This is an honest question to our "non" or "anti" brothers and sisters.

What about using our hands in clapping during our time of singing?

I ask this question for the following reason:

Our family attends the local church of Christ on Wednesday evenings for Bible study and kids meeting. Some time ago, I was asked to take a rotation on Sunday evenings with the children. They have the children come forward at the beginning of the worship service. Whoever leads has them participate in a few songs, then has a short lesson.

I used a song that incorporates rythmic clapping as a part of the song. One of the elders asked me not to use that song anymore, or to leave out the clapping, since that is not specified or authorized for worship.

Any thoughts?

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Answers

Is it authorized?

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

I just posted a similar question to Kevin on the other thread, but it might have more chance of being noticed here. Here's the post:

Kevin,

In light of your comments about "Aids" vs. "Additions" I was wondering where the Christian Music Group Acappella would fit into your chart? They do not use instruments, but make muscial sounds vocally. Would that be an Aid or an Addition and why?

IHS,

Barry Claims of Christ Website

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Not only do they make instrument-sounding sounds vocally, but they use a computer and programs to change those sounds, making them sound even more like an instrument. The group Acappella Vocal Band takes it even further. Their last CD sounded like they had a full band with them ... with all the sounds vocally produced, then altered.

I know some "non" congregations won't have anything to do with Acappella or AVB ... while others will. Some denote a difference between a concert, and worship ... while others don't believe there is a difference.

My question above re: handclapping should be taken in the context of a "worship service."

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Hand clapping is simply not authorized in worship.

The worship that we offer is not done to meet with our approval!

Our worship is to be done in such a way as to meet with the approval of God, not men!

We do not worship to please ourselves, we do so to please God!

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Kevin (and other "non" or "anti" brethren out there) -- Do the men in your congregation "lift holy hands" when praying? 1 timothy 2:8 -- "So wherever you assemble, I want men to pray with holy hands lifted up to God, free from anger and controversy."

Sounds like a command, doesn't it. Yet MOST (maybe not all) C of C folks I know tend to stay away from lifting hands when praying (or at any other time during worship) for any number of reasons.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

If one will but read, the "lifting up holy hands" is in reference to praying. This is not an act in reference to the assembly. It is foolish to surmise that Paul was speaking in reference to assembly. Paul is making the point of praying "everywhere". This was in reference to a spiritual, inward act that is not seen. "Lifting up holy hands" is not a physical reference, but it describes how we are to live a Christian lifestyle, seeking God in all things, while always being submissive to His will.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

I'm sorry Kevin, but look at Chapter Two of 1 Timothy ... it is dealing with prayer ... womens dress ... women learning in submission ... women teaching (or not teaching) ... in the context of worship. Your statement above would mean that a woman would have to "...dress modestly with decency ..." etc when praying. And vv. 11 and following certainly are not dealing with prayer, but with worship.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Kevin, How about toe-tapping?

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Darrell,

For arguments sake, if he was speaking of "lifting up holy hands" during worship, it was not a command, Paul said "I desire" which is far different from a command. If this were only speaking of worship, why then did he say that they "pray everywhere" when lifting up holy hands?

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Kevin,

Wouldn't "everywhere" include a worship service?

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Barry,

You said: Kevin, How about toe-tapping?

My Reply: If you would ask an intelligent question, it might have a good chance of getting answered without a smart aleck remark. Why don't you just add everything else under the sun that isn't authorized into worship service?

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Kevin: Why don't you just add everything else under the sun that isn't authorized into worship service?

Actually, I did exactly that on the other thread and you replied that some things are "authorized" while others are "aids".

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Kevin: Why don't you just add everything else under the sun that isn't authorized into worship service?

Actually, I did exactly that on the other thread and you replied that some things are "authorized" while others are "aids". Now how about toe-tapping?

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

If you clap to keep time is it authorized, but not if it's to make a musical sound? If a person is singing acapella and is making a "beat box" noise (common in modern acapella rap music) or some other sound in imitation of a musical instrument (like old scat music from the 40's), is that authorized? (I'm not intentionally trying to be silly.)

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Here's a question I thought of this morning. Again, not trying to be silly, but what purpose does it serve? The law of God is always trying to teach us something, for instance Jesus explained that the ten commandments et.al. were trying to teach us that it was not just our outer actions but our inner motives that were important. But what purpose does, "thou shalt not pluck a string, blow through a brass tube, clap your hands or raise them in joy, etc." serve? Other than to rob us of spontaneous joy?

-- Anonymous, November 15, 2001

Barry and John,

Can you show me the scripture(s) in the New Testament where the following are authorized?

1. toe-tapping?

2. a "beat box" noise or some other sound in imitation of a musical instrument

3. pluck a string

4. blow through a brass tube

5. clap your hands or raise them in joy

If they are authorized, then you should also be able to tell me whether they an "aid" or an "addition".

-- Anonymous, November 15, 2001

My time is short, but perhaps I might be helpful here, on 1 Tim. 2.8 specifically.

Everett Ferguson maintains, successfully, I believe, that "everywhere" indicates "every place of meeting." Christian usage appears to base itself upon Mal. 1.11. See esp. 1 Cor. 1.2. It reinforces the view that Paul is indeed speaking of the assembly in 1 Tim. 2.8. In fact, there is a contrast here: the men are to pray, in contrast to the women's role (vv. 9-15). (See Ferguson's splendid The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today [Eerdmans, 1996]; also wrote an article in Gospel Advocate a year or so ago on this phrase.)

The lifting up of hands was apparently one of several customs regarding posture (see 1 Kings 8.22; Ps 141.2; 143.6). Here, Paul seems to be commanding not a posture of prayer, mas a posture of heart, holiness (gr. hosios), attitude of one who is "devout, pious, pleasing to God" (BAG). That emphasis is confirmed by the subsequent negative, "without anger or disputing." If his concern was posture, we (please, no upbraiding on the plural!) would have expected a negative regarding prohibited body positions. I believe we might agree that the NT concern is not for one's body posture during prayer.

A similar command is for the holy kiss (Rom. 16.16; 1 Cor. 16.20; 2 Cor. 13.12; 1 Thes. 5.26) or, for Peter, the kiss of love (1 Pet. 5.14). The kiss was the normal mode of greeting for that society. Neither Paul nor Peter is concerned to "petrify" a cultural form for the church for all time, but to guarantee that this cultural form of greeting, quite appropriate also for the church, be performed in a manner consistent with the Christian faith, hence, holy or in love.

Similarly, what was a Jewish prayer posture was considered most appropriate for the church, as long as the hands being raised were holy, that is, not involved in eruptions of anger or discord with the brethren. For how can one expect to lead others in prayer when he has been responsible for raising barriers between himself and his fellow saints? How can one approach God for the entire congregation when guilty of contributing to dissension and division?

I have read few of Kevin's posts, but have appreciated greatly his pondered responses. I would differ with him, however, on the question of whether Paul's "wish" (gr. boulomai; "I want," NIV, NAS) is a mere expression of his preferences and not an apostolic obligation, or, as BAG expresses it rather strongly, a "decision of the will after previous deliberation" (p. 146). By analogy, my children understand, when I tell them I "want" them to do something, that they have little choice in the matter, for I am expressing my will for them. D. B. Wallace classifies the phrase as a Potential Indicative; an indicative verb followed by an infinitive expressing obligation, wish, or desire (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the NT [Zondervan, 1996], p. 451-52). Though it is a statement, it indicates intention toward a desired action. (This in case someone wonders about it being a "command.")

The previous discussion of assembly activities has emphasized prayer (vv. 1-3ff), hence the probable mention of leading in prayer as a designated male activity in v. 8. From vv. 11-12ff, Paul extends this principle to other public assembly activities, therefore establishing a clear practice based upon both creation (v. 13) and the Fall (v. 14). These bases for the practice effectively remove it from a culturally conditioned, and therefore a dispensible, principle.

Well, more time went to that than intended, but perhaps it is helpful to someone. I do not profess to be a Greek scholar, so if in any point my comments have shown ignorance and exceeded my abilities to understand the tools, I would be grateful for any corrections or additional perspectives which would show the imperfections of my thinking. I had been reading this verse lately for our needs here in Sao Jose dos Campos, especially as it related to anger, so it was helpful to me to look at it again from within the confines of the discussion on this board.

Blessings upon everyone who desire above all the will of God.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Kevin,

I don't need authorization for my worship practices. I don't care if it is an "aid" or an "addition". In fact, the way you use those terms is absolutely ludicrous.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Barry says: "I don't need authorization for my worship practices. I don't care if it is an "aid" or an "addition". In fact, the way you use those terms is absolutely ludicrous."

The Bible says: "God is a Spirit; and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth" (John 4:24).

We must worship the right object, "God."

We must worship God with the right attitude, "in spirit."

We must worship God "in truth."

Jesus informed us as to what truth is when He said, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth" (John 17:17).

Whatever we do must be done by the authority of Christ (Col. 3:17).

We must not go beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6).

The Bible is not a list of everything we can't do.

Despite what Barry may believe and teach that he doesn't need authorization for his worship practices, God has told us what to do. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

To do anything more or less is wrong (2 John 9).

Sometimes the Bible is very general in giving authority. For example, we are commanded to teach (Matt. 28:20), but we are not given any specific method to use. Therefore, one may use lecture, question / answer, group discussion, etc.

The Bible is sometimes very specific in giving authority. For example, we are commanded to sing unto God (Eph. 5:19). Here God specifies the kind of music He wants. Therefore, to play an instrument unto God is unauthorized.

It is important that we recognize the difference between an aid and an addition.

Microphones and songbooks aid us in carrying out God's command to sing. Using them we have still only done what God has commanded. But a musical instrument is an addition to God's command.

Let us be careful not to do anything without authority from Christ!

Let us use every means to carry out God's command, but never do any more or less than He has commanded (Rev. 22:18-19).

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Barry, I don't understand how you can say you don't need authorization for worship. In Matthew 28:20 says: teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. John 15:10 If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in His love. How can we please God if our worship only consists of what pleases us??

Cynthia

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Let me clarify -- I don't need authorization in the way Kevin defines authorization. We do not need an express command or example for every element in a worship service. Kevin claims that we do but doesn't follow that rule himself. Again, pitch pipes, pews, microphones, etc...etc...etc... -- NONE OF THEM ARE AUTHORIZED BY GOD! YET ALMOST EVERY NON-INSTRUMENTAL CHURCH USES THEM! What utter and complete hypocrisy. These people make the Pharisees look liberal!

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2001

Gentlemen. Why must all discussions end with the strident call of one to another of "Pharisee!" or "Liberal!" with references to "those people"? In argumentative conversations exasperation expressed is counterproductive. With that said I must pose the question; Is keeping rhythm done with understanding? (This excludes keeping time while leading a song.) I offer the words of our Brother Paul for your perusal in 1 Cor 14:15-17 "So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind. If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified." In this passage I see Paul reflecting on the use of the most important element of worship. The mind. If anything is not done with humility and understanding, seems to me that the thing is vain. Are you trying to express joy in worship? You could laugh or shout. But then who would be edified. The proper response should be Amen.

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2001

Barry,

You said: " Let me clarify -- I don't need authorization in the way Kevin defines authorization. We do not need an express command or example for every element in a worship service."

My Reply: The Bible says that New Testament worship involves, preaching, prayer, singing, contributing and communion.

Please tell me which of these elements for worship aren't authorized?

Then you said: "Kevin claims that we do but doesn't follow that rule himself. Again, pitch pipes, pews, microphones, etc...etc...etc... -- NONE OF THEM ARE AUTHORIZED BY GOD! YET ALMOST EVERY NON-INSTRUMENTAL CHURCH USES THEM! "

My Reply: Please show me where I have ADDED anything to the Word of God. I attempted to explain on another thread the difference between AIDS and ADDITIONS. Here is the condensed version:

Pitch pipes do not ADD to the Word of God, they are merely an AID to help us sing. It is impossible to sing without pitch; therefore, pitch is a necessary part of the command to sing.

Song Books do not ADD to the Word of God. They are merely an AID to help us sing.

The same thing concerning AIDS and ADDITIONS can easily be demonstrated in the matter of:

1. Church buildings, 2. Pews, 3. Microphones, 4. ETC…ETC…ETC…

Nothing is done with them that is not within the scope of God's will concerning the worship service. They do not set up actions in worship separate and apart from that which God has ordained!!! In other words they do not ADD to the Word of God.

Then you say: "What utter and complete hypocrisy."

My Reply: The word "Hypocrite" comes from the Greek "hupokrites (hoop- ok-ree-tace'), meaning an actor under an assumed character; e.g., stage-player (Strong's)

A true hypocrite is one who pretends to be something he or she is not. To practice hypocrisy means to profess one thing, and yet practice another.

Please show me where I have professed one thing and yet practice something else?

Then you say: "These people make the Pharisees look liberal!"

My Reply: Phariseeism is not the giving of fervent attention to fulfilling the letter of the law, it is not being zealous about strict obedience to God's will.

Phariseeism is saying, "Jesus is Lord", then deciding what is worthy of obedience. A modern day Pharisee is not those who seek Book, Chapter, and Verse for all they do.

A modern day Pharisee is one who picks and chooses which Scriptures are worthy of obedience.

Let's always remember, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16-17)

-- Anonymous, November 19, 2001

I'm sorry, but just how are instruments ADDing to the Word of God? Are they not also merely an AID to help us sing?

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

Okay Kevin,

Why don't you show me a Book, Chapter, and Verse in the New Testament where we are specifically given a clarification between "Aids" and "Additions"?

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

John,

You said: " I'm sorry, but just how are instruments ADDing to the Word of God? Are they not also merely an AID to help us sing?"

The question that needs to be answered is: "Why isn't the instrument allowed as an "AID" on the same grounds as song books, pitch pipes, etc.?"

The song book, pitch pipe, etc., do not ADD to the specific command to "sing," for when all is said and done, only vocal music is used in the worship.

When the instrument is used we have two kinds of music (singing and playing), thus an ADDITION and not an AID has been added.

Here is a difference then between an AID and an ADDITION. A cane is an AID to walking. A wagon is an ADDITION, something else.

The singing authorized in the New Testament involves an expression of ideas, and uses words to express those ideas. The music to be made must teach and admonish.

The Bible does not in any way, shape, matter, or form authorize any kind of music for worship in the New Testament other than vocal music. The Bible only authorizes singing. It does not authorize instruments of any sort. Now, if we are content with what is written in the book of God then we will never use instruments in our worship. Musical instruments do not teach and admonish.

Let’s be content to abide within what is authorized and that is speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord. (Eph. 5:19)

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

"speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord. (Eph. 5:19)"

In the time God's Word was written, they used "heart" to repesent the seat of knowledge ... we understand that to be the "mind' today.

I wonder ... could the command be to do all of the above in your mind ... only! If we are going to be 100% accurate, then maybe we should only "sing and make melody" in our mind, and not outloud.

Sure, this is foolishness ... as is the "aid -vs- addition" argument, and many of the others we have seen.

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

Barry,

You said: " Why don't you show me a Book, Chapter, and Verse in the New Testament where we are specifically given a clarification between "Aids" and "Additions"?"

An AID is something that helps us do what the Lord directed without ADDING any element to that which is commanded.

We don't have a specific command for a "church building" but we are commanded to "assemble" (Hebrews 10:25) so we use the "church building" as an AID to assemble. Are we sinning because we don't have "Book, Chapter, and Verse to have a church building? I think not.

Christ asked us to eat the Lord's Supper in remembrance of Him (1 Corinthians 11:20-26). We don't have a specific command for "communion cups" or even the trays that hold the bread and the fruit of the vine to use as AIDs. If served with a plate and on a table, the specified food would still be partaken. If another type of food were ADDED, it would not be that which the Lord commanded. Are we sinning because we don't have "Book, Chapter, and Verse for these? No.

We are commanded to Baptize, (Matthew 28:19) and yet we use a "Baptistery" as an AID in almost every church building in order to Baptize people. There is no "Book, Chapter, and Verse to have one? Are we sinning because we use a "Baptistery?" No. There are two kinds of commands in the Bible: specific and generic.

For instance, Make thee an ark of gopher wood (Gen 6:14) is a specific command. God specified the wood, and that settled the question of the kind of wood. God did not say, "Thou shalt use no other kind of wood;" but the fact that God limited the wood to gopher wood forbade use of any other kind. Now if God had said, "Make thee an ark of wood," the use of any kind of wood would have met this generic command.

If the New Testament had simply said, "Make music," the commandment could have been complied with by making either vocal or instrumental music, or both. God, however, did not say that. He said sing, and that restricts the music to vocal music. The specification and limitation is as clear here as it was in the command to build an ark out of gopher wood.

An AID cannot change the nature of our obedience. For example, we could offer twenty dollars to every person who would be baptized and as a result baptize hundreds. The financial incentive of twenty dollars could be called an AID (or bribe!) to evangelism. But it is an unlawful aid because it changes freewill obedience to the gospel of Christ into an act of greed and self-interest. The AID transforms the nature of what is done so that it spoils, if you will, the very act itself. What is done is no longer pleasing to God because of the change that has occurred.

God has given us great liberty to use AIDs, like song books, microphones, church buildings, etc…to fulfill His will and do as He instructs. However, let us examine every AID to our obedience carefully to make certain that it is lawful.

Long ago God's people had to learn that ox carts and the ark of the covenant did not mix, even if someone thought it was an AID. Let us learn this valuable lesson too. Instrumental music may help our singing sound prettier in our ears, but this unlawful AID is an affront to the God who desires the sincere praise and obedience of our hearts.

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

So now we have additions (all unlawful) as well as lawful aids, and unlawful aids.

Wow! Who would have thought that God would make worship of Him so difficult.

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

Darrell,

You said: "In the time God's Word was written, they used "heart" to repesent the seat of knowledge ... we understand that to be the "mind' today. I wonder ... could the command be to do all of the above in your mind ... only! If we are going to be 100% accurate, then maybe we should only "sing and make melody" in our mind, and not outloud."

If this were the case, then we wouldn't have the need to assemble because we could sing "in our mind" while sitting at home. We are clearly commanded to assemble (Hebrews 10:25), so this line of reasoning doesn't work. Plus we would not be able to "speak to one another" (Ephesians 5:19) or teach and admonish each other (Colossians 3:16) while singing if we were to only sing "in our mind".

Then you said: "Sure, this is foolishness ... as is the "aid -vs- addition" argument, and many of the others we have seen."

And again you said: "So now we have additions (all unlawful) as well as lawful aids, and unlawful aids. Wow! Who would have thought that God would make worship of Him so difficult."

