deliberately belittling you, and not making jest? How is it that you always know those who are "lying"? Are you God, that you can see into the hearts of men, that when they say they are merely saying something in fun, you can somehow see into their heart and know they are in fact lying? Am I the only one who is becoming rather offended by Lee constantly calling people liars in this forum without any real proof? To me that is far more offensive than any jest.

Pardon me, but I just had to get that off my chest.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

John -- I asked the very same type of questions sometime earlier. Seems as though E Lee (I'm not sure if I should use the term "brother" or not following some of Kevin's posts re: how the non/anti church of Christ should treat those of us who use the instrument) has some sort of ability, insight, gift, or ??? to know just what is on another person's heart. He has denied that ability, but continues to "use it." He can dance around the "I said IF" issue all he wants, but in fact the gist of his posts comes through loud and clear.

I had posted some time ago that I was through with posting responses to E Lee ... and I will now attempt to do just that.

"I keep saying I won't post any more to E Lee ... but he keeps pulling me back in!" re: the Godfather movies. Yes, a joke, but will it be taken as one?

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Barry your post from above:

E. Wee,

We do not know what we ought to say to you. We have been teasing you so long that it is impossible for us to know where to begin. If you and D. Wee would not be so easily offended we might know what to say. We are afraid that anything we might say might offend you so we choose not to say anything other than that we were joking when we called you E. Wee and are joking even now as we post these comments.

-- B. Wee (pastorshelper@saintmail.net), November 26, 2001.

Now not only do you continue to ridicule E. Lee under the guise of joking, you include me in the ridicule also. And this coming from a man who accuses others of not being Christ-like in their responses. Talk about calling the kettle black!

And it is not true that you are “afraid” that anything you might say might offend either E. Lee or Myself. That is a lie and you know it. You are not “afraid” of offending either one of us. The proof that you are not afraid of offending E. Lee in this matter lies in the fact that you have not stopped. The proof that you are not afraid of offending me in this matter is that now after all the ridicule and name calling you have done to E. Lee, you have included me in the same.

And don’t think that your use of your “signature” as “B. Wee” will gain you any sympathy…trying to now include yourself in the so called “joke” is NO indication that you were “just joking” in the first place, or even all along.

As to your inference to try to get others to believe that we are so easily offended…ASK those who have been around awhile in this forum to see how easily we are offended. Or are you “afraid” to do that too. We are not babies as some have been here…now and in the past…to cry foul at every offense imagined or real, always crying that such and such is to harsh, unloving, uncaring, unchristian, and on and on. But there does come a time when too much is too much and someone needs to say enough.

ENOUGH!

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Has everyone forgotten the original question posed by Bill?...

It has been asserted by me that the doctrine of use of instruments in worship is prohibited by God, was origniated in the 1800's just after the civil war. Due to the poverty of the southern churches, they could not afford an instrument.

My question to you acapella brethren (and E. Lee feel welcome to write what ever you would like), is this: can you document any source from beginning from pre 1860, that any church or any preacher espoused this doctrine of the damnable effects of using instruments in worship. I want to know factually if it can be documented that this doctrine was preached ot held by a specific group of people before 1860.

In dealing with the early church councils and writing of the early church fathers, it has been written that instrumental worship can easily be traced back to the first millenium. Give me a couple of days to substantiate that remark (that means give me a break on this E. Lee so I can have time to make good on my end).

-- Bill Umstetter (gosloman@aol.com), November 13, 2001

Bill, I am sorry this thread has deginerated to what it has.

In all this, I am not sure that you did come back to substantiate that "instrumental worship can easily be traced back to the first millenium."

If you did, please point me in the right direction as to the date of your post, if not, are you still looking?

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

D. Wee,

Could you explain to us why you and E. Wee are so sensitive? We have a hard time understanding how a little joke can cause you so much grief? We again repeat that we are sorry that we have upset you and we will try to refrain but somehow we have allowed our funny bone to get the better of us.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Brethren:

Notice that Brother John has said:

“Lee (notice I didn't say "We"?): how is it that you know that people are deliberately belittling you, and not making jest?”

WE gave our good reasons in our initial post and in several posts after that. If you want to make some attempt to refute them then respond to them. But when someone uses a term in reference to another person that that is take to be offensive and the person asked him to not use that term again. Then that person uses it again knowing that it is offensive to the person to who it is directed. He may claim that he was joking initially, but when he repeats that which he knows is offensive to another person then he cannot pretend to be joking. For in that case he is not in the least bit joking anymore because he is aware that his words will offend. Now, if a person does this and claims to only be joking he is without question lying. For he knows that he would offend another person by his words and he deliberately spoke them with the intention to offend. And to claim otherwise is nothing short of a lie. And that is how we know that these brethren are lying about their false claim to be joking.

Then he says:

“How is it that you always know those who are "lying"?”

We have proven that they are lying. If you think our evidence that proves they are lying is not sufficient then why not take up our evidence that we presented now more than once and show that it does not prove what we assert. But you cannot do this can you. All you can do is ignore the evidence that we offered and pretend that we did not offer any. We stated that the fact that they continue to belittle us when we have told them that it is offensive to us is proof positive that they are not joking at all. If not, why not?

Then he says:

“Are you God, that you can see into the hearts of men, that when they say they are merely saying something in fun, you can somehow see into their heart and know they are in fact lying?”

Let me tell you something John. You can tell that a person is lying without having to look into their hearts. For example, when a person either with words or actions contradicts what he had previously said he is lying. If one says he is joking and then when he is told that his so-called joke was offensive then he repeats the words again knowing that it will offend and claim to still be joking he is lying. For he could not any longer be joking when he was made aware that those words would offend the hearer. He is then deliberately seeking to be offensive which is contrary to the idea of joking.

Then he says:

“ Am I the only one who is becoming rather offended by Lee constantly calling people liars in this forum without any real proof?”

WE have offered plenty of proof of our accusation that these men are liars and we will continue to call them liars because it is the truth. And if the truth offends you then that is just too bad. But we have never been guilty of belittling someone’s name just to deliberately offend him. We tell the truth to help correct him even if it offends. Now, if anyone has told the truth in order to help us we do not believe that they should be concerned about offending us. But if they are deliberately attempting to offend and then pretending that they are joking they are liars. It is that simple Brother John. And we will call anyone whom we catch telling a lie in this forum a liar whether you or anyone else likes it or not. For when you call one you have proven to be a liar, a liar, then you are not merely offending him you are convicting him of his sin. For it is not wrong to call one that you have proven to be a thief a thief. For in doing so you may offend him but your intend is to convict him of his crime. If he is in fact a thief then you have not done wrong to call him a thief. And the same is true for liars. Now we have proven that these men have lied about their intentions concerning the belittling of our name. They did this by continuing to belittle it after being told that we did not like it. They may have been joking in the beginning, though we do not think so. But after being told that their so-called joke was offensive they can no longer claim to be joking. For when they repeat it after knowing that it will offend the person who was the brunt of their so-called joke they are deliberately and with full knowledge of what they are doing intending to offend. And if they then claim to be only joking they are deliberate liars.

Then you say:

“ To me that is far more offensive than any jest.”

WE have never said that a “jest” is offensive. But these men are not jesting. And telling a lie is far more offensive than pointing out that a liar has lied and proving it. WE have proven that these men are deliberate liars. And we have never called anyone a liar in this forum that we did not first prove that they were lying and that especially includes the one’s we have referred to above as having lied. They have lied and those who are able to read and see the exchange between us here can see it. You are simply ignoring the facts we have presented that prove them to be liars. If you want to make any sense about this matter then take up our arguments and deal with them if you can. But to simply ignore the reasons that we gave to establish that these men are liars and assert that we have not proven it is not sufficient. Why not show us how we have failed to prove our case?

Brother John has said:

“Pardon me, but I just had to get that off my chest.”

Well, this is not exactly like “belching at the table” now is it? You have ignored our evidence, which proves that these men are liars. And you are just upset that we have shown them to be liars and you want “pardon”? Forget it. You do not get any pardon for deliberately supporting those whom even you know to be liars. For even you know that one who is deliberately saying words that he knows will offend his brother and that his brother has asked him not to do he is not joking. And if such a person comes back later and claims to have been joking you know that he is lying. And that is the case with these liars in this thread. You know it Brother John. And your support for deliberate liars is not worthy of any pardon and when you face Christ in the judgement you will not be pardoned for it unless you repent.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

John and Darrell,

How is it that others can know that people are deliberately belittling you and not making jest?? You have to ask??