If it is not in the Bible, It is going beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6). It is an ADDITION to God's word (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:5-6). It is not as the oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11). It is not according to the pattern (Hebrews 8:5). It is not according to the truth (John 17:17). It is another gospel (Galatians 1:6-10). It is of men (Matthew 21:25). It cannot be done by faith (Romans 10:17). It cannot be done in the name of the Lord (Colossians 3:17). It is not a good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It does not pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:2-3). It causes one to not have God (2 John 9- 11).

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

Kevin, So in other words, you have no New Testament authorization for your "Aids" vs. "Additions" argument!

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

Barry,

You said: "Kevin, So in other words, you have no New Testament authorization for your "Aids" vs. "Additions" argument!"

If you would read my post above, it clearly states that we do have authority for AIDS but not ADDITIONS. If I don't have AUTHORITY for what I posted above, then neither do you, and that being the case, we are both sinning and remember, "the wages of sin is death". (Romans 6:23) I have clearly shown from my above posts that they are authorized. I haven't seen your argument trying to refute what I stated above, all you say is that I have no proof, but yet you fail to back it up with any type of logical argument whatsoever. This seems to happen quite a bit in most of your posts.

Please give me Book, Chapter and Verse in the New Testament where Instrumental Music is authorized?

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

"speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord. (Eph. 5:19)"

Darrell, you're so right! Why didn't I see it before! It's obvious from this verse that we are only authorized to speak to one another, and only to sing to ourselves silently. Thanks for clearing that up!

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

Kevin,

You and I have never discussed anything before on this forum before, so I will first say "hello."

I would like to go back to the discussion concerning Church buildings. I assume that you accept the idea of apostolic precidence, i.e., we follow the example of what was done when no clear command is given.

You said that Church buildings are an aid, not an addition, however, if I were to follow through logically with the position you hold (correct me if I'm wrong) then I should/could not use Church buildings, even as an aid, because we have apostolic precidence for meeting in houses, i.e., people's homes (Acts12:12; 17:5; 20:20; Rom. 16:5; I Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philemon 2). It would seem to me that, following your hermeneutic, that the precidence would deem Church buildings to be an addition.

If not why not?

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

BTW, you addressed this to Barry, but I believe the very passage that you use to prohibit instruments is actually demanding them. As I said in another post, the fact that we are to sings the Psalms would demand instrumental music. Not because of the definition of the word "Psalmos" but because the Psalms themselves tell us to use instruments. Are we to sing about using instruments but forbidden to use them?

I would also add, that I am not trying to be a smart-aleck. These are legitimate arguments.

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

Let's take this discussion a bit further, yet in a very real sense this could be a real problem for some Christians.

What about those who are deaf/dumb // hearing&speaking challenged // or whatever the correct terminology might be today?

Those who cannot speak with their mouths use their hands to "talk/sing." They "make melody" with their hands. Is this authorized? Certainly there is no "thus says the Lord" giving them the authority to use their hands to worship God in this manner.

Many times these fine brothers and sisters will tap their feet to help keep time for the music. While the questions of "foot tapping" much earlier MIGHT have been in jest, or to make a point, here is an example of Christians who have no other choice.

Are we to take the "authorization" point to the extreme in this? Certainly their using their hands to worship God is not an aid, but an addition.

Another point, but along the same lines. We (that would be my wife and I) know some autistic folks who, though they have the physical ability to speak and sing with their mouths, can not due to their handicap. They will attend services, and share in the worship time by clapping, expressing their joy of worship in that matter. Would this be considered a sin by God, since He didn't authorize it?

Many of these autistic or idiot savant (sp?) Christians also use instruments (piano, organ, etc.) in order to worship God, since they can't use their voices. I must wonder what God would think of their doing so ... since it is not authorized.

These are not "out there" questions as they affect people we (my wife and I) know on a regular basis.

IMHO I believe the whole "authorization" issue has taken on a life in the extreme. If we choose, we can make mountains out of molehills until the cows come home. What good will it do us, or the Kingdom?

As I have asked before ... and not received any responses ... the issue of things such as one cup -vs- many cups is just as devisive as the instrument issue ... and it too is one of authorization, at least in the eyes of the "one cuppers." If the Bible only authorizes one cup (as they say) then what about the many-cuppers? Are they sinning.

And so it goes, ad nausem.

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

Scott -- one argument I have heard re: the Psalms requiring the use of instruments is that the NT church was tosing Psalms ... just not the ones noting the need for instruments. Some don't say "for the ... whatever ... to be used" and those are the ones the NT church is to sing.

I'm sure that is not the argument all non's/anti folks use, but I did hear a couple of non-preachers in this area use that argument when I brought up the question at a meeting recently.

Just so's ya know!

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

Some further thought on the Pslams requiring insttruments issue:

Col. 3:16: "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God."

How are we todo this? We are to do as Paul instructed Timothy:

2 Timothy 3:16, 17: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

If "all Scripture" is to be used, then we must use the OT. While this verse might be profetically pointing towards the NT (and it very well may have been) it has to be taken into context of it's time, and so it MUST refer to the OT, since that is the only "Scripture" they had at that point. So, it must include the Pslams. And since there are Psalms that require the use of instruements, we have, in a round about way, a NT "COMMAND" to use instruments!

Psalm 4 begins "For the choir director: a Psalm of David, to be accompanied by stringed instruments."

Couple of problems -- many non/anti brothers and sisters do not believe in a choir, as that is an addition to the worship. But here is a Psalm that is commanded by God to be used by/for the choir director. Also, it directly commands the use of stringed instruments.

Now, am I ready to state that those who CHOOSE to not use instruments in their worship are sinning? Of course not! That would be as foolish as saying to CHOOSE to USE instruments is a sin.

Just shows how far this can go once started down the slippery slope of legalism.

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

Are we commanded to use instruments in our worship to God?

1. Col. 3:16 "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God." We are to admonish each other, teach each other. Of course, we are to use Scripture to accomplish this.

2. 2 Tim. 3:16,17: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." We are to use all of Scripture (in this context, Paul is refering to the Old Testament Scriptures, all Timothy had to work with at the time."

3. Psalm 4 starts "For the director of music. With stringed instruments. A psalm of David." David wrote many of the Psalms, under God's inspiration. This particular psalm is to be used with stringed instruments. Since the NT passages (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5;19) command us to use psalms in our worship to God, we are then to use instruments in our worship to God ... at least when using those psalms that require the use of instruments.

4. Ephesians 5:19; "Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord ..." Sing [ADO] (using your voice) and make music {PSALLO] (primarily to twitch, twang, then, to play a stringed instrument with the fingers). Surely Paul was not trying to say something along the lines of "sing with your voice, and sing with your voice." Looks as though he is saying "sing with your voice, and use instruments" all in our worship to the Lord.

Wow -- sure sounds like we can make a much stronger case of God REQUIRING the use of instruments, as mentioned in the NT, than we could make for NOT using instruments, based on an argument rooted in silence ... if we choose to do so.

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

Scott,

You said: “You and I have never discussed anything before on this forum before, so I will first say "hello."

Hello, back at you, Nice to meet you.

Then you said: “I would like to go back to the discussion concerning Church buildings. I assume that you accept the idea of apostolic precidence, i.e., we follow the example of what was done when no clear command is given.

That is correct as long as it is an approved apostolic example.

Then you say: “You said that Church buildings are an aid, not an addition, however, if I were to follow through logically with the position you hold (correct me if I'm wrong) then I should/could not use Church buildings, even as an aid, because we have apostolic precidence for meeting in houses, i.e., people's homes (Acts12:12; 17:5; 20:20; Rom. 16:5; I Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philemon 2). It would seem to me that, following your hermeneutic, that the precidence would deem Church buildings to be an addition. If not why not?”

As I said before, we don't have a specific command for a "church building" but we are commanded to "assemble" (Hebrews 10:25) so we use the "church building" as an AID to assemble. In order to save space, please refer to my post above concerning general and specific authority in the Bible (posted on November 16th). The command to assemble would fall under the general category. None of the passages you quoted above state that we are commanded to meet in houses or people’s homes. The Christian Jews met in the Temple daily (Acts 2:46). Does this mean that we have to meet in a Temple? Does this not mean that we need to build a Temple in order to worship God? If not, why not?

Then you say: “BTW, you addressed this to Barry, but I believe the very passage that you use to prohibit instruments is actually demanding them. As I said in another post, the fact that we are to sings the Psalms would demand instrumental music. Not because of the definition of the word "Psalmos" but because the Psalms themselves tell us to use instruments. Are we to sing about using instruments but forbidden to use them?”

I posted this on another thread and once again it is applicable: The truth of the matter is psallo does not necessarily mean "sing with musical accompaniment." Psallo conveys the action of twitching or twanging. However, the instrument when intended was specified. The instrument is specified in Ephesians 5:19. The stated instrument is the human heart, "…making melody in your heart to the Lord." The heart is the antitype to the material harp (compare Ps. 33:2 with Eph. 5:19).

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

Darrell,

You said: “What about those who are deaf/dumb // hearing&speaking challenged // or whatever the correct terminology might be today? Those who cannot speak with their mouths use their hands to "talk/sing." They "make melody" with their hands. Is this authorized? Certainly there is no "thus says the Lord" giving them the authority to use their hands to worship God in this manner. Many times these fine brothers and sisters will tap their feet to help keep time for the music. While the questions of "foot tapping" much earlier MIGHT have been in jest, or to make a point, here is an example of Christians who have no other choice. Are we to take the "authorization" point to the extreme in this? Certainly their using their hands to worship God is not an aid, but an addition.”

The question I have to ask is can someone who is deaf/dumb etc. obey the gospel? Can they understand enough to the point where they have enough faith to believe that Jesus is the Son of God? If so, then they should also be taught that “All things should be done decently and in order.” (1 Corinthians 14:40).

Then you say: “Another point, but along the same lines. We (that would be my wife and I) know some autistic folks who, though they have the physical ability to speak and sing with their mouths, can not due to their handicap. They will attend services, and share in the worship time by clapping, expressing their joy of worship in that matter. Would this be considered a sin by God, since He didn't authorize it? Many of these autistic or idiot savant (sp?) Christians also use instruments (piano, organ, etc.) in order to worship God, since they can't use their voices. I must wonder what God would think of their doing so ... since it is not authorized.”

Worshiping God is a serious matter which should not be taken lightly. When Christians assemble for worship, Jesus is with them in a special way (Matt. 18:20). Therefore, whatever is done at worship services is done openly before Him and whatever hinders His people from worshiping Him affects Him (remember the teaching of Matthew 25:31- 46, i.e., what is done to his brothers is done to Him).

Acceptable worship must be offered in Faith (Heb. 11:4), must agree with the Truth (John 4:24), and be given by the Commandment of God (John 14:15). Anything other than that cannot be considered acceptable worship. Remember, Jesus said: “If you love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:15)

Then you said: “IMHO I believe the whole "authorization" issue has taken on a life in the extreme. If we choose, we can make mountains out of molehills until the cows come home. What good will it do us, or the Kingdom?”

Since you say the authorization issue has taken on a life in the extreme, are you saying that we don’t need Bible Authority for anything we do during worship?

The Bible says: When God says nothing, He means “No” (cf. Lev. 10:1- 2); When God says nothing, we must do nothing (cf. 1 Chr. 17:1-6); When God says something, He doesn’t say everything (cf. Gen. 22:1-2); When God says something, we may choose everything that is essential or anything that is expedient to do only what God says (cf. Gen. 22:6).

Then you say: “As I have asked before ... and not received any responses ... the issue of things such as one cup -vs- many cups is just as devisive as the instrument issue ... and it too is one of authorization, at least in the eyes of the "one cuppers." If the Bible only authorizes one cup (as they say) then what about the many- cuppers? Are they sinning.”

The Bible does not only authorize one cup. Jesus said: “Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves.” (Luke 22:17) Here Jesus is speaking of the contents of the cup, not the cup itself. As to whether they are sinning, I honestly don’t have the answer to that question. Jesus will be the final judge in their case.

Then you said: “Some further thought on the Pslams requiring insttruments issue: Col. 3:16: "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God." How are we todo this? We are to do as Paul instructed Timothy: 2 Timothy 3:16, 17: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." If "all Scripture" is to be used, then we must use the OT. While this verse might be profetically pointing towards the NT (and it very well may have been) it has to be taken into context of it's time, and so it MUST refer to the OT, since that is the only "Scripture" they had at that point. So, it must include the Pslams. And since there are Psalms that require the use of instruements, we have, in a round about way, a NT "COMMAND" to use instruments!”

Nice try Darrell. If that is the case according to your hermeneutic of using the OT, then why don’t we institute circumcision as the Jews tried to make the Gentile converts do in Acts 15:5? Circumcision isn’t commanded in the New Testament, but the Jews certainly did try to make the Gentiles keep the law of Moses and be circumcised. While you are at it, why don’t we bring in incense, animal sacrifices, the Sabbath etc…This list could go on and on. The old law was nailed to the cross (Col 2:14). The Old Testament is for our learning only. The law was a tutor to bring us to Christ. (Gal. 3:24)

Then you said: “Psalm 4 begins "For the choir director: a Psalm of David, to be accompanied by stringed instruments." Couple of problems -- many non/anti brothers and sisters do not believe in a choir, as that is an addition to the worship. But here is a Psalm that is commanded by God to be used by/for the choir director. Also, it directly commands the use of stringed instruments.”

Once again, we are not under the Old Testament. The law as given in the Old Testament was for the Jews ONLY. We are not Jews.

Then you said: “Now, am I ready to state that those who CHOOSE to not use instruments in their worship are sinning? Of course not! That would be as foolish as saying to CHOOSE to USE instruments is a sin. Just shows how far this can go once started down the slippery slope of legalism.”

That is your opinion, which you are entitled to it of course. The Bible NOWHERE in the New Testament tells us by either command, example or necessary inference to use instruments in worship to God. I don’t believe it is foolish to point out sin anywhere. You said yourself that you CHOOSE to use instruments in worship, and the Bible clearly warns us not to go beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6).

Then you said: “Are we commanded to use instruments in our worship to God? 1. Col. 3:16 "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God." We are to admonish each other, teach each other. Of course, we are to use Scripture to accomplish this.”

Where is the commandment to use instruments? Can an instrument admonish or teach?

Then you said: “2. 2 Tim. 3:16,17: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." We are to use all of Scripture (in this context, Paul is refering to the Old Testament Scriptures, all Timothy had to work with at the time."

As I said earlier, the Old Testament is for our learning ONLY.

Then you said: “3. Psalm 4 starts "For the director of music. With stringed instruments. A psalm of David." David wrote many of the Psalms, under God's inspiration. This particular psalm is to be used with stringed instruments. Since the NT passages (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5;19) command us to use psalms in our worship to God, we are then to use instruments in our worship to God ... at least when using those psalms that require the use of instruments.

Then you said: “4. Ephesians 5:19; "Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord ..." Sing [ADO] (using your voice) and make music {PSALLO] (primarily to twitch, twang, then, to play a stringed instrument with the fingers). Surely Paul was not trying to say something along the lines of "sing with your voice, and sing with your voice." Looks as though he is saying "sing with your voice, and use instruments" all in our worship to the Lord.”

As stated in an earlier post to Scott: The truth of the matter is psallo does not necessarily mean "sing with musical accompaniment." Psallo conveys the action of twitching or twanging. However, the instrument when intended was specified. The instrument is specified in Ephesians 5:19. The stated instrument is the human heart, "…making melody in your heart to the Lord." The heart is the antitype to the material harp (compare Ps. 33:2 with Eph. 5:19). Then you said: “Wow -- sure sounds like we can make a much stronger case of God REQUIRING the use of instruments, as mentioned in the NT, than we could make for NOT using instruments, based on an argument rooted in silence ... if we choose to do so.”

The inspired writer of Hebrews applied the hermeneutic of silence when he argued that the law did not authorize a priest from Judah by the simple fact that "Moses spake nothing concerning" a priest from Judah (Heb. 7:13-14). Things not authorized are excluded. Otherwise, authority is not authority.

Instrumental music is a tradition of men and falls into the same category as the Jews' washing traditions (Mark 7:1-13).

The Bible does not in any way, shape, matter, or form authorize any kind of music for worship other than vocal music. The Bible only authorizes singing. It does not authorize instruments of any sort. Now, if we are content with what is written in the book of God then we will never use instruments in our worship.

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

Kevin stated: "The question I have to ask is can someone who is deaf/dumb etc. obey the gospel? Can they understand enough to the point where they have enough faith to believe that Jesus is the Son of God? If so, then they should also be taught that “All things should be done decently and in order.” (1 Corinthians 14:40)."

"Worshiping God is a serious matter which should not be taken lightly. When Christians assemble for worship, Jesus is with them in a special way (Matt. 18:20). Therefore, whatever is done at worship services is done openly before Him and whatever hinders His people from worshiping Him affects Him (remember the teaching of Matthew 25:31- 46, i.e., what is done to his brothers is done to Him)."

There is no doubt that deaf/dumb folks can be taught the Gospel. To imply anything less is foolish. And their worship IS decent and in order ... even if they can't sing with their voices. To disallow a person their worship of God certainly would be a hindrence to them, and yes, I do believe it would affect Jesus in a negative way. Take away the instrument the autistic/idiot savant uses to praise God, and it is a hindrence. Take away my ability to worship God through singing, playing the guitar, etc. would be a hindrence to my worship. One of the very points I have been trying to make.

re: the one cup issue ... you have brothers who hold to a different view. Jesus took "THE cup" and they will tell you that it is a sin to use more than one. Many cups are an addition, they will tell you. Yes, I believe that is foolishness. I don't care if you use one cup, many cups, just do so remembering Jesus Christ and His sacrifice.

"This is the [discussion] that nevers ends." (My apologies to Lamb Chop) Those who hold to the silence prohibits will use that hermenutic to dis-allow some things, but allow others. That is a fact, call it "aids" or "additions" or whatever.

Those who hold to the silence allows will use that hermenutic to allow things that are not specificially prohibited by God, or that are so "out there" to not be worthy of discussion.

That is how it is. For the most part, people will not change on this issue. I know some who have, going both ways, but not many.

I will continue to worship the Lord "singing and making melody" and I do so sure of His acceptance.

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

Kevin -- Since I continue to use the instrument ... willfully ... does that mean I am continuing to willfully sin? And if that is the case, does that negate my being a brother in Christ? For if I continue to sin willfully, am I not crucifying Christ again and again?

In other words, do you make the instrument issue a test of fellowship, yes or no. And why.

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

Darrell,

Before I answer your question, this question needs to be answered first is: Do you fear God?

The Bible says: "God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints," (Ps 89:7).

Does this mean that we can do anything that we please when we worship God? I think not! Fear has to be taught (Deut. 4:10; 14:23; Ps 34:11). It is not casually absorbed. If one fears God, he has been taught to fear.