It has gone BEYOND “joking” when one has asked the other to stop, yet still the so-called "joking" continues.

It has gone BEYOND “joking” when the one doing the “joking” KNOWS the other is hurt and feels ridiculed and offended, yet still they will not stop. It has gone BEYOND “joking” when others can see it is NOT funny even though some may; yet still they will not stop.

It has gone BEYOND “joking” when others who have protested against the joking are then included in the ridicule and scorn, yet still they will not stop.

As to knowing the heart…It is NOT a matter of looking into the heart, it IS a matter of reading the words that are posted.

I am sure that MOST of us here in the forum have used the word “IF” time and again. Darrell have you never used this word in this manner? I know I have.

And NO, I didn’t “get” the joke. So why don’t you (meaning all of you clowns) “get a little more serious” (as opposed to telling those of us who are serious to “lighten up” as we so often have to hear).

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Now Brethren:

Notice how Brother Davis deliberately continues to use abuse and belittle our names even after we have told him numerous times that it offends us as follows:

“Could you explain to us why you and E. Wee are so sensitive?”

Ids brother Davis totally deaf or completely unable to read our words? We have shown that we are not really so “sensitive” but that we object to his belittling our name. We have a right to not appreciate someone doing such with the deliberate intend to insult and belittle us. And though we do not believe that he ever intended it as a joke we know that after being told that it was offensive to us he cannot any longer claim to be joking when he makes a play on our name that we have said is offensive to us. For his deliberately doing such is not a joke at all. It is clearly deliberate and intentional offense.

But then he lies to us yet again and says:

“We have a hard time understanding how a little joke can cause you so much grief?”

First of all it is no longer a joke, if it ever was one. In fact, we do not believe that it ever was intended as such. But your now repeating it cannot be a joke. And it does not matter if you understand why we do not like it. And we have never said that it causes us any grief. We have said that it offends us. And you have shown that it is your intent to offend us. And believe me brethren intentional offense is not a joke. And so again Brother Davis demonstrates that he is a deliberate liar, doesn’t he? And it is the lying that offends us the most. To insult our name is a small thing that we do not particularly like. But to come back and lie by claiming to be joking when you knew when you used those words that they would be offensive is just that. It is a deliberate lie. And lying is not funny to God or us. “All liars shall have their part in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone. And if these men do not repent of their deliberate lies this lake will be their destiny. If anyone wants to follow them there then follow their pernicious ways and you will reach your goal.

Then he says:

“ We again repeat that we are sorry that we have upset you”

Now we know this is a lie. Because he says he is “sorry” that he upset us but he begins even the post wherein he pretends to be sorry by addressing sister D. Lee Muse as “D. WEE” and his first question is to ask why she and “E. Wee” are offended. Now he knew that by addressing us this way that he would offend us again. But in the very post wherein he has done this he says he is “sorry”. Now anyone that cannot see that he is lying about being sorry is just too stupid to see it, and that is a reference to you Brother John.

Then he continues as follows:

“ and we will try to refrain”

Sure, this is just yet another lie for in the beginning and in the initial sentence of his post he made no effort whatsoever to “refrain”. So, again he is a liar and his own words prove it.

Then he says:

“ but somehow we have allowed our funny bone to get the better of us.”

Which is another lie for we cannot see how he would continue to find this matter funny when we have repeatedly expressed our offense. Unless he finds it funny and joyful to deliberately offend his brother and sister in Christ. But we do not think that it is his “funny bone” that has got the best of him. Rather, it is his hatred of us. And it is his hatred of our stand against his many false doctrines in this forum that has gotten the best of him. And for certain it is his father Satan that has really got the best of him because Satan is a liar and the father thereof and Brother Davis has shown himself repeatedly in this thread as well as others to be a deliberate liar.

Brethren,

Beware of such evil men and the consequences that will come to you for supporting them in their lies. Brother Davis cannot debate the issue but he can insult and belittle those whom he despises. And he hates us with a passion and we understand why. Satan, his father, hates us. And that, Brethren is the reason for this deliberate belittling of E. Lee Saffold and D. Lee Muse. That is the facts and nothing that anyone has said thus far has proven otherwise.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Barry,

I have already told you that we are not easily offended, nor are we “so sensitive” as you put it.

You can repeat that you are sorry that you have upset us all day long, but it will not be believed until you are sincere in the apology. One is not sincere in repenting of doing something if they continue to do the same thing over and over again after coming to a knowledge that they have offended for no reason except to amuse themselves.

Sounds to me like yours is a worldly sorrow, and not a Godly sorrow:

2 Cor 7:10 - For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.

It is to your shame that you have allowed your “funny bone” to outweigh any and all biblical instructions concerning the care we are to take of one another as brothers and sisters in Christ.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Yes, D. Lee, I remember. A good question too. Let me see if I can get it back on track. I'm writing this from home so do not have my books with me but here goes.

Musical instruments were used until the Popehood began to develop and they were then banned. They remained banned until somewhere around 606 one Pope decided that organ music could be played, but it was only the organ.

When Luther began the Reformation, one of his most useful tools was music. He took songs that people were familiar with and put Scriptural wording to it.

Calvin would have nothing of it. He refused to have music, pictures, painted walls, comfortable chairs or the like.

Many of our Restoration ancestors came in with Calvinistic backgrounds, hence a dislike for musical instruments. It was the Civil War that brought out the division however. When the Gospel Advocate was started, it's firs issue stated it was for the Restoration Churches in the South. It was strongly against musical instruments whereas the main periodical in the North was the Christian Standard, edited by Isaac Erritt, who was for instrumental music. Actually, to give Mr. Erritt a fair shake, I believe he was rather indifferent to the issue.

In 1906 the U.S. gov't did a religious census and the non- instrumental Churches (at least many of them) asked to be listed seperately.

I have another question however. Where in the Law were musical instruments ever authorized? DO not say David, for he did not give us the Law. The Law never authorized musical instruments, yet David and others inovatively used them, and it was pleasing to God, yet it was not authorized. How can this be?

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

E. Lee, and D. Lee,

Agreed! I will quit referring to you as "Wee" and you will quit referring to me as a "false teacher", "liar", and other offensive terms.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Could we just stop with all of the childishness? I feel like I'm standing between my children when they get mad at each other. "He called me a name! Well she made fun of my name! But he started it! I'll stop if you stop!" Enough already, please.

I have never, in my time on this forum (and I've been here since the beginning), had the urge or felt the need to call someone a name. I have told Barry that he amazes me, and it was not meant to be complimentary, but I have never called him a silly name. I have said my share of smart-mouthed comments, but never called anyone a name. I have told people their views were silly & irrational, but have never called someone a name. Not because I'm above it. Because it's childish.

E. Lee, I love you brother, but you seem to be way too overly sensitive about some things, especially over the last couple of months, i.e., I'll use "we" because they are trying to force me not to. Brother, that's a bruised ego talking, at least that's what it sounds like, and I'm not trying to diagnose anything. Whether it is or not, there's no real sense in that position. I side with you over this name business. I believe it turned a bit cruel, but mostly just silly.

To get upset because of "good grief" I thought was unnecessary. It is not a substitute for cursing, it is called idiom. All languages have idioms, including Greek and Hebrew.

And to other forum people too numerous to name, this calling of our two Lee's "we" is pre-K stuff. You guys are above that. I know, I went to school with you. I even "rassled for the Lord" once or twice with some of you(FCC alum joke there).

To all, if someone disagrees, can't we deal with the issues instead of this silliness of namecalling, at least the kind we have seen on this thread. And before anyone says it, no I am not sounding like Rodney King! I don't necessarily want us to all get along. That makes for lousy debate.

Back when Nelta was here, Danny kept calling her neo0orthodox. That's the views she held. And Connie, well, I haven't got the time. But you know what I mean. This whole thread is embarrassing, and I dont embarrass easily. Calling a liberal a liberal is one thing. Making fun of someone's name is something else. Calling people names, like liar, idiot, et al, is uncalled for and silly. Deal with the issues.

It's also frustrating because Bill originally asked a valid question to start this thread, D. Lee tried to get it back on track a few posts ago, and I responded with my usual profound wisdom ;o) concerning the question of this thread and even asked another question, only to hear the children fighting in the corner again. Can we grow up please?