Solomon sought the answer to the question of the purpose of life. After finding the emptiness of wealth, pleasure and wisdom, he concluded, "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man's all" (Ecc. 12:13). The same writer said that we should be in the fear of God all day long (Prov. 23:17). God placed man on earth to fear him and keep his commandments. That means everything else is secondary to that. Our purpose and function in life is not to work and make a living. We work and make a living so we can live and serve God with fear.

The Lord says that he will look on the one who "trembles at My word" (Isa. 66:2). David said, "My flesh trembles for fear of You, And I am afraid of Your judgments" (Ps 119:120). We ought to tremble in our boots at the thought of doing the things that displease God.

Paul said that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb. 10:31). The reason is "our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:29).

One who can knowingly do wrong and not be bothered at all obviously doesn't fear God.

We must DO what God says. While we do not live under the OT law (Gal. 3:24-25; 2 Cor. 3), books like Deuteronomy, which emphasize obedience to the law, serve to demonstrate the relationship of the fear of God to obedience. Notice that connection in the following passages:

"that you may fear the Lord your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you..." (Deut. 6:2).

"Therefore you shall keep the commandments of the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to fear Him" (Deut. 8:6).

"You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear Him, and shall keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him" (Deut. 13:4).

"And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statues..." (Deut. 17:19).

"If you fear the Lord and serve Him and obey His voice and do not rebel against the commandment of the Lord...." (1 Sam. 12:14).

The one fears God, will obey to the utmost as Abraham did in his attempt to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:12). When God saw he was willing to go that far in obedience, he said, "Now I know that you fear God". This is obedience with no excuses, question or doubt.

Moses told God's people at Sinai that God''s presence on the mount (the display of thundering, lightening, sounding of the trumpet and the smoke on the mountain) was to test them "that his fear may be before you, so that you may not sin" (Exo. 20:20). Thus, if one fears God, he will hate sin and cease the practice of it.

The Psalmist said, "Because they do not change, therefore they do not fear God" (Ps 55:19). When people persist in sin and never change (whether an alien in the world or a supposed "Christian") the problem is they do not fear God.

If one honors God, he will have the utmost respect for his word.

Remember that Nehemiah described those among whom he worked (as he did himself) as those "who desire to fear...." Because of that fear they were attentive to Ezra as he read and explained the law (Neh. 8:2). They stood when Ezra opened the book in their presence (v. 5).

If we fear God we too will hold the word in high esteem. We should view the Bible as the inspired word that came from the mouth of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Cor. 9:13). We should never forget that this is the book by which we will be judged in the last day (John 12:48). The way we refer to the word and the way we respond to it will reflect whether we respect it or not.

Finally, to your question. Jesus said in John 8:51 "Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death." He also said "If you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:15). Then Jesus said: "He who does not love Me does not keep My words;" (John 14:24). Since I can only "speak where the Bible speaks", The Bible clearly condemns going beyond God's word (1 Cor. 14:6). If you obeyed the Gospel, then you are my brother in Christ however, since you choose to ADD something that was not commanded in the Bible, then yes, according to the Bible, you are sinning and the only thing that you can do is to repent (2 Tim. 2:25).

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

Of course I "fear" God in the biblical sense of the word.

I have obeyed the Gospel.

I will continue to use instruments in my worship to the Lord, and will not repent of doing so.

Is my salvation in question?

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

Back to my posts above:

Is it a sin for a deaf/dumb person to use American Sign Language to worship in a worship service?

Is it a sin for a deaf/dumb person to "keep time" by toe tapping or ??? in order to aid themselves in their worship of the Lord?

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

Darrell,

You said: "I will continue to use instruments in my worship to the Lord, and will not repent of doing so. Is my salvation in question?"

The Bible says in Romans 6:23; "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Jesus says in Rev 3:19; "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent."

So, any unrepented sin will cause us to be lost. The Bible also says: "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6)

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

Can a person who is deaf even be saved? After all, it says very plainly that faith "cometh by hearing."

Or can we understand that some words in the Scriptures (psallo, for example) might not have the strict narrow interpretation we might want to force it into, and give those who believe it gives the believer the freedom to worship with instruments the right to worship in that manner, and leave it to the individual conscience instead of condemning that person as a sinner?

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

John -- of course you are correct. I'm not sure Kevin (or anyone else) is saying a deaf person cannot be saved, since they can't hear. Yet to be very honest, to hear someone from a legalistic background make that statement ... I guess by now I wouldn't be THAT surprized.

Kevin -- so I'm NOT your brother in Christ. I am sorry to hear that. I AM in Christ, a Christian, so if you have obeyed the Gospel, then I am happy to say you are my brother, even if you don't see me as a brother.

Enough of this foolishness ... at least on my part. I have spent WAY too much time discussing this non-issue, and will abstain from further posts on any of these threads dealing with music, authority, aid-vs-addition, etc., unless someone comes up with something substantially different than the legalistic mumbo jumbo offered so far.

Let us praise the Lord with the talents He has entrusted to us!

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

Faith does come by hearing (Rom. 10:17). I never said a deaf person could not be saved. I asked the question if a deaf/dumb person could obey the gospel? Of course, the answer is yes to that question because we do have the written word and they do have the ability to see with their eyes.

Another question was asked: "Or can we understand that some words in the Scriptures (psallo, for example) might not have the strict narrow interpretation we might want to force it into, and give those who believe it gives the believer the freedom to worship with instruments the right to worship in that manner, and leave it to the individual conscience instead of condemning that person as a sinner?"

This almost sounds like the same type of argument that denominationalists use in their defense of their false "faith only" doctrine. They try to change the meaning of words such as the word "for" in Acts 2:38 and they even try to change the clear meaning of the word "water" in John 3:5 to mean something other than the intended meaning. Where I come from, the word "water" only means "water" and the word "for" only means "for" and the word "singing" only means "singing".

Darrell, I never said you weren't my brother in Christ, my earlier post said: "If you obeyed the Gospel, then you are my brother in Christ however, since you choose to ADD something that was not commanded in the Bible, then yes, according to the Bible, you are sinning and the only thing that you can do is to repent (2 Tim. 2:25)."

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

Kevin --

"So, any unrepented sin will cause us to be lost. The Bible also says: "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6)" This being the case ...

IF my using instruments in worship is a sin ... and IF I continue to use them without repenting of that sin ... then I must be lost. If I am lost, I am not a Christian, and therefore you could not see me as your brother in Christ.

Not to worry ... I have had non-instrumentalists share that I am not a brother in Christ due to my use of instruments before.

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

Don't stop, Darrell. The only reason I (perhaps others) do not contribute to this thread is because you (and Kevin) are doing a commendable job in presenting your views. It is to my benefit to read, continue to compare against Scripture and reason, and only add two cents when necessary.

It appears Kevin is saying that you are a "sinning brother" who needs to be corrected, and therefore, it would seem reasonable for him to be concerned, since it must follow that unless you repent, you risk dying with unforgiven, willful sin.

It would also then follow that his efforts to convince you of your error might contribute to saving you from the fire.

Do I have that correctly, Kevin?

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

Duane,

You are 100% correct, and you hit the nail right on the head!!! This is exactly what I have been trying to say all along!!!! Thank you for correctly interpreting my views!!! :-)

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

This being said, however, I have a question to ask of Kevin:

Where is the line drawn between the willfully sinning Christian "brother" who will face hell tonight if he dies unforgiven, and the run-of-the-mill pagan who is a bonafide member of the kingdom of darkness?

Should you treat these folks differently? Both are presumably in a lost state... yet one is still a brother in Christ??

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2001

Duane,

You said: "Where is the line drawn between the willfully sinning Christian "brother" who will face hell tonight if he dies unforgiven, and the run-of-the-mill pagan who is a bonafide member of the kingdom of darkness? Should you treat these folks differently? Both are presumably in a lost state... yet one is still a brother in Christ??"

The Bible says: In 1 Thess 4:1 "Finally then, brethren, we urge and exhort in the Lord Jesus that you should abound more and more, just as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God;"

Since we should always try to please God, this is what we are to do with our "brother in Christ": "Do not rebuke an older man, but exhort him as a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger as sisters, with all purity" (1 Tim. 5:1-2).

A sinning "brother in Christ" only has to repent (Acts 8:22) to continue to remain faithful however, someone who has not obeyed the gospel what you call a "run-of-the-mill pagan who is a bonafide member of the kingdom of darkness" must first be taught the gospel (Romans 10:17), then they must obey the gospel (2 Thes. 1:8) because Jesus is "...the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him" (Heb. 5:9).

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2001

Kevin,

What if there were a member of your congregation, who attended regularly, but was living with a woman that he was not married to, and did not consider it sinful.

Would you consider him to be a brother in Christ who needed admonition? Would you continue to welcome him to join you around the Lord's table?

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2001

Duane,

The Bible says: In Matthew 18:15-17 - "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that 'by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2001

Kevin -- since I have "refused to hear you" and continue in my (perceived) sin of using the instrument, then am I now to be treated like a tax collector or heathen?

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2001

Darrell,

You read my post above what the Bible says concerning this matter. This already happened in the not too distant past, back in or around 1906 when the Christian church split with the church of Christ.

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2001

Yes, Kevin, I know quite well what the Scriptues say on this matter. Please answer the following questions:

1. Are you saying that the non/anti-instrument church of Christ is to treat the instrumental church of Christ and Christian Church as pagans and tax collectors, i.e. shunned and not as brothers and sisters in Christ?

2. Are you saying that I am not your brother in Christ? In your popinion, am I lost?

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Darrell,

You said: "1. Are you saying that the non/anti-instrument church of Christ is to treat the instrumental church of Christ and Christian Church as pagans and tax collectors, i.e. shunned and not as brothers and sisters in Christ? 2. Are you saying that I am not your brother in Christ? In your popinion, am I lost?"

Answer to question 1: Like I said before, this already happened in or around 1906 when the Christian church split from the church of Christ. Also, "A sinning "brother in Christ" only has to repent (Acts 8:22) to continue to remain faithful"

Answer to question 2: I already answered this question above, but I will repost it for you: "Darrell, I never said you weren't my brother in Christ, my earlier post said: "If you obeyed the Gospel, then you are my brother in Christ however, since you choose to ADD something that was not commanded in the Bible, then yes, according to the Bible, you are sinning and the only thing that you can do is to repent (2 Tim. 2:25)."

My opinion on whether or not you are lost does not matter, the only thing that matters is what the Bible says on this subject. The Bible says in 2 Peter 3:8-9 "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Kevin,

This is the typical response from the anti crowd. You see, your opinion does matter! We in the Christian Church would like to know what you think about us. If you believe we are lost than you do not believe we are your brothers and sisters in Christ. If that is what you believe, then have enough guts to just come out and say it. If that is not what you believe, state plainly that we are your brothers and sisters in Christ!

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Barry,

You said: "This is the typical response from the anti crowd. You see, your opinion does matter! We in the Christian Church would like to know what you think about us. If you believe we are lost than you do not believe we are your brothers and sisters in Christ. If that is what you believe, then have enough guts to just come out and say it. If that is not what you believe, state plainly that we are your brothers and sisters in Christ!"

What matters, is NOT what I might believe on any matter, but what does the Bible have to say.

We are ALL obligated to believe whatever the Bible says.

The Bible says: "But He answered and said, Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted." (Matt 15:13)

The Bible also says in 2 Tim 2:19 "The Lord knows those who are His,"

Remember, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." (Matt 7:21)

On judgment day, we shall be judged NOT by the OPINIONS of men but by the word of God. (John 12:48)

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Kevin,

I understand that what the Bible says is the most important thing, but I really want to know what you believe about those of us that use instruments in worship. Do you believe we are saved or not? Is that really that hard of a question?

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Barry,

If you look at my response to Darrell, I have already answered this question more than once.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Remember the disco dance song "Dancin' On The Ceiling?" We have our own version here -- "Dancin' All Around The Question." And yes, this is typical.

I will surmise from these posts that:

1. Kevin holds that the non/anti church of Christ believes those who use instruments in their worship to the Lord are sinning, have been warned a number of times, and are now to be treated as a heathen or tax collector, which we know to mean shunned, rejected, and not to be seen as a brother.

2. Therefore, in his eyes, though there is the "chance" that I might repent of my use of the instrument, and therefore regain my salvation, in my present un-repentant state, I am lost, and bound for hell.

3. Therefore, there is no way he can consider myself, or any of us who use the instruments as a brother in Christ ... at least with the hope of eternal salvation, as long as we continue to use instruments.

Unless something new comes up, I am finished with this subject. Whew! (Oops, was that some sort of cursing on my part? I hope not).

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Darrell,

You said: "Remember the disco dance song "Dancin' On The Ceiling?" We have our own version here -- "Dancin' All Around The Question." And yes, this is typical."

Typical? If you would bother to read my posts, I have said on several occasions, that if you 1. OBEY the GOSPEL thereby becoming a child of God (A Christian), then 2. you are my brother or sister in Christ. How hard is that to understand?

Then you say: "I will surmise from these posts that: 1. Kevin holds that the non/anti church of Christ believes those who use instruments in their worship to the Lord are sinning, have been warned a number of times, and are now to be treated as a heathen or tax collector, which we know to mean shunned, rejected, and not to be seen as a brother."

The Bible doesn't say this, and I did not say that you were NOT to be seen as a brother. Don't put words in my mouth. The Bible says in Jude 22-23: "And on some have compassion, making a distinction; but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh." Is this speaking of CHRISTIANS or NON- CHRISTIANS?

Here is an example for you from the New Testament: Simon the sorcerer (a child of God per Acts 8:13) fell away from Christ and was (now in a state as a child of God) in need of forgiveness. Peter instructed him, "Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you" (Acts 8:22). He COULD BE FORGIVEN, but NOT if he DID NOT FOLLOW an apostle’s instructions to obtain forgiveness. Was Simon still a BROTHER IN CHRIST? If not, why not?

Then you said: "2. Therefore, in his eyes, though there is the "chance" that I might repent of my use of the instrument, and therefore regain my salvation, in my present un-repentant state, I am lost, and bound for hell."

No Darrell, you know full well that my EYES don't count now do they, it only matters what the Bible says about sin now doesn't it? "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom 6:23) Then you say: "3. Therefore, there is no way he can consider myself, or any of us who use the instruments as a brother in Christ ... at least with the hope of eternal salvation, as long as we continue to use instruments."

WRONG!!! That isn't what the Bible says at all concerning this subject. Is a brother in Christ still a Christian if he or she falls away? Of course he or she still is a brother (or sister) in Christ. So that being the case, even though Darrell is sinning (Not what Kevin says, but what the Bible says) by using instruments, since he (Darrell) has obeyed the Gospel, then Yes, he IS STILL my brother in Christ.

Then you said: "Unless something new comes up, I am finished with this subject. Whew! (Oops, was that some sort of cursing on my part? I hope not)."

God has provided a "second law of pardon" whereby, through His grace and mercy, He gives CHRISTIANS who have fallen into apostasy another chance. He wants NO ONE (Christian or non-Christian) to perish (2 Peter 3:9), but ALL who FAIL to do ALL the will of God will be lost (Matthew 7:21-24). That "second law of pardon" is taught clearly in 1 John 1:7—2:2. But, just as the plan of salvation is conditional, so is this plan to restore fallen Christians. The conditions are plainly revealed in 1 John, as well as James 5:16 and Acts 8:22.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Kevin,

Let's make this real simple. Let's suppose that I believe everything exactly the same way you do and have accepted Christ as Savior in the exact same way that you have. The only difference between us is that I use mechanical instruments in worship and you don't. In addition, I will always use mechanical instruments and will never change under any circumstances.

Given the above, am I saved or am I not? Please just give a yes or no. This isn't all that difficult.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Barry,

One more time, the Bible says: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom 6:23)

So, if the Bible says that using instruments in worship is a sin, Will you be saved once you DIE and you refused to repent of your sin? The answer to this question is NO. This also answers your question above.

What is the wages of sin? What does the Bible say: "DEATH".

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Kevin,

First of all, the Bible never says that using musical instruments is sin -- it says exactly the opposite! God is glorified through instruments (see Psalm 150).

But I'm glad that you were clear now. You do not believe that I am your brother in Christ but that I am going to hell for using a piano. Glad we cleared that up!

BTW, why aren't you trying to evangelize all of us since you believe we are lost? Why the pretense of calling us your brothers in Christ when you believe we are all going to hell? What utter and complete hypocrisy!

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Barry,

Why don't you get your facts straight?

I did not say you were not my brother in Christ.

Please show me where I said that?

If you cannot, then you are not telling the truth, which seems to be a habit of yours in this forum.

You said: "God is glorified through instruments (see Psalm 150)."

Well I am glad to hear that, but we are not under the OLD TESTAMENT law now are we?

Then you said: "BTW, why aren't you trying to evangelize all of us since you believe we are lost? Why the pretense of calling us your brothers in Christ when you believe we are all going to hell? What utter and complete hypocrisy!"

Can you read words that are posted? Do you have a problem reading what I have written? Talk about a hypocrite, you need to look in the mirror.

Once again, the Bible says in Jude 22-23: "And on some have compassion, making a distinction; but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh."

What does that statement above mean??? Do you have the same Bible that I do? It surely doesn't seem that way! It seems to me that you would rather label someone a hypocrite, and jump to conclusions that aren't even remotely true rather than rely on what has been posted. This doesn't suprise me in the least.

Do you remember me saying: "Will you be saved once you DIE and you refused to repent of your sin? The answer to this question is NO."

So, this being the case, while you are ALIVE, then there is a chance for YOU to REPENT. I don't know how much easier I can spell this out for you??? So, since you are still ALIVE, and you have a chance to REPENT of your sin, then you are STILL my brother in Christ. Enough said on this issue.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Barry,

Let’s make this even simpler. Let’s suppose that I believe everything exactly the same way you do and have accepted Christ as Savior in the exact same way that you have. The only difference between us is that I commit adultery and you don’t. In addition, I will always commit adultery and will never change under any circumstances.

Given the above, am I saved or am I not? Please just give a yes or no. This isn’t all that difficult.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

D. Lee,

So you're equating committing adultery with using musical instruments in worship? I can't remember God commanding us to commit adultery, but He certainly has commanded us to worship with musicial instruments.

You're one sick puppy!

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Kevin,

You're missing my point. You did say I was your brother in Christ. Then you say I am lost because I use musical instruments and will not repent of doing what God has commanded. That is your hypocrisy.

BTW, Psalm 150 has nothing to do with the Law. Your grasping at straws friend.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

D. Lee,

Although I do not agree with Barry that you are a sick puppy (imo, you are a pure-bred), I do agree that the comparson you make is not a valid one.

There are implicit and explicit commands about adultery. Most of the non-instrumental argument hangs on the case of the Greek word kardia (heart) found in Eph. 5:19 along with a particular view of authorization. The best the non-instrumentalist can honestly do is say that there was PROBABLY no instruments used, IF there understanding of the Greek case is correct.

The comparison you make is not a level comparison. I am intersted to seehow my question gets answered that I asked on the "open question" thread. Where in the Law were musical instruments authorized? There was musical instruments used before the Law was given to Moses, and God never condemned it. God gave Moses the Law, and never authorized it. Yet David developed a whole division of the priesthood to play musical instruments, which was never authorized by the Law. And what David did, unauthorized, was pleasing to God. Th queston is: Why then but not now?

And one more thing. D. Lee, that was supposed to be a compliment above. I'm not calling you a dog.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Barry,

No I am not and you know that I am not. But you are not too blind to see (I hope) what you have been doing to Kevin, and neither is anyone else on the forum that blind. I do not agree with him or E. Lee concerning the instrument issue. Nevertheless, They do believe it is a SIN to use instruments in the worship of God. Just as you believe that it is a SIN to commit adultery. You are the one trying to back Kevin into a corner to prove your point.

I used the exact same method on you that you were using on Kevin. If YOU BELIEVE something to be a SIN, you would answer with the same answer that you are trying to get out of Kevin.

Your whole point was to push Kevin into a corner by trying to get him to say that you are not a brother in Christ and that you are going to hell for using a piano.

Kevin never said that you were not a brother in Christ. He is saying that he believes you to be an erring brother. There is no need to evangelize a brother in Christ who is erring. We are told to go to them in an effort to get them to repent.

You say that Kevin is a hypocrite because he in pretense is calling us brothers in Christ when he believes we are all going to hell. Again, he never said we were not his brothers in Christ.

Would you believe that I needed to be evangelized if I had already accepted Christ as Savior by obeying the gospel, even though I was sinning at this time by committing adultery? If I were committing adultery, would you consider me lost and going to hell, would you tell me that I was lost and had never been a sister in Christ? Or would you try to correct an erring sister? Given the scenario above would I be saved or not? Why can’t you answer your own questions, which you have already said are not difficult?????

I wonder why it is that you HAVE NOT answered these questions. They are the SAME questions you posed to Kevin and you expect an answer from him??

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Scott,

The comparison is a valid one IF you believe that using instruments is a SIN and IF you believe that the word of God says using instruments is a SIN.

The problem again comes down to the issue of authorization. Which unfortunately no one here on our side is willing to formally debate.

I do not know that the “best the non-instrumentalist can honestly do is say that there was PROBABLY no instruments used…” I have seen Kevin try to explain though I wish we could get back to the issue of authorization and stay off the instrument issue for a while. The authorization issue MUST come first in order for us to proceed to the instrument issue and others.

Again, the point is…the comparison I make is a level comparison if I consider that using instruments is a SIN. Just because “we” do not believe that using instruments is a sin does not mean that the comparison from the other point of view is not valid. Do you understand?

Scott, no need to tell me that your comment about me being a “pure- bred” was intended as a compliment. And I thank you for it:-)

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

She has you on this one, Scott. As I was reading this thread, I was preparing the same question that D. Lee posed: If you consider using instruments SIN, and all sin is equally SIN in God's eyes, and willful unrepentant sin leads to death, then there should be no difference in a consistent "non's" view between an unrepentant musician and an unrepentant adulterer. Both will burn in hell if the die tonight in such state.

There is nothing wrong with "backing someone into a corner" if it is done with reason and logic, in the pursuit of truth. Would that all of us stayed in the corner of consistency. This is a sign of a good thread too. We see progress as we try to narrow our thoughts down to the core.

And I don't see Kevin as avoiding the corner, either, but rather; both sides seem to be talking past each other. The question now is: Can a Christian forfeit his inheritance, and backslide into sin? And I assume both sides would agree... So Kevin considers you Darrell, an erring (and LOST, at least for now) brother, whom he would treat differently from a lost non-brother. A non-brother he would try to convert, starting with the Gospel message. A brother he would try to reconcile through exhortation, etc.

That being said, here's the problem I have with that. First, if I am living in adultery, and will go to hell tonight if I die, technically, I am no longer in Christ, and therefore, technically no longer a spiritual brother to one who is remaining in Christ. So D. Lee is right in pointing out that if Kevin is consistent, i.e. using instruments is as much SIN as adultery, he should treat both offenders the same.

Finally, Darrell could not have really been SAVED (and therefore Kevin's brother) for very long a time. According to Kevin, (correct me on this, Kev) from the moment Darrell was immersed, in God's eyes, he was Kevin's spiritual brother. For a few seconds, it was great. There he was, completely cleansed of all of his sins, ready to begin a new life in Christ. Then the pianist played the first few bars and the congregation began to sing "Now I belong to Jesus" when immediately he fell from grace, forfeiting his salvation with this vile addition to true worship.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Certainly the Rom 14:16 principle applies here, and I would not ask an acapella bro go against his own conscience. Yes, if you consider musical instruments sin, then the comparison is valid. However, as I said, the argument to condemn musical instruments is getting more weak the more I learn. I would still like to have my question answered. It is not an inflamitory question, just an honest one.

But I still maintain that the comparison, on it's own merits is not valid. You have multiple and clearly stated commands vs. a possible, but not only, interpretation.

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2001

Wouldn't the passage in James 4:11,ff be applicable here about judging each others' salvations? Aren't we admonished NOT to do such as this because of the fact that there is only ONE lawgiver & JUDGE, i.e. the ONLY one who is able to save & destroy!?!?! Kathy C ><>

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2001

Yes, but we are called to separate ourselves from those who claim to be Christians but do not follow His Word... In order to do that, we have to make a judgement call... but not "judgement" in the condemnation sense. So if the Biblical precedent for church discipline is to be followed, and if the non's are to be consistent they must excommunicate both the shacker-upper and the pianist.

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2001

Kevin, you still there?

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2001

Duane, I am still here.

-- Anonymous, November 29, 2001

I dont get your doctrine at all. No music, which is scriptural and no nothing. *yawn*

-- Anonymous, November 30, 2001

perhaps Kevin's bible is missing psalm 150. Pity.

perhaps God made a boo-boo when he said the musicians in HIS temple were to be among the best (play skillfully). Pity

We must always be careful with isogesis.....gets us into trouble every time.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2001

I don't know who you are, and neither does anyone else. If you are concerned about receiving a lot of junk email, create an address thru yahoo or something. But an unsigned accusation carries no weight with me, whether it's an unsigned handwritten note or anonymous email.

Please show a little integrity and sign your posts. Thank you.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2001

One or two other things, I do not hold to the positions of my bro's Kevin & E. Lee concerning instrumental music. However, they have reasons for their positions and are worthy of more than your flippant Scripture grenade throwing.

Also, it's "Eisogesis". What you typed looks like something to do with Egyptian mythology.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2001

Good job, Scott. You go boy.

Let's get back on track: Kevin, please respond to the question I posted earlier:

Darrell could not have really been SAVED (and therefore Kevin's brother) for very long a time. According to Kevin, (correct me on this, Kev) from the moment Darrell was immersed, in God's eyes, he was Kevin's spiritual brother. For a few seconds, it was great. There he was, completely cleansed of all of his sins, ready to begin a new life in Christ. Then the pianist played the first few bars and the congregation began to sing "Now I belong to Jesus" when immediately he fell from grace, forfeiting his salvation with this vile addition to true worship.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2001

Duane,

You said: "Let's get back on track: Kevin, please respond to the question I posted earlier:"

I didn't realize that was a question that I had to answer. I have answered this question several times in this thread, but it seems that you just don't bother to read what is posted.

Here is the answer that I provided to Darrell on November 26th:

I said: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom 6:23)

Darrell said: "Therefore, there is no way he can consider myself, or any of us who use the instruments as a brother in Christ ... at least with the hope of eternal salvation, as long as we continue to use instruments."

I said: "WRONG!!! That isn't what the Bible says at all concerning this subject. Is a brother in Christ still a Christian if he or she falls away? Of course he or she still is a brother (or sister) in Christ. So that being the case, even though Darrell is sinning (Not what Kevin says, but what the Bible says) by using instruments, since he (Darrell) has obeyed the Gospel, then Yes, he IS STILL my brother in Christ." Darrell said: "Unless something new comes up, I am finished with this subject. Whew! (Oops, was that some sort of cursing on my part? I hope not)."

I said: "God has provided a "second law of pardon" whereby, through His grace and mercy, He gives CHRISTIANS who have fallen into apostasy another chance. He wants NO ONE (Christian or non-Christian) to perish (2 Peter 3:9), but ALL who FAIL to do ALL the will of God will be lost (Matthew 7:21-24). That "second law of pardon" is taught clearly in 1 John 1:7—2:2. But, just as the plan of salvation is conditional, so is this plan to restore fallen Christians. The conditions are plainly revealed in 1 John, as well as James 5:16 and Acts 8:22."

Here is your question: "Darrell could not have really been SAVED (and therefore Kevin's brother) for very long a time. According to Kevin, (correct me on this, Kev) from the moment Darrell was immersed, in God's eyes, he was Kevin's spiritual brother. For a few seconds, it was great. There he was, completely cleansed of all of his sins, ready to begin a new life in Christ. Then the pianist played the first few bars and the congregation began to sing "Now I belong to Jesus" when immediately he fell from grace, forfeiting his salvation with this vile addition to true worship."

My Reply: I don't understand how you can say that "Darrel could not have really been SAVED?" My question to you is: Is everyone who OBEYS the gospel SAVED? If a "spiritual brother" sins, are they still your "spiritual brother"? Of course, the answer to these questions is a resounding YES.

I have said this before to Barry, and I repost once again for you here as it is applicable: "I have to ask you this question, "Will you be saved once you DIE and you refused to repent of your sin? The answer to this question is NO."

I continued with: "So, this being the case, while you are ALIVE, then there is a chance for YOU to REPENT. I don't know how much easier I can spell this out for you??? So, since you are still ALIVE, and you have a chance to REPENT of your sin, then you are STILL my brother in Christ. Enough said on this issue."

Finally, another one of my posts to which I never received a reply and by the way, this also answers your question: "Here is an example for you from the New Testament: Simon the sorcerer (a child of God per Acts 8:13) fell away from Christ and was (now in a state as a child of God) in need of forgiveness. Peter instructed him, "Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you" (Acts 8:22). He COULD BE FORGIVEN, but NOT if he DID NOT FOLLOW an apostle’s instructions to obtain forgiveness. Was Simon still a BROTHER IN CHRIST? If not, why not?"

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2001

Duane -- so you see, the use of the evil instrument during worship makes those of us who choose to use the instrument apostates, and provided we die in that apostate state, we will not see heaven.

Amazing.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2001

Brother Scott:

We appreciate your following words to the unknown author who did not have the courage to attach his name to the doctrines that he claims to believe as follows:

“One or two other things, I do not hold to the positions of my bro's Kevin & E. Lee concerning instrumental music.”

We understand this and respect the fact that you do not agree with us but we are willing to engage in a serious discussion of it under conditions that prevent the above prejudicial comments by a person too ashamed of his position to even connect his real name with it.

And we sincerely appreciate you recognition of this unknown person’s ridicule of our reasons for believing that instrumental music is not authorized in the New Testament as follows:

“ However, they have reasons for their positions and are worthy of more than your flippant Scripture grenade throwing.”

We thank you for your display of fairness in this matter. And we hope that you can see that there are good reasons that we insist upon debating the issue of authority first and that we do it in a fair debate format. For doing so will ensure our arguments from the scriptures will receive fair and unbiased hearing. It would also allow our arguments to be examined with intense scrutiny wherein we must answer all questions concerning them. And we are certain that you can see why we want those who hold to the opposing position to be required to labor under the same constraints. For such would make it so that the honest, sincere seeker for the truth concerning this matter will have a fair, balanced, and logical reasoned set of arguments from both sides. With this information they can then easily compare what they hear with the teaching of God’s word and decide for themselves what is true about this matter. Truth has nothing to fear from such investigation.

Without following such a procedure the facts concerning this matter will never be established in this forum. For we will continue to see people being side tracked from the real issues. We will continue to see deliberate misrepresentations the facts and the real difference between us. WE will continue to see others trying to put the “Cart before the horse” so to speak. For example, when Duane asked:

“Darrell could not have really been SAVED (and therefore Kevin's brother) for very long a time. According to Kevin, (correct me on this, Kev) from the moment Darrell was immersed, in God's eyes, he was Kevin's spiritual brother. For a few seconds, it was great. There he was, completely cleansed of all of his sins, ready to begin a new life in Christ. Then the pianist played the first few bars and the congregation began to sing "Now I belong to Jesus" when immediately he fell from grace, forfeiting his salvation with this vile addition to true worship.”

The answer to this question id dependent upon the issue we are trying to settle. The issue is one of whether we must have authorization from God for all that we do in worship and service to him. And if we must have such authority for all that we do and anyone does that which is not authorized they have sinned. If instrumental music were not authorized then it would be sinful. If it is sinful then the question, which Brother Duane asked, is a valid one that should be answered. But to expect us to answer his question before deciding the issue is only an effort to prejudice the case before all the evidence is heard objectively and examined. For example, we could put the question to Brother Duane in this way. If a person becomes a Christian in obedience to the gospel and immediately sins against God is he no longer our brother? Are we to immediately withdraw from him? And is he immediately not longer in Christ and is he at that point no longer a Christian and lost eternally with no hope? And then we could say, if Brother Duane was convinced that doing anything in the worship and service of God that is not authorized is sinful would he think that the New Christian, who committed such unauthorized acts, would be sinning. And when he did such would he consider him completely lost with no hope and not longer a brother in Christ? We doubt it. It is very likely that even Duane would say this brother is in error and must be corrected. And that he should be “taught the way of the Lord more perfectly” and if he rejects the truth and persistently defies the Lord and becomes unwilling to repent once he is convinced of his error he would then be eternally lost and not before then.

In other words, if you were to substitute anything that Brother Duane believes is in fact sinful in the place of instrumental music and ask him to answer his own question you would then see his inconsistencies clearly. And further you would see that our attitude is not as he falsely portrays it to be and that our actually attitude is in harmony with the scriptural teaching concerning any sin committed by a brother regardless of what sin it might be. And he would see that we correctly apply those principles to our brothers who use instruments of music in the worship only IF we are right in our assertion that instrumental music is sinful. But if instrumental music were proven not to be sinful then we would be very wrong indeed. But that issue must be settled before such questions as Brother Duane asked are to be considered and can be accurately answered.

For example, if a person has just obeyed the gospel and become a Christian and when he returns to the dressing room commits fornication with a sister before changing his cloths. And returning to sing songs with the congregation and the church learns about it from someone who saw it happen. Would we consider such a person to be in danger of losing his soul? Would we not try to teach this person that fornication was a sin? AND if this person refused to believe that fornication was sinful no matter how much evidence he was given to prove that it was indeed a sin against God and he therefore refused to repent. Would we not then expect to withdraw from him at some point so as to lead him to repentance? And we would not consider him an enemy but we would entreat him as a brother to repent and return to Christ so that he might be saved form the sin that he committed? We are convinced that such would be the case with anyone who sinned against God in any way after becoming a Christian. In fact, we have an example in the New Testament of one that sinned shortly after his baptism into Christ. Read Acts 8:12-24 and you will see that Simon did just such a thing and he was not immediately considered “lost” and ejected from the family of God so that he was immediately no longer a brother in Christ. And he was told to repent and pray God that the thought of his heart might be forgiven him.

So, Brother Duane's question is out of proper order. The proper order would be to decide whether it is sinful to do things that God does not authorize in his worship and in his service. (Col. 3:17) and then to decide if instrumental music is authorized or not and then to decide from this if it is therefore sinful. And if we should decide from the word of God that it is sinful then we would take up the question of what is the condition of a brother who sins against God immediately following his obedience to the gospel and how he is to be perceived and treated. For to take this matter up while we are yet not agreed whether this brothers actions are sinful is no way for us to DECIDE if his actions are sinful. And this issue is whether instrumental music or anything else not authorized by Christ in the New Testament is sinful. The question is not what is the condition of one who sins immediately following his baptism.

Now anyone should be able to see that Brother Duane is trying to prejudice the case before anyone is allowed to hear the arguments. He is trying to make it appear ridiculous to believe that instrumental music is sinful on the grounds that if a person is immediately singing with instrumental accompaniment shortly after being baptized he becomes instantly lost, without Christ and no hope only minutes after being baptized. We do not believe that such is the case with a person who immediately commits any sin after his baptism. Brother Duane may think such be we do not. We believe, just as the example of Simon in Acts 8:12-24 shows, that when one sins he is to be corrected and then he can pray to God that the thoughts of his heart might be forgiven him and he can be forgiven (1 John 1:7-9). And this would include the sin of using instrumental music, IF we were to decided after having a fair, objective look at what the scriptures teach about the matter that instrumental music is indeed sinful. But, to attempt to persuade people that anything, including instrumental music, is not sinful simply because one commits the act shortly after being baptized and it is absurd to think of one losing his salvation so soon is just plain nonsense. And the idea that we, who object to instrumental music would treat such a person as one without hope and that it is our position that he must be immediately ejected from the family of God and we can no longer call him brother is just plain nonsense. We do not believe that pathetic nonsense about any sin that a brother might commit whether it is 5 minutes after baptism when he commits it or it is five years after his baptism that he commits it.

Now we are convinced that these pathetic attempts to prejudice the case in an attempt to prevent our readers from hearing the opposite arguments in an objective manner is shameful and certainly not productive of any understanding. For that reason we continue to insist that we discuss this matter in a formal debate wherein such foolishness is prevented from hindering a fair, just, objective and reasonable consideration of the subject wherein we are all seeking TRUTH more than anything else.

But we continue to ask that our arguments be given and opportunity to receive a fair hearing and a reasonable reply. But instead we have others wanting to make our arguments for us as if they know our position even better than we do ourselves and misrepresent and even insult us. But they will not join with us in a formal debate because it is a “waste of their precious time”. But it is not a “waste of their time to misrepresent us, make up arguments for us and then answer them, and belittle, insult and ignore us. But the last thing on the planet they “have time to do is DEBATE US.

Now, we know that there are those, such as Brother Scott, who for good reasons may be avoiding this situation. But this is not he case with most. Most are just unwilling to engage in a discussion of this subject on fair equitable and reasonable terms. We cannot say why they do not want to do such but it is a fact that they have time to quibble, misrepresent, make what they claim is “jokes” about us, and to downright ridicule us. But they do not have time to seriously, objectively, reasonably, and fairly debate us in this forum.