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Dear Sis and those who have asked for my response;

After I posed the question, I was rebuffed by E Lee who said "Now this is simply meaningless. For we are not concerned with what might have been some person’s reasons in the 1800’s for not using instruments of music in the worship. They may have been the same as ours, which is that the New Testament does not authorize it and it might have been for them nothing more than lack of funds. We do not know nor care. "

So I decided it was a worthless waste of time. I have seen how this thread denigrated. I actually was going to ask for the removal of this thread after E. Lee posted his response. But the snowball began rolling down the hill so I just left it.

If there was a real concern to know about the history of this issue, I wanted to do the digging to find out. And I was really hopng that someone could show me the historicity of the non-instrumental doctrine. But people's hearts are closed and so it is not a valuable use of my time to do the research.

There are many things I have learned on this forum. I see the divisions, the judgements, the hard hearts, the self consumed, ad nauseum. Because of this I take the words of someone smarter than me that said if someone calls you a fool, don't open your mouth and prove it (or for us, don't start typing). I have said enough.

Blessings to you all (and oh yea, not that I think one is necessary, but I am fully expecting another 3 page reply from our forum's long winded wordsmith)

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Big Brother,

You said: "If there was a real concern to know about the history of this issue, I wanted to do the digging to find out. And I was really hopng that someone could show me the historicity of the non- instrumental doctrine. But people's hearts are closed and so it is not a valuable use of my time to do the research."

I would still like to know more about this issue. And my heart is NOT closed, and I know of others out there that are still learning also. But...I can't even get two people to Biblically and logically lay out both sides of this issue in order to make an informed and Biblical decision. Though I STILL do believe we must discuss "authorization" first.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Brethren:

Notice how Brother Davis wants to make a “deal” with us. He wants us to allow him to continue to teach his false doctrines and tell his lies without our exposing him. Therefore, he offers in return, that he will stop belittling and insulting us as follows:

“E. Lee, and D. Lee, Agreed! I will quit referring to you as "Wee" and you will quit referring to me as a "false teacher", "liar", and other offensive terms.”

Brother Davis, no deal! WE have proven more than once that you are teaching that which is contrary to the doctrine of Christ which makes you a false teacher and therefore are telling the truth about that fact. And we will not stop telling the truth in this forum concerning those who would lead men away from the doctrine of Christ to follow after fables.

And we have proven more than once that you have lied to us in this forum. And we will not stop exposing your lies when you tell them.

And we have not referred to you in any “other offensive terms”.

But, your making a play on our name has nothing to do with the truth of the gospel of Christ and the doctrine of Christ and therefore is nothing more than an attempt to belittle and insult with no connection whatsoever to the truth taught in the word of God. And even your abuse of our name is not the truth. Our name is E. Lee Saffold not “E. Wee Saffold”. Which means every time you call us this you not only are belittling us but you are telling a lie. You are leaving the impression to others who do not know us that this is our name. And that impression is a false one. Now, it is your choice whether you want to continue to belittle us without cause or not. You are welcome to do that sinful and wrong thing if that is what you choose to do. But we are convinced that we have made it abundantly clear that when you do so you are not merely “joking” as you claim. But instead you are belittling us in order to get us to stop exposing your lies and deceptions in this forum. And you can rest assured that that tactic is not going to work. You can call us anything you want to but when you teach false doctrine we will expose it. And when you tell lies we will expose you as a liar. This will not stop no matter what you do.

So, because you cannot answer our arguments and questions that we have asked. And if you have determined that belittling us and insulting us is the only response you have left then continue as much as you like. But when you teach contrary to the doctrine of Christ we will be there for you to insult and belittle. For we will continue to resist the lies you have been teaching in this forum. If we must endure insults and deliberate belittling in order to continue to resist false teachers such as yourself then so be it.

That is the way it is going to be and we will not compromise concerning it.

Your Brother inn Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2001

Barry....you are a false teacher. I would no sooner allow you to fill my pulpit or classroom as I would Billy Graham. I don't think you are a "liar"...I just think you are more interested in "repenting and being Baptist."

D. Lee...just go to your local Bible college library...or do a internet search. This stuff (instrumental vs. non-intrumental issue) has been debated and written about "ad naseum" since the 1800's.