We are convinced that our readers can see straight through this pretense. But we wanted to contrast your fairness, objectivity and just consideration of our position, even though you do not agree with us any more than the others. The contrast is glaring between you honest objectivity and the petty, silly, and pathetic unjust treatment we are receiving from those who just cannot bring themselves emotionally to be objective about this matter long enough to even attempt join in a search for the truth concerning it. And we thank you for your willingness to at least consider that it is possible for one to have good reasons that they might object to instrumental music even if you do not agree with those reasons yourself.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2001

The purpose of the hypothetical question I posed was not to prejudice the case; but I can see, after considering Mr. Saffold's very thought provoking response, how it could have appeared that way, and I apologize for that.

The purpose was to get to the nitty gritty of where each of us stand on this, those of us who post here, and the majority, who only "lurk".

And I believe Mr. Saffold is right. My question does get the cart before the horse. His answer is well thought out and it makes sense.

The real issue, as he says, is "one of whether we must have authorization from God for all that we do in worship and service to him."

And my answer would be "generally, yes; specifically, no."

So at the gut level: as a Christian, I am bound to do only what my Master authorizes me to do. And He authorizes me to do anything which is not inconsistent with a direct command or principle found in His Word. In His Word, their are clear commands to be obeyed. We are not "authorized" to disobey them, that is, if we disobey them we are denying and rejecting His authority. He does authorize love, for example, as He commands it. He commands me to love my neighbor, but He does not give me specifics as to how to do this on a daily basis, but I must not "love my neighbor" in a way which would violate another one of His commands.

In conclusion, I think I would agree with the statement that "we must have authorization from God for all that we do in worship and service to Him."

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2001

E. Lee,

Thanks for the kind words. But I too have asked a question to which I have not had either yourself or Kevin attempt to answer. Where in the Law is musical instrumentation authorized? There was musical instrumentation before the Law (Ex. 19:19 et al), the Law was given at Sinai with no authorization for musical instrumentation, and there was musical instrumentation after the Law. David established an enire order of the Priesthood dedicated to music. He literally created an orchestra. And music was used in any instances and was pleasing to God: I Chr 15;II Chr 7; and many others. Where did the Law authorize David, Solomon, or anyone to use musical instrumentation?

It is not authorized in the Law, and since the Law was nailed to the cross, it has no effect upon music, for music was before, durine and after the Law, with no authorization, yet pleasing to God. Can/Will you show me where musical instrumentation is authorized by God anywhere in the Scriptures?

This does not call for a long drawn-out debate. A scripture reference will do.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2001

Brother Scott:

You have said:

“E. Lee, Thanks for the kind words.”

Kind words come easy when we are talking with you.

“ But I too have asked a question to which I have not had either yourself or Kevin attempt to answer.”

Indeed this is true and we have explained our reason for not giving you an answer in this format. For we do not want to engage in a piecemeal discussion of this matter. We have therefore determined to not discuss it without a formal debate of the subject as a whole. WE have explained that we do not want to discuss this issue without doing so in a fair debate wherein both sides will receive fair treatment. And each point will be able to progress without interruption from the “peanut gallery”. A “gallery” which is filled with persons, unlike yourself, who will not allow the points and counter points to be heard without much emotional and unrelated material thrown in which is not related directly to the point at issue. We are happy to answer your question in a formal debate of the subject of authorization wherein we are ensured that not only your question but all questions can be given fair considerations from both sides who are striving to bear the burden of proof equally for their proposition. Not to mention having clearly defined propositions that we are seeking to affirm and/or deny which do not change until new propositions are agreed upon and taken up separately until each one is discussed thoroughly. We do not believe that you would be unreasonable, unfair, nor deliberately make any attempt to dodge our responses or misrepresent what we have said or in any other way deliberately attempt to cloud the issue. But several others on your side of this issue have demonstrated more than once that they would do such things. And it is our justified opinion that without a formal debate of this issue the position that we hold to be true has little chance of receiving a fair, uninterrupted hearing in this forum. This we are convinced is true despite the fact that honorable and just men such as you would have no part in any unfairness or deliberate intentional misrepresentations. So, we admit that your questions are good ones and that they deserve a response from us. But we are saying that we will give the response to your questions at the same time that we respond to other equally important and valid questions if they are considered in a format that allows us to answer them all without interruption. And we also want to ask questions of those who oppose us that we have not yet asked. Because we want to ensure that they will not be simply ignored while yet another barrage of questions are cast from the “peanut gallery” toward us by persons who are not serious, and who are only bent upon insulting and belittling us in some way. All of which distracts from our questions and our answers.

Then you repeat your arguments as follows:

“ Where in the Law is musical instrumentation authorized? There was musical instrumentation before the Law (Ex. 19:19 et al), the Law was given at Sinai with no authorization for musical instrumentation, and there was musical instrumentation after the Law. David established an enire order of the Priesthood dedicated to music. He literally created an orchestra. And music was used in any instances and was pleasing to God: I Chr 15;II Chr 7; and many others. Where did the Law authorize David, Solomon, or anyone to use musical instrumentation?”

This is a good question for which we have a good answer for anyone willing to debate the subject in such a way that our answer will be given due consideration.

Then you say:

“It is not authorized in the Law, and since the Law was nailed to the cross, it has no effect upon music, for music was before, durine and after the Law, with no authorization, yet pleasing to God. Can/Will you show me where musical instrumentation is authorized by God anywhere in the Scriptures?”

We are of the opinion that we must first decide whether we agree that we must have authorization for all that we do in the worship and service of God before any answer to this would have any bearing or meaning in this discussion. For, if we are not first agreed upon this principal that anything that we do in the worship and service of God that is not authorized is sinful then determining whether instrumental music is authorized or cannot have any meaning. But if we agree that anything that is done in the worship and service of God without His divine authority is sinful then the answer would have meaning. But we have not settled those issues yet, now have we? So, this again points to the justification for formal debates so those propositions can be taken up in their proper order. SO, in a debate we would, for example have propositions stating affirmatively something like the following:

“Resolved that the scriptures teach that all that Christians do in the worship and service of God must be authorized by God in order for it to be acceptable to Him.”

And the other side would affirm their proposition positively with something like:

Resolved that the scriptures teach that Christians are at liberty to do anything in the worship and service of God without any specific authorization from God to do it so long as the action is not specifically forbidden by God.”

Then we could take up the issue of specific things as to whether they are authorized of not. And this could include not only instrumental music but also any number of specific things that cause designation in the body of Christ. But to jump in the middle without any agreed upon propositions that we are trying to prove and discuss whether something is authorized or not before and with out even having the discussion of whether authority from God is even necessary is to put the cart before the horse. And it places us in the position of perpetually being the one’s answering questions and no one ever being required ever to affirm their position positively and attempt to prove it and answer our question concerning it. This is all very one- sided and will not lead to a discussion that would promote at the very least an understanding of both sides based upon hearing them both in a fair. Balanced debate wherein both sides have carried the burden of proof equally.

Then you say:

“This does not call for a long drawn-out debate. A scripture reference will do.”

Indeed we agree with you that this one question that you have asked alone does not “call for a long drawn out debate”. But the overall issue, of which this question is but a very SMALL, part does not only call for but deserves a fair, equitable, reasoned debate wherein both sides take upon themselves the burden of asserting their position in a positive affirmation. And all propositions related to this matter are taken up in a logical order. And discussed till all affirmations are asserted, supported by evidence that each party is convinced supports their position. And examined and questioned by those denying the propositions is the only fair way to honestly demonstrate that the subject has been covered in a fair way so that any person reading the discussion will have sufficient information to decide the matter for themselves. Now this even if it were “long and drawn out, which is not necessarily the way it would be, it would at the least be more profitable than the disorganized and piecemeal, and we might add unfair fashion in which it is currently being talked about in this forum.

WE hope that you understand what we mean. We are not merely trying to be stubborn, nor are we seeking to avoid your good questions that we believe deserve a good reply. Rather we are trying to see to it that both sides of this discussion are allowed to fairly take up this matter. And your good questions will receive a good reply that will not be merely ignored and hidden behind a smokescreen of silly remarks, pathetic jokes, and deliberate insults which we have seen thus far and which we know that you would have no part in producing. Is it so useless to discuss this matter in a formal way while being perfectly useful to discuss it in such an unorganized, unreasonable and uneven fashion? How is it that an ad hoc discussion wherein we who oppose instruments of music must alone bear the burden of proof is fairer than a formal debate? And how is it that an ad hoc discussion wherein we alone are expected to answer questions that are put to us while seeing our good questions going unheard and unanswered and worse deliberately ignored is better than a fair formal debate? Please understand we do not accuse you of ignoring our questions but we do accuse others of such and you know that we are justified in saying so.

Over a year ago we determined not to discuss this matter in any format other than a formal debate. And we have not changed our minds because we know that a formal debate is the only way for those of us, in this particular forum who are clearly in the minority to receive a fair hearing of the case for the position that we take. You have pointed to good reasons for our holding this opinion in you often repeated rebukes of those who have been unreasonable and unfair to us when this subject comes up ever so often. And we might add that the subject comes up by being brought up by those who hold that instrumental music is acceptable. And you will notice that each time we have had an outbreak of this issue it has not been brought up by us. For we said a long time ago that we would debate this matter with anyone who was willing to do so and that we would not discuss it in any other way in this forum. We have given our reasons often. We believe our reasons are good ones. And the fact that none is willing from the other side to actually debate the matter with us does not prove that they cannot do so, nor that they have no interest in the matter. But it does seem to imply that many of them at least are not willing to submit this subject tot he scrutiny of a fair and equitable debate wherein both sides can be heard fairly.

In either case, we again repeat to you that we appreciate your question too much to allow our answer to it to simply be a part of only a small portion of the overall discussion, which is tied together in a logical sequence. And if we answer any question concerning this matter outside of a formal debate we will then be asked why we do not answer yet answer host of other questions as well. And we will not be given our opportunity to present the positive affirmation of what we believe the word of God teaches on this subject ever, nor will our good questions receive any serious attention.

Now, we are not going to agree probably that we have no choice but to discuss this matter without a formal debate that ensures a fair hearing. For we do have a choice. If none will debate us formally on this subject then we have proven that they are unwilling to debate us for whatever their reasons might be. And if that is the case we will not allow them to discuss the matter with us until they agree to a debate. Now, you can discuss it among yourselves. Or If Brother Kevin is willing to continue to discuss the matter with you without any hope of being treated justly then you might discuss it with him. But, we will not discuss it except in a formal debate with someone, who is willing to engage in a fair, reasoned and just debate of the matter and share the burden of proof. For your position requires positive proof as much as does ours. We seek for both sides to be required to affirm their proposition and offer proof from the word of God that it is true. And we cannot understand for the life of us just why such a request is so unacceptable to the opposing side in this matter. We can understand the time constraints. We can understand the work involved. But we cannot understand why no one is willing, at the very least agree, to debate it at some predetermined time in the future when both parties will have sufficient time and is able to expend the energy to do it. What is so unreasonable about our request for a formal debate that insures a fair, organized and logically progressive discussion of this issue?

Yes, indeed, a scripture would suffice to answer your one question. And we are happy to provide it in the context of a formal debate wherein the scriptures will prove to be simple and right answers to all of your questions that you have asked thus far as well as the questions of others.

And we have said more than once that when we have been allowed to debate the subject formally in this forum. That we would then be more than willing to engage a thread wherein all of our readers are allowed to ask any questions of us, insult us, belittle us, and even castrate us verbally as they see fit. We can bear this far better once our position has been presented in full without interruption. And when the other side has been placed in a similar position to carry the burden of proving positively their propositions. And when we can insure that they also have them in a thread wherein those who oppose their position are allowed to ask them as many questions as they like and where, unfortunately some might want to insult, belittle, and castrate them verbally as well. For this is not a one sided issue just because on this forum we are in the minority. For outside of this forum we are not in the minority in many places in this country. If the majority were proof of truth then truth would change with the demographics of people’s opinions in various regions. Truth is from God’s word. And those who stand with God are in the majority so to speak even if they stand alone.

Well, this is all we have the time to say. Brother Scott, we respect you. And if it were only brother Scott and us discussing this matter in this forum we would not insist upon a debate for we know that you will always be fair, reasonable and willing to hear us out fully and also bear your share of the burden of proof. We are fully convinced of this fact about you. But in this forum it is impossible for only you and us to discuss this matter without interruptions and disorder any emotional outburst of those who read our discussion. We are, unfortunately in the position of discussing this matter with the majority of those who write in this forum. Who hold different reasons for their belief that instrumental music is acceptable and who have different responses not all of which is designed to get to the truth of the matter. And for that reason we seek to have a formal debate which will have guidelines that will ensure all of the things we have described concerning a reasoned debate.

WE remain willing to debate this matter of authorization as we promised sister Muse we would be willing to do and we are willing to do the same on the subject of instrumental music. But that we will not engage in any piecemeal, unorganized, and illogical discuss of this matter in any place is certain. And it is our sincere hope that you can see our reasons for this decision even if you cannot fully agree with them.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2001

Brother Darrel:

You have said:

“Duane -- so you see, the use of the evil instrument during worship makes those of us who choose to use the instrument apostates, and provided we die in that apostate state, we will not see heaven.”

Now, suppose that what you have said were true. If it were true would it change anything about what you do? Now, the issue that we are seeking to understand is that of whether we must have authorization for all that we do in the service and worship of God. And if doing anything that is not authorized is a sin and instrumental music were not authorized it would be a sin. And if you knew this to be the truth and refused to repent of doing sinful things in the worship of God then would you expect to be saved?

Suppose you were condemning adultery in a discussion with a group of Christians that had determined that is was not sinful to have sex outside of marriage with one other than your spouse. And those brothers and sisters could not agree with you. And they asked you if you thought they were sinning and that such meant that they were “apostates, and provided that we die in that apostate state, we will not see heaven”. And then they said, as you have said to us:

“Amazing.”

What would you say? You might say something like “amazing but true” would n’t you?

Now, all of this is based upon your assumption that we are wrong about instrumental music being sinful. This is the subject we are seeking to settle or decide. Now, suppose, just for the sake of argument that we are right about instrumental music being sinful. Now I am not asking to accept this as true. I am only asking you to suppose such were true for the moment. If it were true that the use of instrumental music in the worship of God were sinful. Could you please tell us just what would be so “amazing” about the fact that such sin might be just cause to consider that if you continue in it after learning the truth that it is sinful that you are apostate and could miss heaven because of it?

Before you make such statements would it not be better to settle the dispute first? If instrumental music were not a sin then indeed it would be wrong for us to consider our brothers in Christ to be apostates who use it. And it would be completely an unnecessary worry for us to think that you are lost because of sin against God. And we would indeed be the one’s in need, desperate need of correction from our other brothers in Christ. But, if we are not wrong about this matter then our concern for those of our brethren who use instruments is not really so “amazing” at all, is it? Rather it is JUSTIFIED, isn’t it?

But, we have not even begun to fairly discuss this matter for none are willing to engage in an equitable discussion of the matter in a logical progression from necessary premises. Until we have such a full discussion all of these comments such as yours are only designed to prejudice the case completely before it is discussed. For there is noting amazing about a brother being concerned that another brother is sinning against God in such a way as to be finally lost if he does not repent. That should be normal rather than “amazing”. For are we not told, “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.” (James 5:19,20). Now this is not amazing! It is instead the way it should be when a brother “errs from the truth”.

Now, we are convinced that our beloved brethren who use instruments in the worship have erred from the truth thereby and we seek to convert them from the “error of their ways” and in doing so we just may very well be saving a soul from death. Now, this assumes that we are right about the issue of authorization and the use of instruments in the worship. And that is the reason we seek to debate these matters in such a way that all can be discussed about it in a reasoned fashion. For these prejudicial remarks are designed not to get at truth but to make those of use who do not use instruments appear foolish for believing as we do without showing from the word of God that we are wrong. You are not willing to formally debate us about these things, are you Darrel? But you are so certain that we are wrong about this matter that you can now seek to make us look foolish for believing that you are sinning against God with your unauthorized practice and that such causes us to be concerned for your soul and your eternal welfare! Then why not debate us, Darrel, and show us just how terribly wrong we are in a fair and even debate? And we would justly be expected to ask your forgiveness for all this trouble we cause with our petty concerns that were not valid in the least, wouldn’t we? But suppose you learned in the process of such a debate that we are not wrong at all and your soul was in danger. DO tell us, would you not be glad that we fought so hard to get you to hear the truth and is this not what you would expect a Christian Brother to do? Then why on earth do you think what we are doing is so “amazing”? Are you merely amazed that we care this much for you? Or is it that you just are again trying to get others to pay no attention to what we are trying to say about these things? And are you not doing this just because you are afraid they might learn something that is contrary to your current beliefs and they just might someday agree with us on this matter? DO, you deny that such is even remotely possible that anyone could begin in a fair debate to see that we just might be correct in teaching these things because they do harmonize with the word of God? Are you afraid to allow all of your arguments to receive the intense scrutiny of a formal debate and that all evidence and facts in this case should come to light? What does the truth have to fear from an objective, fair, reasoned and logical debate? We are convinced that truth has nothing to fear from it. And we are willing to submit our arguments to such a test, are you?

Think about it Darrel. Was your comment useful in any way whatsoever?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2001

Scott asked an easy one: Where in the Law was instrumental worship authorized. He got a lawyer's answer! "We can't tell you unless you agree to a formal debate". Which so far, I can't see happening, because I don't even know if any of us can come up with an affirmative statement to debate. For I agree with E. Lee: "we must have authorization from God for all that we do in worship and service to Him."

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

"Suppose you were condemning adultery in a discussion with a group of Christians that had determined that is was not sinful to have sex outside of marriage with one other than your spouse. And those brothers and sisters could not agree with you. And they asked you if you thought they were sinning and that such meant that they were “apostates, and provided that we die in that apostate state, we will not see heaven”. And then they said, as you have said to us: “Amazing.” "

Big difference in trying to equate an apostate state to Christians who willfully use instruments in worship, and Christians who willfully commit adultry, practice homosexuality, are drunkards, etc. The bible, including the NT, condemns such actions. There is no silence on the issue. They would be living in an apostate state, and need to repent of that sin in order to continue in the assurance of their salvation.

The person who willfully uses instruments in worship is NOT doing anything God has condemned ... in fact may be doing as God has commanded, as has been mentioned in other passages on this and other threads. To equate the two as one is bad logic, and bad argument. Apples and oranges ... or better yet, apples and some other food group altogether.

Was my comment useful? Apparently not to you.

And I said "amazing" as I believe it is amazing to make such statements as have been made against the use of the instruement from an argument from silence.

You refuse to answer Scott's questions without a proper debate format. I don't believe that is going to happen, nor would that be the most useful format to have questions answered. We would like to see simple answers to these simple questions, but I understand that is not the way you choose to answer, and that is, of course, your choice.

Duane -- good observation.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

Brother Duane:

You have said:

“Scott asked an easy one: Where in the Law was instrumental worship authorized. He got a lawyer's answer!”