I can't speak for everyone else....but this is one of the main reasons I have absolutely no desire to discuss/debate the issue. If 201 years of church history have changed nothing....neither is an internet forum debate.

Also D. Lee.....there has been an attempt at reconciliation going on for a number of years that was started by Don DeWelt. Leaders from each group gather together once a year to discuss/debate the various issues. I can't remember the name of the conferences....can anyone help her out?? Anyway...I mention it...because they have a mailing list you can get on to get up to the date information on what's going on.

Of course...I'm assuming that these meetings are still taking place. Again...I never paid much attention to them....because as usual...they appeared to be going nowhere fast.

As per my lack of involvement in this discussion. "Fear of E. Lee??" Yeah right. Anyone that knows me knows how laughable that is. Those who know my past know that when needed....no one escapes my scrutiny....even my "alma mater."

In addition to being extremely busy....between my three jobs....Preacher/College Professor/Taxidermist....I have been somewhat embarrassed by the whole thread.

In light of the world's problems...is this the best we can do??

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2001

Danny said: "Barry....you are a false teacher. I would no sooner allow you to fill my pulpit or classroom as I would Billy Graham. I don't think you are a "liar"...I just think you are more interested in "repenting and being Baptist."

Coming from you that's a compliment. Thanks Danny Wee!

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2001

E. Wee,

Now you're just being siwwy, you old joker you! We wuv wu too!

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2001

Hey Barry,

Are you going to play ring-around-the-rosie later? Or will it be cowboys and indians?

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2001

Scott,

I'll let you pick! Either one is fine with me. What'll it be?

Wait a minute...before we decide, we better make sure it is a doctrinally sound game -- let's ask E. Wee!!

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2001

Very interesting read, and often funny. I am not among the "so-called" "A Capella Brethren," however I do have an opinion regarding the use of musical instruments in worship. Very close associates of mine will defend the belief that we are not authorized to use instruments in worship, regardless of the evidence that I share with them. I call this disingenuous. There is a "Church of Christ" in my area that uses musical instruments in worship, because they are honest and accept God's Word as the final authority.

First, What does the New Testament say about the use of musical instruments in worship? According to I Corinthians 14:26, it was a usual practice to sing with accompaniment. I Corinthians 14:26 KJV; How is it then brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a PSALM, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revalation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

Ephesians 5:19 tells us to use musical instruments in worship: Ephesians 5:18-19 KJV; And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess, but be filled with the Spirit; Speaking to yourselves in PSALMS and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord.

Colosians 3:16; Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in PSALMS and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

Young's Analytical Concordance defines the word "psalms" as found in these scriptures as: Greek; PSALMOS: A song of praise (ON AN INSTRUMENT).

E. W. Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words also defines the Greek word PSALMOS as: "to sing with the accompaniment of musical instruments."

Even Webster's Dictionary states that psalms means "to pull, twitch, or play on a stringed instrument."

The word in the New Testament that we translate "baptism" comes from the Greek word "baptismos" and we generally agree that this word means "to immerse." In the same way, the word "Psalmos" when found in the New Testament always means "songs sung with the accompaniment of musical instruments," even when it refers to "The Book of Psalms."

The idea that musical instruments are not authorized in New Testament Worship comes from teachings of Alexander Campbell. The Church of Christ and the Christian Church; Disciples of Christ were once the same organization, but they split over this topic. Musicians wanted to have newer instruments, and leaders in the church opposed the purchase of newer instruments. Alexander Campbell concluded that because of the divisiveness that was created over the topic, musical instruments in worship must not be of God.

The first known occurrence of A Capella music was not during Biblical times, but in 1501 when a Catholic Priest found that the music was very attractive, and began to develop the use of A Capella in worship services. The music became very popular and traditional, but only in the "church" thus the name "A Capella: in the style of the church." It is known that when the singers practices for performance, that an organ and other musical instruments were used to keep rhythm and beat, but during the performance, the instruments were not present.

The New Testament Church, just like Old Testament believers used musical instruments in worship, and Paul mentions this in the epistles. The only things that were practiced in the OT that were not carried over into the NT were those things that were superseded by the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, or if it is otherwise spoken to directly in the New Testament. Nowhere in the New Testament is the use of Musical instruments forbidden. Thank you, Bob Spurgeon spurgeon@yhti.net

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001