Brother Duane, it is obvious that Brother Scott did not get a “lawyer’s answer” as you claim. It is clear that he did not get any answer to his question from us. WE deliberately told Scott that we will not answer his question in the general forum but rather that we will be more than willing to answer his question in a formal debate. So, Scott did not get an answer from us at all much less a “lawyer’s Answer”. Now, when we tell a brother that we are not answering his question and will not do so except in a formal debate wherein he is also required to answer our questions as well. It is unjust and unreasonable for you to claim that we gave him a “lawyer’s answer” as if we were in some way trying to “trick” him in some way. We gave him no answer and explained our reasons why. There is nothing wrong with this response in the least. If he really wants an answer from us he can debate us and he will get one. It is that simple. And in that debate would expect him to give us some answers in return to our questions. This is fair. It is right. And your attempt to place in into the category of anything else is just plain wrong.

Then you say that our “lawyer’s answer” was as follows:

“ "We can't tell you unless you agree to a formal debate".”

You put these words in quotation marks as if they were our words and not yours. What we said was:

“But, we will not discuss it except in a formal debate with someone, who is willing to engage in a fair, reasoned and just debate of the matter and share the burden of proof. For your position requires positive proof as much as does ours.”

WE did not say in any place that we “can’t tell you unless you agree to a formal debate”. We said instead that we WOULD NOT answer questions or discuss this issue in detail outside of a formal debate. And there is a big difference between “Cannot” and WILL NOT. We said will not. And this is our right and our choice and we explained it sufficiently to Brother Scott. And what Brother Duane and others are implying is that they WILL NOT debate this issue formally in this forum. Now, if any of you are really interested in our answers to your questions we have told you where you will get them. You will get them in a formal debate wherein you agree to answer our questions as well. Now this is not merely a “lawyer’s answer” as Brother Duane claims. In is a demand for fairness and a reasoned organized discussion of an important subject. We cannot imagine that anything is wrong with a debate on these matters. In fact, another one of our questions that has been ignored is why is a formal debate so objectionable to those of you who are so certain that we do not need authorization for what we do in the worship and service of God. You refuse to debate the subject and we refuse to answer your questions concerning it outside of a debate. How is your refusal to debate any less a refusal to answer our questions and objections than our refusal to answer your questions outside of a debate?

Then he says:

“ Which so far, I can't see happening, because I don't even know if any of us can come up with an affirmative statement to debate.”

Well, if a debate does not ever happen it will not be because we who oppose your doctrine concerning this matter could not write a proposition stating our position clearly, now will it?

Then you say: “ For I agree with E. Lee: "we must have authorization from God for all that we do in worship and service to Him."”

And we are glad to see that you agree with us. This is a step forward in the right direction. And we therefore have no need to debate this issue with you, now do we? But hat you agree that we must have authority from Christ for all that we do in the worship and service of God then the next step for you would be to write a proposition stating your affirmation that the New Testament authorizes instrumental music in the worship. I am sure that you can write a proposition concerning that, now can’t you? For if instrumental music is not authorized in the New Testament. And you agree that we must have authorization for all that we do in worship and service to Christ then you would agree with us that Christians should not use instruments of music in their worship because it is not authorized. So, if you are willing to agree with us that we must have authorization from God for all that we do in the worship and service of God. Then we would be willing to engage you in a debate on the subject of instrumental music to resolve the matter of whether it is in fact authorized by the New Testament or not. But, it you have not accepted that we must have authority for all that we do in the worship and service of God that matter must be settled first before studying the instrumental music issue.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

Lee --

Scott says: "This does not call for a long drawn-out debate. A scripture reference will do."

Your response to him was what some might call a long drawn-out answer that took 147 lines to say, basically, I will not answer your question except in a debate format.

One suggestion to all involved is that, if you can't answer a question as requested, in this case, with a short answer of a scripture reference, then it might be better to not answer at all.

We all understand you want to formally debate the issue, and by now it should be fairly obvious that no one on this forum wishes to do that. Most of the rest of the people who frequent this forum enjoy posting fairly short posts, requesting fairly short answers. Rather than continue to post the debate issue, how about joining in with the rest of the gang. If not, there may be some other forums where formal debate is the norm, and I'm sure you would be welcome to debate the authority issue to your hearts content.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

Scott -- it is interesting that there is no authorization for the use of instruments in worship, either in the old or new testament. God certainly allowed, and it would seem appreciated the use of instruments under the old covenant and I see nothing under the new covenant that would change that. Good point

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

Scott said: "Where in the Law is musical instrumentation authorized? There was musical instrumentation before the Law (Ex. 19:19 et al), the Law was given at Sinai with no authorization for musical instrumentation, and there was musical instrumentation after the Law. David established an enire order of the Priesthood dedicated to music. He literally created an orchestra. And music was used in any instances and was pleasing to God: I Chr 15;II Chr 7; and many others. Where did the Law authorize David, Solomon, or anyone to use musical instrumentation?It is not authorized in the Law, and since the Law was nailed to the cross, it has no effect upon music, for music was before, durine and after the Law, with no authorization, yet pleasing to God. Can/Will you show me where musical instrumentation is authorized by God anywhere in the Scriptures?"

My Reply: Instrumental music in religious worship was employed by COMMAND of God only in the temple — we have not a single recorded instance of its being employed either in the synagogue or in the homes of the people; it was always rendered by a special class — the priests and Levites; and it was always rendered in connection with the offering of sacrifices to God. So, here is the answer to your question in one single passage.

"And he stationed the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with stringed instruments, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, of Gad the king's seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for thus was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets." (2 Chron 29:25)

Instrumental music was one element that "WAS the COMMANDMENT of the LORD" in an elaborate ceremonial and symbolic worship.

Darrell said: "The person who willfully uses instruments in worship is NOT doing anything God has condemned ... in fact may be doing as God has commanded, as has been mentioned in other passages on this and other threads. To equate the two as one is bad logic, and bad argument. Apples and oranges ... or better yet, apples and some other food group altogether."

My Reply: If I were your boss and I told you to do a report by tomorrow, would you go skiing? I didn't say not to!!

If everything not expressly forbidden in the New Testament were actually introduced into our mode of worship, what a strange worship it would become!

Someone made the comment that Psalm 150 must not be in Kevin's Bible. That statement makes absolutely no sense at all. I DO have Psalm 150 in my Bible and It states that the Israelites used the following to Praise the Lord: 1) A trumpet, 2) A Lute, 3) A Harp, 4) A Timbrel, 5) Dance, 6) Stringed instruments, 7) Flutes, 8) Loud cymbals, and 9) Clashing cymbals.

It is strange how those who attempt to justify the use of instrumental music in the New Testament rely on this Chapter in the Bible, but make no attempt at all to introduce everything that is included in this Psalm? None of these are not expressly forbidden any more than the use of instrumental music in the service of praise, but surely this does not make such a performance a lawful part of the New Testament worship.

In the Old Testament, God asked for singing + instrumental music for use in worship (2 Chronicles 29:25-26; Psalm 150). It was something they could be sure about. In the New Testament, God just asks for singing (Ephesians 5:19) or the "fruit of lips" (Hebrews 13:15). Hence, singing was something that the worshiper could absolutely be sure about.

After the church came into being and for at least 400 or so years, God was given just what he asked for (singing). As a result, the word "a cappella" came into being and was the term for "music in the church style."

Before the New Testament was completed, the church used the Old Testament scriptures as their primary source (Acts 17:11; 18:28, etc.). They had the very scriptures before them that approved and encouraged the use of instruments right down to the naming of specific types (2 Chronicles 29:25-26; Psalm 150). And at the time of the early church, instruments were available and many Christians had the talent to play them ... yet this talent was not exercised in worship! The Old Testament scripture was not followed.

That instrumental music was absent from Christian worship during the days of the inspired Apostolic teaching (John 14:26; Acts 2: 42) proves that the Apostles, who were very familiar with the use of instruments in Temple worship, never encouraged churches to use them.

The above also means that the Holy Spirit never encouraged churches to use instruments (John 14:26) in spite of the fact that it once did so in a direct way (2 Chronicles 29:25ff).

Ephesians 5:19 has two parts: Singing + Making Melody. The "making melody" is translated from the Greek word "psallo." It means to "pluck or twang." The phrase that follows tells where this action takes place. It is "in the heart" and not on a harp.

The design of the New Covenant worship will be different than that of the Old Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31; John 4:23; Hebrews 7:12; 9:1, 9:10, 10:1). Many physical things of the Old pointed to their true substance in the New. For example, in the Old it was the priests that offered physical sacrifices to God, but in the New everyone is a priest with spiritual sacrifices to offer (1 Peter 2:5).

It is specifically the "fruit of lips" that is the sacrifice of praise asked for (Hebrews 13:15) and not the sounds from man-made devices.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

I don't know about you, but I haven't plucked or twanged my heart lately. I wouldn't even know how to go about doing that. (I've heard of heartstrings ...)

"... this does not make such a performance a lawful part of the New Testament worship." I thought we were under Grace?

"That instrumental music was absent from Christian worship during the days of the inspired Apostolic teaching (John 14:26; Acts 2: 42) proves ..." Neither of these verses "proves" that instrumental music was absent from Christian worship during the days of the inspired Apostolic teaching. Just because something isn't mentioned doesn't mean it wasn't there. You can't make an argument either way from silence.

"... the Apostles ... never encouraged churches to use them." Neither did they discourage churches to use them. The argument works both ways.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

This is typical of the response that has been given lately from those who permit the use of instrumental music:

John says: "I don't know about you, but I haven't plucked or twanged my heart lately. I wouldn't even know how to go about doing that. (I've heard of heartstrings ...)"

He doesn't even bother to try to refute what was written, he just makes a snide comment in the hope of making the writer he is quoting look silly.

And then again, John says: "... this does not make such a performance a lawful part of the New Testament worship." I thought we were under Grace?"

Please show me where we are permitted to ADD anything to New Testament worship under the guise of "We are under Grace".

Then John says: "That instrumental music was absent from Christian worship during the days of the inspired Apostolic teaching (John 14:26; Acts 2: 42) proves ..." Neither of these verses "proves" that instrumental music was absent from Christian worship during the days of the inspired Apostolic teaching. Just because something isn't mentioned doesn't mean it wasn't there. You can't make an argument either way from silence."

I did make that argument, and you offer no proof for your statement. Where is your proof? Just because you said so?

Then John finally says: "... the Apostles ... never encouraged churches to use them." Neither did they discourage churches to use them. The argument works both ways."

Wrong again.

What does it mean to walk by opinion?

In John 3:1-2 we have a passage that says that Nicodemus came to Jesus by night. There are two questions in connection with this famous conversation:

1. Did Nicodemus come to Jesus by night?

The universal and unanimous response from all believers in the Bible of every class and distinction is, that he did. But what is the cause of this perfect unity of sentiment? Simply because the Bible says he came by night, and there is always union where all follow what the Bible says.

2. Why did he come by night, and not by day?

It would be easy to find an answer to this question among the theologians. But the trouble with this class of wise men is, that to attempt to follow their guidance in such matters is like the attempt to ride two horses in opposite directions at the same time.

One class of them tells us Nicodemus acted in this instance through fear of his colleagues in the Jewish Sanhedrin, choosing the curtain of night behind which to converse unobserved with the Great Teacher.

Others tell us it was not through fear, but to avoid the crowds that gathered about Jesus during the day, the eminent ruler of the Jews preferring the stillness of the night that he might converse undisturbed with the Galilean Reformer.

Now, one or the other of these views may be correct; but, as the Bible does not say one word about it, no mortal can know why he came by night.

And this is precisely what is true of all the learned theologians.

They only tell what they think about it; that is, they express their opinion.

The word opinion signifies what one thinks, and in religious matters, it means what men think concerning matters on which the Bible is silent.

The distinction, therefore, between faith and opinion is perfectly clear.

Faith comes by hearing the Word of God;

Opinion is what men think where the Word of God does not speak.

When men introduce as worship to God, as service to be rendered to Him, things on which His Word is silent, they walk by OPINION and not by FAITH.

If specifying what we are to eat on the Lord's table excludes everything else, then specifying what kind of music we are to use in worship, excludes every other kind. If not, why not?

Here are four distinct acts--washing the hands, eating meat, dipping an infant in water, and playing on musical instruments all of which are sinless in themselves, but wrong when done as religious acts, because there is NO divine authority for it. The worship of God was not appointed as an aesthetical performance to please and gratify man's taste, but to please and honor God by loyalty to His Word.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

Kevin,

I like the analogy of Nicodemus, but I would not agree with your application.

We are all in agreement that we should sing praises to God, just as we are in agreement that Nic came by night. From my vantage point, you take the position of the one trying to insist the REASON he came when in fact we're not told. We are told to praise God in singing, you are trying to insist the FORM in which it is to take place. I do not believe you can do that, although we are in agreement that we should sing praises.

The key seems to be the phrase in Eph 5:19, "with your heart to the Lord". Your understanding of "with" is that it means the instrument by which you perform the said task. I must sing WITH my heart in the same way I hit the nail WITH a hammer. The problem here is that in the Greek (and English, for that matter) WITH does not exclusively have that meaning. If I sing WITH my children in the car does not mean that my children are doing my singing and I am to remain silent, they are accompanying me, or I them, as we sing together. I am about to do a little research on the use of other occurances on this phrase in the NT. I seriously doubt it will have the exclusivistic meaning you wish to impose on it. I get back to you.

As I understand that phrase, we should sing praises to God and it should be that our heart is accompanying our singing, giving wholehearted praise as we sing - whether musical instruments are used or not. Sincerity is the issue, not forbidding musical instruments.

The post you made before this one I printed out and will get back to you.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

Paul said: "I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding" (1 Cor. 14:15).

By faith -- based on the word of God (Rom. 10:17) - I can pray in the spirit.

By faith I can sing in the spirit.

But where in the New Testament does it say that one can PLAY AN INSTRUMENT IN THE SPIRIT?

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

In the Old Testament, Levites were called to worship in the temple with instruments of music (II Chron. 5:11-13, Ps. 81:1-3, 98:4-6, 149:2-3).

In the New Testament, believers are called to worship in the Spirit with heart and lips (Heb. 13:15, Eph. 5:18-19, Col. 3:16).

Much of the argument in the New Testament (e.g. Acts 7, Galatians 3, Hebrews 7-10) is in order to show that Old Testament ceremonial worship is abolished.

There were many things in Old Testament ceremonial worship that were not a part of worship in the New Testament church.

In the Old Testament ceremonial worship, there were:

Images (Exod. 25:18-19, 36:8), Priests (Exod. 40:13-15), Incense (Exod. 30:8), Candles (Exod. 25:31), etc.

All of these were given, as the New Testament informs us, as "a figure for the time then present" (Heb. 9:9). They were "imposed" (by divine commandment) "until the time of reformation" (Heb. 9:10). They were "patterns of things in the heavens" (Heb. 8:5), which things now belong to us because of the finished work and present intercession of Christ (Heb. 9:24, 12:18-24).

In the Old Testament period, worship (except that which was performed by the priests and Levites at the temple in Jerusalem) was commonly offered without musical instruments. Worship in the ancient synagogue was always devoid of such. So was the worship of the early church. NEVER in the New Testament do we find mention of their (musical instruments) use. What we do find is an abundance of teaching to the effect that the whole system of tabernacle and temple worship (shadowy and typical in nature) has been abolished. It follows, therefore, that the use of musical instruments is not authorized in the worship of the church today.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

OK, I looked at it a little more closely, Kevin. Here goes:

You found a passage where God, thru His prophets authorized musical instrumentation in the OT. I'll admit, I missed that one. But musical instrumentation had been used for a long time before God authorized it. Where's the condemnation? The verse you found is II Chr 29:25, yet in I Chr 15 we see a full-blown marching band, not in the Temple, I might add.

In Ex. 19:19 there is no such thing as even the Tabernacle yet, and God says nothing of being displeased that musical instrumentation was used. How many Psalms had David written before II Chr 29? Are they sinful Psalms? Moses wrote Psalm 90, which is a long time before II Chr 29. Where is the condemnation?

In Ex 15, Miriam takes her timbrel, a musical instrument, and sings to God. It was not authorized! Where is the condemnation?

The very verse you use to exclude musical instrumentation tells us to sing Psalms. Are we to sing ABOUT praising God with musical instruments while knowing that if we actually used them, like we're singing aout, it would be a sin? Your argument is not a convincing one.

A correct understanding of speaking in tongues, along with Paul's comments that you quote, actually do not help your position at all. His point is that both mind and spirit is to work together to edify the the Church. I wont respond more to this unless you want to start another thread on I Cor 14. It doesn't make your case and it is far too involved in the confined of our current discussion.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

Scott,

You said: "You found a passage where God, thru His prophets authorized musical instrumentation in the OT. I'll admit, I missed that one."

I am glad that you now agree that God did authorize musical instruments in the Old Testament.

Then you said: "But musical instrumentation had been used for a long time before God authorized it. Where's the condemnation?"

I never said that musical instruments were condemned in the Old Testament, so why the question of condemnation? I said that musical instruments are not authorized in the New Testament, not the Old.

You continued with: "The verse you found is II Chr 29:25, yet in I Chr 15 we see a full-blown marching band, not in the Temple, I might add."

Okay, so it was in the tabernacle (1 Chr. 16:1).

Then you said: "In Ex. 19:19 there is no such thing as even the Tabernacle yet, and God says nothing of being displeased that musical instrumentation was used. How many Psalms had David written before II Chr 29? Are they sinful Psalms? Moses wrote Psalm 90, which is a long time before II Chr 29. Where is the condemnation?"

I never said that using musical instruments in the Old Testament were to be condemned. You are the one that said that musical instruments were not commanded in the Old Testament, and now we both know that your statement was incorrect.

Then you continued with: "In Ex 15, Miriam takes her timbrel, a musical instrument, and sings to God. It was not authorized! Where is the condemnation?"

My Reply: If musical instruments were authorized by God, thru his prophets, then did Miriam or anyone else who used musical instruments prior to the writing of 2 Chr. 29:25 sin? I seriously doubt that she did sin, because she was a prophetess.

Then you said: "The very verse you use to exclude musical instrumentation tells us to sing Psalms. Are we to sing ABOUT praising God with musical instruments while knowing that if we actually used them, like we're singing aout, it would be a sin? Your argument is not a convincing one."

We are told to sing, and that is what we must do if we are to be pleasing to God in our worship of him. John 4:24 says "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." Playing an instrument is something that God has not commanded, and is ADDING to worship, therefore it is a sin. Finally, ceremonial worship which using musical instruments was a part of (2 Chr 29:25), was abolished at the cross because the Bible says: " It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience--concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation." (Heb 9:8-10)

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

Kevin said: "My Reply: If I were your boss and I told you to do a report by tomorrow, would you go skiing? I didn't say not to!!"

I would do as you stated and do the report. I might use a computer, a typewriter, or a pen and paper. I would do research for the report using a computer, the internet, or maybe a hard-copy encyclopedia. Etc., Etc. Y

God tells us to worship and we do -- with various means.

John you are correct ... it is an issue of silence, and all we can do is agree to disagree about it. Debates won't help, and neither will posting back and forth saying the same thing over and over.

If you believe silence prohibits, fine. Then don't use instruments.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

"Please show me where we are permitted to ADD anything to New Testament worship under the guise of "We are under Grace"." Please show me where "New Testament worship" is the same as scripture. I know we are not to add to scripture nor take away from it, but I do not see corporate worship held in the same light in the Bible. Indeed, there wasn't even a set day originally: they met daily at first, then on Sundays when that became impractical. (Yet I've heard certain people in this forum suggest that if we were to have a service any other time than Sunday morning we would be "adding" ... adding to what?)

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

Kevin wrote:

Then John says: "That instrumental music was absent from Christian worship during the days of the inspired Apostolic teaching (John 14:26; Acts 2: 42) proves ..." Neither of these verses "proves" that instrumental music was absent from Christian worship during the days of the inspired Apostolic teaching. Just because something isn't mentioned doesn't mean it wasn't there. You can't make an argument either way from silence."

I did make that argument, and you offer no proof for your statement. Where is your proof? Just because you said so?

Back on you! You made the argument first, but also offered no proof. Is it because you said so? The point being you can't make an argument from silence, one way or the other.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

Kevin, your application of 1 Cor. 14:15 is erroneous. Paul mentions there praying WITH the Spirit, not praying IN the Spirit. You say:

By faith -- based on the word of God (Rom. 10:17) - I can pray in the spirit.

By faith I can sing in the spirit.

But where in the New Testament does it say that one can PLAY AN INSTRUMENT IN THE SPIRIT?

But you can pray WITH the Spirit, you can pray WITH understanding, and it is possible to pray WITH an instrument.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

First off, let me apologize for erroneously applying 1 Cor. 14:15. My mistake. I realize that I was in error. Please disregard that post completely.

Darrell quoted me accurately by saying: "My Reply: If I were your boss and I told you to do a report by tomorrow, would you go skiing? I didn't say not to!!"

Then he says: "I would do as you stated and do the report. I might use a computer, a typewriter, or a pen and paper. I would do research for the report using a computer, the internet, or maybe a hard-copy encyclopedia. Etc., Etc. Y"

Well now, what you have just said are all things that help in making the report, such as "using a computer, a typewriter, or a pen and paper, etc..." Would only be classified as only an AID to assist you in making the report now wouldn't they?

Skiing in this instance would be an ADDITION and not an AID.

Then you said: "God tells us to worship and we do -- with various means."

According to your hermeneutic "in silence there is liberty" and If "in silence there is liberty" then just a little thoughtfulness along this line will show the weakness of your position. To my knowledge God has never specifically condemned burnt offerings, burning of incense, having coke and cake on the Lord’s table, counting of beads in worship, etc.

Are these things therefore permitted?

Are they a matter of opinion?

The fact of the matter is, the Bible does not have to specifically forbid something for it to be condemned. All God has to do is specify what He wants done. If all we do is to be by the authority of Christ (Col. 3:17), and instruments of music are not authorized, they are thereby forbidden.

This is the same basis that prohibits infant baptism and sprinkling. They are not authorized! God has nowhere specifically forbidden sprinkling or infant baptism, but He has specified who are to be baptized (Mark 16:16) and how they are to be baptized (Rom. 6:4).

Then you said: "John you are correct ... it is an issue of silence, and all we can do is agree to disagree about it. Debates won't help, and neither will posting back and forth saying the same thing over and over. If you believe silence prohibits, fine. Then don't use instruments."

If we can do in worship what is not authorized, does this mean we do not have to have authority for what we do in religious matters? If not, why not?

This conclusion is clearly in conflict with Bible teaching that requires authority for what we do in religious matters (Col. 1:17).

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

Kevin, you said a lot of things in your last post that I just dont have time to deal with right now. But, to use your terminolgy, we view instrumentation as an aid. And one that finds it's roots in Scripture. Music is an aid to singing, that and nothing more. When the music plays in this Seattle congregation, do you know what happens? People sing. Now, I realize there are hypocrites and unbelievers in all assemblies, but most of the congregation is singing in sincerity and, believe it or not - with their hearts. I know of no one in this congregation that uses music for anything except singing.

I have looked at the phrase te kardia in the NT and the manner in which you want to use Eph 5:19 cannot be consistently be applied without thouroughly butchering the intended meaning of many other passages using the same wording. It simply does not mean "to the exclusion of everything but the heart."

Be that as it may, to most of us here, this would not be an issue if you placed it in the realm of preference. But, for most of us, we cannot see the evil. As a matter of fact, we find it difficult to see where anyone could possibly find it evil. The more I study different aspects of your position, the weaker I find it becomes.

I say that, not as a way of insult, but just a fact. I'll try to deal with some other things when I have the time.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

Kewvin asked; "To my knowledge God has never specifically condemned burnt offerings, burning of incense, having coke and cake on the Lord’s table, counting of beads in worship, etc"

Burnt offerings -- superseeded by the offering of Jesus Christ Himself.

Burning of incense -- represented prayers in the OT. We now pray directly to God, through Jesus. The representation is no longer needed. And if you really want to burn incense, go for it, but it is not needed for worship purposes, though to some it might be an aid.

Coke and cake for the Lords' supper: we use bread and fruit of the vine since that is what was used at the first Lord's Supper. We have an example from Jesus of what to use.

Counting of beads in worship: If that counting is for saying "Hail Mary's" then we certainly know that is not allowed since we are to pray TO God THROUGH Jesus ... and Mary doesn't come into the picture at all.

Keven said: "This is the same basis that prohibits infant baptism and sprinkling. They are not authorized! God has nowhere specifically forbidden sprinkling or infant baptism, but He has specified who are to be baptized (Mark 16:16) and how they are to be baptized (Rom. 6:4)."

He didn't have to forbid sprinkling or infant immersion since, as you stated, He specified who (BELIEVERS, NOT INFANTS) were to be IMMERSED. The question of sprinkling -vs- immersion was not a question at all. Everyone knew God wanted folks to be immersed, so they were. To do otherwise would have gone against what God specified He wanted.

I must agree with Scott ... I see my use of the guitar (or other instruments) during worship as an aid! It helps to keep the time, and the tune. Having attended non/anti services around here where some kind of aid was needed for just those reasons, I am glad I use them. Song services were there is no sense of meter, and where the tune goes all over the place is not doing our best, and I do believe we are to do our best in whatever we do as Christians.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

If I were your boss and I told you to do a report by tomorrow, would you go skiing?

Maybe. It depends on how much time I needed to do the report, and what the slopes looked like. My boss is a benevelant dictator. If I did a first class bang up job on the report and still had time to ADD some fun time, He would say, "well done, thou good and faithful employee".

What if the report my boss wanted was on the subject of skiing?

As I have read Kevin's argument, in addition to the fallacies which have been pointed out so far, I noticed a pattern indicating a different view of what "worship" really is.

And maybe this is the crux of it. He seems (as do others) to equate worship with law, once using the phrase "lawful part of the New Testament worship"

Well what does Law have to do with worship? There is not an easy answer. Certainly in the Old Testament worship was very much tied to law, regardless of the instrument question. Kevin is correct that the Old Testament is not the "authority" now, in that sense. And why? Because we are no longer under law--we are under grace.

Well, then, if worship was tied to law under the Old Testament covenant, it follows that worship should now be tied to grace. Maybe that's why God didn't give a whole lot of details as He did under the Law! Now He says, as Jesus did to the Samaritan woman (with my paraphrase) "Some worship Him with instruments; some without, but God wants people to worship Him in spirit and truth." So, when you sing to Him, don't just go through the motions. Sing with your heart! Sing in the Spirit! Let er rip!

Again I noticed Kevin's equation of worship with law by comparing worship to baptism. Are they on the same level? Certainly worship is natural (or should be) for a Christian. But what are the steps of salvation? Believe, repent, confess, be immersed, and worship accapella? We didn't come from Old Testament Law to no law at all... Baptism is a part of New Testament LAW. But is worship?

Finally, I perceived a perhaps hidden fear, (dormant from the Civil War days, when this "non-instrument" idea first reared its head?) that if we allow an instrument into the church building, my heavens, what next? when Kevin wrote:

"If everything not expressly forbidden in the New Testament were actually introduced into our mode of worship, what a strange worship it would become"



-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

Not to get off topic, but what about hand clapping?

:)

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

Brethren:

Notice that Brother Darrel says:

“Lee -- Scott says: "This does not call for a long drawn-out debate. A scripture reference will do."”

And this is what Scott actually said.

Then he comments on our response to Brother Scott as follows:

“Your response to him was what some might call a long drawn-out answer that took 147 lines to say, basically, I will not answer your question except in a debate format.”

SO, what if my response was lengthy? It was my response and my business as to how long it would be. And we did say much more than we “will not answer his question except in a formal debate.” We gave the reason for our not doing so. And we explained that we are not interested in answering only one question which is not taken up in order of an organized discussion of the subject in it’s entirety and connected to propositions clearly stated which both sides are trying to prove. And that we want both sides to carry the burden of proof for their positions and to be required to answer our questions as well which are most often merely ignored. Ignoring our questions would not be allowed in a formal debate. So, Brother Darrel is not correct in stating that our response to Brother Scott was a lengthy way of saying nothing more than that we will not answer his question except in a formal debate. That part of what we said was just the part that he hates to hear the most.

Then he says:

“One suggestion to all involved is that, if you can't answer a question as requested, in this case, with a short answer of a scripture reference, then it might be better to not answer at all.”

Which is nothing short of an ignorant suggestion. We never said that we “can’t” answer the question. Instead we offered to answer it along with all the others that he has asked as well as the follow up questions he may have intended to ask once we answer the one that he did ask. And we have even suggested in this forum more than once that after the having such a formal debate we would then agree to open a thread to answer specific questions that anyone in this forum might wish to ask us. Now this is fair and it is right and it is a good way to proceed.

But we offered to answer Scott, as well as anyone else for that matter, if they would agree to a formal debate wherein they would agree to answer all of our questions put to them as well. Now this is just simply a fair request, which he has the right to deny. And we reserve the same right to deny anyone’s request for a “short answer”. We maintain the right to answer in any way that we chose. And if Brother Darrel were to follow his own advice he would not write in response to us because he ignores most of what we say in his responses to us. So, he does not answer us yet he will not, as we did, admit that he has not answered us and give good reasons for not doing so and offer to answer us in a format more conducive to gaining a fair hearing to our answers. The reason is he lacks such integrity, isn’t it?

Then he says:

“We all understand you want to formally debate the issue, and by now it should be fairly obvious that no one on this forum wishes to do that.”

Now, it is not true that we are the only one’s that “want to debate the issue”. For this is the very thing you have been doing for the past few moths in this forum. But we are indeed the ONLY ONE that is WILLING to debate the issue in a fair manner. Indeed we are then only one seeking such with guidelines, propositions and a logical arrangement that allows for the subject to be discussed in a proper sequence which would allow our readers to actually understand both sides of this issue and to decide it for themselves. Now that is indeed the truth. We are the only one seeking fairness and the only one’s from your side who seek such fairness is Sister Muse and Sister Cynthia O’Brien. For they have requested a debate of the authorization issue and they both support a debate of the instrumental music issue. They want to hear both sides in a fair, honorable debate. So, it is not as you seek to make it appear. For you seek erroneously to make it appear that we are the ONLY ONE that wants a formal debate of these issues. And that is simply not the truth and you know it.

And it is quite clear that no one in this forum is willing to debate this issue in a fair and equitable manner. For such would require them to share equally in carrying the burden of proof for what they say and it would allow both sides the opportunity to be heard in full with out so much ignorant harping and heckling from the “peanut gallery”. We all can see that a fair discussion of this issue is to be avoided at all cost by our Brothers, in this forum, who believe that instrumental music is authorized. WE do see clearly that you must avoid a formal debate and we are convinced that your need to do so could be simply because you do not believe that you position can stand the test of such a debate. We know that you do not wish to debate the issue with us and we are not certain as to your reasons for not being willing to do so. Could it be that you fear a fair discussion. Could it be that you fear being placed in the position of having to support your assertions instead of being able to merely make them without being required to give evidence to support them. Could it be that you are unwilling to allow a one to one discussion and that you feel more secure in your position when the ratio is more like one to ten or twenty? Yes, we know you are not willing to engage in an honorable, fair, equitable debate of this issue and we suspect, at least in the case of Brother Darrel he is simply unable to debate the subject in such a format.

Then he says:

“ Most of the rest of the people who frequent this forum enjoy posting fairly short posts, requesting fairly short answers.”

Well, we cannot tell much from your words about how many prefer short post to long ones. But it is meaningless in either case. If you ask us a question you have no right to dictate to us how we will answer it. You are free to ask any thing you wish but you have no power to demand that we even answer much less that we answer it in a short way. You most certainly have the right to request such and we reserve the right to DENY your request. And we have done so and most likely will continue to do it.

Then he says:

“ Rather than continue to post the debate issue, how about joining in with the rest of the gang.”

Rather than continuing to insist that we discuss this matter in such a pathetically unorganized way that allows you to avoid completely ever taking upon yourself the burden of proving any of your assertions. Without settling the important matter first in order so that everyone can get a clear view of the subject as a whole. Why not join in with those of us who have asked for a formal debate of the issue? For we are not the one’s that even brought up the subject of debate in this most recent round of talks about the matter. It was one of your very own, who agrees with you that asked for the subject of authorization to be debated and she asked if E. Lee Saffold would be willing to do it. And we agreed with her and accepted the suggestion and none of those of you who believe as she does were willing to engage in such a debate. So, why do you not join with us in supporting the idea of a fair and formal debate of this issue?

“ If not, there may be some other forums where formal debate is the norm, and I'm sure you would be welcome to debate the authority issue to your hearts content.”

Do not be stupid, Brother Darrel. We are not going to another forum. We are staying in this one. And we did not ask for this debate but rather Sister Muse asked for it and she believes as you do on these subjects. We are going to stay here and honor her request. We are going to continue to request a debate. We will perpetually make it clear to all who read this forum that those who believe in the use of instrumental music in the worship are unwilling, in this forum, to engage in a fair debate of that issue. And they are also unwilling to debate the issue of authorization which should be debated as Sister Muse has so correctly pointed out, before any discussion of instrumental music.

And you continue to claim that we are basing our argument upon silence. We have never made any argument from silence and if you would engage in a formal debate you would find that we would not make an argument from silence. But you continue to make it appear that our case rest upon what God does not say. And we will simply state here that such is not the case at all. We are arguing from the specific command of God wherein he specified the type of music he wanted Christians to use in worship to him. And are you willing to engage in a formal debate which allows us to state our position clearly in a formal proposition which would prevent you from being able to make this deliberate misrepresentation of our position. For you see, without a formal debate you are allowed to come in hear and state our position for us in a way that you think is more favorable to you. But in a formal debate you will have to allow us to state the proposition that we intend to prove in our own words. And you are not allowed to manipulate it in this way. And this would put an end to your deliberate misrepresentations, which you then hold us to defending it as if it were our position when in truth it is completely opposite to what we affirm. You do not even know what it is that we affirm much less how we would go about proving it. For you see you do not want to allow us to engage in a formal debate wherein we would be allowed to begin the debate by stating and defining our proposition so that we eliminate much misunderstanding and clarify many false misrepresentations from the very outset. Why are you fearful of allowing us to have the opportunity to do such? For we have said it often, and you and everyone else merely ignored it when God specifies a certain type of music he excludes all others. It is the specifications of God that excludes anything that God has not specified in his command. And we are willing to defend this position in a formal debate. But you are not willing to engage in a formal debate because you would rather be free to deliberately misrepresent us rather than be place in a position where you must hear our actual arguments and answer them.

So, we know that you would very much like to see us leave this forum. You would feel far more “comfortable”. For then you would not have to put up with that “pestilent fellow” E. Lee Saffold. But, we must disappoint you in this matter. We will be hear calling constantly for a fair debate of this important issue even if you are too frightened to participate in such it is possible that some good Brother among us will be more than willing to actually make the effort to engage in such someday. It might be ten years from now or it may never happen. But one thing you can be assured about. If you continue to refuse to debate this issue fairly and in a format that requires you to take up the burden of proving your position. Then our intelligent readers will soon draw the conclusion that you either have not the courage of your convictions or that you have no confidence in the position that you hold. And if they reach that conclusion they just might, as some have already done, contact us via email to hear the “rest of the story” that you are trying to prevent them from ever hearing in full. And we are now and will continue to comply with their request for that information. So, our persistent request for a formal debate of this matter is serving a very good purpose and it is achieving its objective quite well. SO, why would we leave to go to another forum when we are accomplishing our objects so well in this one? Only an egregious ignoramus would ask us to leave this forum especially when he has no power to force us to go away. So, much for your wishful thinking Brother Darrel.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

I continue to be amazed at the lack of scripture references that are used in reply to my posts. All I can say is what has been said before and that is: WOW!!!

Darrell, please make an attempt when you reply to my posts to spell my name correctly. I haven't made that mistake with your name, so I would expect the same courtesy from you.

Darrell also said: "Burnt offerings -- superseeded by the offering of Jesus Christ Himself."

I agree it has been nailed to the cross.

Then Darrell said: "Burning of incense -- represented prayers in the OT. We now pray directly to God, through Jesus. The representation is no longer needed. And if you really want to burn incense, go for it, but it is not needed for worship purposes, though to some it might be an aid."

I agree that it has been nailed to the cross.

Darrell then said: "Coke and cake for the Lords' supper: we use bread and fruit of the vine since that is what was used at the first Lord's Supper. We have an example from Jesus of what to use."

I agree.

And finally Darrell said: "Counting of beads in worship: If that counting is for saying "Hail Mary's" then we certainly know that is not allowed since we are to pray TO God THROUGH Jesus ... and Mary doesn't come into the picture at all."

How did Mary come into the picture? Since I never mentioned Mary in my post? Amazing!!!

I would add: Instrumental Music - part of the ceremonial music that was commanded in the Old Testament that was nailed to the cross.

Duane said: "Again I noticed Kevin's equation of worship with law by comparing worship to baptism. Are they on the same level? Certainly worship is natural (or should be) for a Christian. But what are the steps of salvation? Believe, repent, confess, be immersed, and worship accapella? We didn't come from Old Testament Law to no law at all... Baptism is a part of New Testament LAW. But is worship?"

Please when you quote me, try to get it right. I said: "The fact of the matter is, the Bible does not have to specifically forbid something for it to be condemned. All God has to do is specify what He wants done. If all we do is to be by the authority of Christ (Col. 3:17), and instruments of music are not authorized, they are thereby forbidden. This is the same basis that prohibits infant baptism and sprinkling. They are not authorized! God has nowhere specifically forbidden sprinkling or infant baptism, but He has specified who are to be baptized (Mark 16:16) and how they are to be baptized (Rom. 6:4)."

Please show me where in this statement I compared worship to baptism? I do believe that I was speaking on the authorization issue.

And please tell me what the steps of salvation have to do with worship?

You made absolutely no sense with your last statement: "Baptism is a part of New Testament LAW. But is worship?"

Please restate or reword the question.

Scott said: "The more I study different aspects of your position, the weaker I find it becomes."

My Reply: It is hard to justify your position at all, since for the most part there is no scripture references at all to justify your position. Most of what has been said from your side is all opinion. Now, whose position is the weaker position?

It has been said that instrumental music, is only an AID to and not a part of the worship.

But God's Word plainly and forever settles this point.

What is done with the instruments in worship today that was not done with them in the Jewish worship?

Nothing whatsoever.

They enter into the worship today just as they did then, and are used with other parts of the worship just as they were then.

Now let us hear the decision of God's Word in the case.

Under the old dispensation where instruments were used, we have the following:

"Then Hezekiah commanded them to offer the burnt offering on the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song of the LORD also began, with the trumpets and with the instruments of David king of Israel. So all the assembly worshiped, the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded; all this continued until the burnt offering was finished." (2 Chron 29:27-29)

Some were offering the sacrifice, others were singing, and others were sounding the instruments of music; but God through the inspired record says they were all worshipping.

What shall we say?

Under the same dispensation, David said: "...And on the harp I will praise You, O God, my God. (Ps 43:4); and among the closing words of the book of Psalms, we have the following: "Praise Him with the sound of the trumpet; Praise Him with the lute and harp! Praise Him with the timbrel and dance; Praise Him with stringed instruments and flutes!" (Ps 150:3-4).

Thus, God's Word simply declares that when instrumental music is used in the worship, it is a part of that worship, and nothing can conceal the fact.

According to the teaching of Jesus, it is VAIN worship today, because it is NOT COMMANDED by the Lord.

God has not only arranged the worship Himself for His people in every age, stating explicitly what they shall do in that worship, but He has also plainly said: "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God." (2 John 9)

While progression is right within the limits of God's Word, it is wrong to "transgress" beyond that Word; and Paul specifically declares that what he wrote concerning divisions in the church at Corinth, was that Christians "that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written" (1 Cor 4:6)

Let us abide by this decision.

The first thing we can do is to continue respecting the authority of the Scriptures.

Remembering the admonition: And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him (Col. 3:17).

If we are going to ignore this passage in one area, why not in every area? Once the authority principle is given up, the door swings open for everything. We need to study carefully and remember frequently, lessons from the past regarding a disrespect for the authority of the word of God.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001

Hold on there big boy, one thing at a time. First of all, I quoted you word for word. Anything you see in quotes came from one of your posts... Scroll back!

Then you proceeded to ignore or evade whatever is discussed. Am I the only one seeing this? But no, we will take it one at a time:

Kevin said:

"Please show me where in this statement I compared worship to baptism?"

And here is the quote:

"If all we do is to be by the authority of Christ (Col. 3:17), and instruments of music are not authorized, they are thereby forbidden. This is the same basis that prohibits infant baptism and sprinkling.They are not authorized! God has nowhere specifically forbidden sprinkling or infant baptism, but He has specified who are to be baptized (Mark 16:16) and how they are to be baptized (Rom. 6:4)."

Now somebody pinch me if I am just dreaming, but that sounds like comparing the worship "authorization" issue to the baptism "authorization" issue.

Kevin then wrote:

"And please tell me what the steps of salvation have to do with worship?"Uh gee, that was my point.

Kevin then wrote:

"You made absolutely no sense with your last statement: 'Baptism is a part of New Testament LAW. But is worship?' Please restate or reword the question"

Okay. Do you believe that Baptism and worshipping without instruments are equally essential commands to be obeyed? Serious question.

First Scriptural error (don't miss this one students) was this quote:

"Thus, God's Word simply declares that when instrumental music is used in the worship, it is a part of that worship, and nothing can conceal the fact. According to the teaching of Jesus, it"(instrumental music, of course) "is VAIN worship today, because it is NOT COMMANDED by the Lord." (verse please?)

Kevin then asserted:

"God has not only arranged the worship Himself for His people in every age, stating explicitly what they shall do in that worship"(uh, verse again, please?)"but He has also plainly said: 'Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.' (2 John 9)"

(Oooh, finally a verse...but unfortunately the verse is not even addressing a worship "authorization" issue.

So there you have it. Worship is not only a "Law" thing.... it is also a "doctrine" thing. Is it possible to elevate worship above God, the worshipee? It is beginning to appear that way. The virtue of singing without a piano is right up there with baptism and doctrine, the essential teachings and commands of our Lord Himself. But I digress. Kevin continues:

"While progression is right within the limits of God's Word, it is wrong to "transgress" beyond that Word."

Now it's your turn Kevin. Re-phrase please?

"and Paul specifically declares that what he wrote concerning divisions in the church at Corinth, was that Christians 'that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written' (1 Cor 4:6)"

Again, alas, out of context.

"The first thing we can do is to continue respecting the authority of the Scriptures."

A truism.

"Remembering the admonition: 'And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him' (Col. 3:17)."

Again, taking a principle which is true, (doing all in the name of Christ), and micro-applying it to a pet preference.

But notice, oh readers, that Kevin did not respond to the following:

Well, then, if worship was tied to law under the Old Testament covenant, it follows that worship should now be tied to grace. Maybe that's why God didn't give a whole lot of details as He did under the Law!

Nor did Kevin respond to:

Finally, I perceived a perhaps hidden fear...that if we allow an instrument into the church building, my heavens, what next?

But he actually confirmed it again with his final statement:

"If we are going to ignore this passage in one area, why not in every area? Once the authority principle is given up, the door swings open for everything."

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001

Duane -- you are correct.

From the last couple of posts, Kevin (sorry for any misspelling) has been evading issues and questions. That has been happening.

Your "lawyer" observation re: E Lee was also on the money.

E. Lee's use of inflamatory remarks (and if you don't understand what I mean or if you can't see how your remarks are inflamatory, then I am sorry) do nothing for this or any other thread. I do know it doesn't happen only here on this bulletin board, but on others as well. That is his style, he is entitled to it, but again, in my opinion, it does nothing positive either here or for the Kingdom in general. BTW Lee, feel free to post a long passage on why you agree you are entitled to do these things, but it really isn't needed.

Scott and Duane -- I enjoy your questions, and wish someone would give the answer needed to them, but unless one of you is ready to spend a LONG time in formal debate, I don't think we are going to see answers. I am going to check with a non/anti minister friend of mine in this area to see if he would be willing to join the bulletin board and share answers with us.

Lee -- you mentioned two folks who want a debate with you, but who apparently are not willing to debate you themselves. No one else SEEMS to be interested in the issue of a debate. If those who requested a debate are not going to debate, then why keep this up? It's getting old, as is this thread.

As I, and a number of others have mentioned, it's an argument from silence ... which I now think is the best way to handle the issue, and folks like Kevin and Lee. That is my opinion. If it offends anyone, I am sorry.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001

Duane said: "Hold on there big boy, one thing at a time. First of all, I quoted you word for word. Anything you see in quotes came from one of your posts... Scroll back!"

I did scroll back and you didn't quote me word for word. Please show me where in your earlier post that you did that? I don't see it.

Then Duane said: "Then you proceeded to ignore or evade whatever is discussed. Am I the only one seeing this? But no, we will take it one at a time:"

This is a first. What about other questions asked in my other posts? Most of E. Lee's questions posed in his posts remain unanswered. Makes you wonder?

Then you correctly quoted my words: "Kevin said: "Please show me where in this statement I compared worship to baptism?"

Aaah, finally, we have the correct quote.

"And here is the quote: "If all we do is to be by the authority of Christ (Col. 3:17), and instruments of music are not authorized, they are thereby forbidden. This is the same basis that prohibits infant baptism and sprinkling.They are not authorized! God has nowhere specifically forbidden sprinkling or infant baptism, but He has specified who are to be baptized (Mark 16:16) and how they are to be baptized (Rom. 6:4)."

Then you said: "Now somebody pinch me if I am just dreaming, but that sounds like comparing the worship "authorization" issue to the baptism "authorization" issue."

If it appeared that way, then I was wrong in my presentation. I made an attempt to show the differences between things that are NOT AUTHORIZED. Maybe I should have used the Lord's Supper or something else that correlated with worship. That was not my intention, but who knows maybe you were dreaming?

Then you said: "First Scriptural error (don't miss this one students) was this quote: "Thus, God's Word simply declares that when instrumental music is used in the worship, it is a part of that worship, and nothing can conceal the fact. According to the teaching of Jesus, it"(instrumental music, of course) "is VAIN worship today, because it is NOT COMMANDED by the Lord." (verse please?)"

Well now, this is the question isn't it? How about this verse in Matt 15:9 "And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."

Now since instrumental music is NOT COMMANDED by the Lord, then it is a teaching of MEN.

I would like to see a verse that COMMANDS the use of instrumental music in the NT?

Then you accurately quoted my words: "God has not only arranged the worship Himself for His people in every age, stating explicitly what they shall do in that worship"(uh, verse again, please?)"but He has also plainly said: 'Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.' (2 John 9)"

I am amazed that you continue to ask for scripture verses in your questions, but when I give scripture verses, you never bother to back up your replies with scripture. Why is this the case?

There are many verses that speak of worship in the Old Testament and the New Testament. If I were to give you every verse, this post would even be longer. Here are a few from the NT:

Singing - Eph. 5:19 etc… Giving - 1 Cor. 16:1-2 etc… Prayer - 1 Tim 2:1-2 etc… Lord's Supper -Matt. 26:26-28 etc… Preaching - Acts 20:7 etc…

Then he gets smart by saying: "(Oooh, finally a verse...but unfortunately the verse is not even addressing a worship "authorization" issue."

Point taken however, Where are the verses that justify your position? Sadly, they have been few and far between.

Then you said: "So there you have it. Worship is not only a "Law" thing.... it is also a "doctrine" thing. Is it possible to elevate worship above God, the worshipee? It is beginning to appear that way. The virtue of singing without a piano is right up there with baptism and doctrine, the essential teachings and commands of our Lord Himself."

I don't understand ho you can say that it APPEARS that I am elevating worship above the worshipee? Nowhere is the use of A PIANO EVER COMMANDED in the NT. Let me ask you a question: Is it wrong to point out SIN?

The use of musical instruments was COMMANDED in the OT as has been shown previously. So, if it is NOT COMMANDED in the NT, then it is going beyond what is written and we have been warned to not do this. We are COMMANDED to SING and nowhere in my Bible or yours for that matter will you ever find anything different.

Then you said: "Now it's your turn Kevin. Re-phrase please? "and Paul specifically declares that what he wrote concerning divisions in the church at Corinth, was that Christians 'that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written' (1 Cor 4:6)" Again, alas, out of context."

How was I out of context? Please explain? If I was out of context, please correct me.

Then you accurately quoted my words: "Remembering the admonition: 'And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him' (Col. 3:17)."

And you said: "Again, taking a principle which is true, (doing all in the name of Christ), and micro-applying it to a pet preference."

PET PREFERENCE? So, are you saying that we don't need authorization for everything that we do?

Then he attempts to get cute again by saying: "But notice, oh readers, that Kevin did not respond to the following: Well, then, if worship was tied to law under the Old Testament covenant, it follows that worship should now be tied to grace. Maybe that's why God didn't give a whole lot of details as He did under the Law!"

Worship tied to grace? Please explain? Since we are now under grace (which is a true statement), does this mean that we can do whatever we think God approves of in worship? Then he says: "Nor did Kevin respond to: Finally, I perceived a perhaps hidden fear...that if we allow an instrument into the church building, my heavens, what next?

But he actually confirmed it again with his final statement:

"If we are going to ignore this passage in one area, why not in every area? Once the authority principle is given up, the door swings open for everything."

So, then I did answer your question didn't I?

Then Darrell says: " Duane -- you are correct. From the last couple of posts, Kevin (sorry for any misspelling) has been evading issues and questions. That has been happening."

Well now, I may not answer every question, But at least I make an attempt to do just this now don't I? And I even attempt to answer it with Scripture. Now, I may not be right all of the time, and I even admit when I am wrong now don't I? It seems to me that I have asked several questions earlier that didn't even bother to get answered. And you wonder why all of your questions don't get answered? Besides I do have to answer more than one person and this normally isn't the case in your posts now is it? No, that is not an excuse, just a fact.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001

Brother Darrel:

You have said:

“Lee -- you mentioned two folks who want a debate with you, but who apparently are not willing to debate you themselves.”

What we plainly said was that that one of these ladies requested that the subject of authority be debated formally in this forum and asked if we were willing to do so and we agreed. And the other lady said that she supports the idea of a debate concerning both authorization and instrumental music with E. Lee Saffold in this forum. And the fact is that they admit that they have not yet heard the other side fairly presented and would like to hear it. The fact that they do not necessarily know what the other side would say in all cases is one reason that they would not engage in debating the issue themselves. But this excuse does not apply to those such as yourself that pretends to know what our position really is on this matter and it certainly does not apply to those whom we know are perfectly aware of our position and the arguments that we make for it.

Then you say:

“ No one else SEEMS to be interested in the issue of a debate.”

This is not true as is evidenced by the fact that you constantly are willing to engage in a running battle of short insignificant quibbles for months about the subject. What you are not willing to do is engage in a real debate which requires you to take upon yourself the burden of proving your position and the burden of denying our efforts to prove ours.

Then you say:

“ If those who requested a debate are not going to debate, then why keep this up?”

If you are going to continue to try to debate the issue without committing yourself to a proposition that you are willing to affirm and attempt to prove. If you are willing to continue to demand that we alone bear the burden of proving our position while you have no burden of proving yours and without giving us a fair hearing. If you are going to continue to misrepresent our position so that you can appear to be actually answering it when in fact you have not even approached an elementary understanding of it. Then you will continue to demonstrate to all intelligent readers of this forum the desperate need for this issue to be debated in a formal and organized and fair debate. A debate with guidelines in order for the truth to be given its best opportunity to emerge on its own and seen clearly and the people can judge for themselves what the truth really is concerning authorization and instrumental music. The fact that no one in this forum has the courage, knowledge, time or energy that they are willing to devote to debate this matter. While they have plenty of time and energy to devote to misrepresentation and frivolous arguments that have little or no bearing on the issue in the least. Such is evidence that they do not have knowledge of the position opposite of their own, the courage of their convictions concerning the matter nor confidence in them.

“As I, and a number of others have mentioned, it's an argument from silence ...”

You have all said this but you are unwilling to attempt to PROVE it, now are you? We have not made an argument from silence and in a formal debate we have no intention of making any argument from silence. So, if you were in a formal debate with us you would not be allowed to define our position for us. We would be allowed to state our proposition in our own words and your deliberate misrepresentation in this matter would be completely useless. So, we see why you will not debate us formally, now don’t we? You want to be able to define our position for our readers instead of allowing us to state in our own words what we affirm and make our own arguments concerning it that you must respond to. For until we actually make an argument from silence you cannot claim that our argument is from silence. We have not made any such argument for none have agreed to debate us yet. As we have stated before our argument in a formal debate will come from the SPECIFIC COMMANDS OF GOD in the New Testament concerning the type of music that he commanded and specified to be in Christian worship.

But none of you are willing to debate us about this matter. For it is far easier for you to debate with yourselves by standing up a “straw man” that you think appears very much like the real one and proceed to attempt to beat him to a pulp. And what is even more humorous is that it appears that even the straw man is giving you trouble! And therefore we have no misconception as to why at least Brother Darrel is unwilling to debate us on this subject. For it seems you do this out of fear of facing the real proposition that we will state for ourselves and affirm, which we will not allow you to state or define for us. We have not stated our proposition nor defined it nor made any arguments to support it. Yet you claim to already know in advance of hearing us state it, define it and attempt to defend it that it is an argument from silence. This is just pure nonsense. For you have yet to mention in this discussion that you are having with yourselves concerning the matter neither our position nor any of the arguments that we would make concerning it. But you still seek to make our readers believe that we would affirm a proposition that can only be defended by arguments based solely upon silence. And this you cannot prove to be the case. For the only way you can prove what our position is and how we are arguing it would be to agree to debate us and let us state clearly our proposition in our own words, define it and then make our arguments in support of it. Then, and not before then can you honestly claim that ours is a proposition that we seek to defend from silence. We can assure you of one thing. If you were to engage in a debate with us and you came to it prepared only to deal with argument form silence you would be very quickly in a helpless condition in responding to our arguments for in our arsenal is not one single argument from silence. We do not object to instrumental music because God has said NOTHING about music in the worship. Instead we object to mechanical instruments of music because they are contrary to the specific type of music that God commanded us to use in worship to him. And to support that position cannot be an argument from silence, for mere silence from God on this matter would not prove anything at all. And if you or anyone else in this forum is willing to debate the issue with us you had better prepare to face arguments concerning the very words of God and his specific commands related to the type of music that he commanded to be in Christian worship. If you do not you will indeed be ill prepare to debate us on this matter.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

Then you say:

“ which I now think is the best way to handle the issue, and folks like Kevin and Lee.”

Well, there is no doubt that the best way to handle “folks like Kevin and Lee” is to refuse to engage them in a formal, fair and reasonable debate. Whatever you do in dealing with “folks like Kevin and Lee” make sure that you do not put yourself in a position of allowing them the opportunity to actually state in their own words the proposition that they affirm. And make sure that you do not allow them to state their own arguments that you must answer and cannot ignore. No, it is far better to make up arguments that you can easily answer ascribe those arguments to “folks like Kevin and Lee” and answer them in the forum so that you can leave the false impression that you have sufficiently “handled folks like Kevin and Lee”. And the best way to “handle” the issue is to avoid at all cost a formal debate wherein you must actually state your proposition in a positive way. And by all means avoid taking upon yourself the “burden” of proving your position by stating such a proposition and committing yourself to making arguments to support it. And by all means avoid doing so in a formal debate wherein an opponent from among “folks like Kevin and Lee” will be allowed to bring your arguments into intense scrutiny in the light of the eternal word of God. And whatever you do in “handling folks like Kevin and Lee” be sure that you do constantly perpetuate the “myth” that they are really just arguing from silence and nothing else. And while perpetuating this myth do not allow them to engage y9o0u in a formal debate wherein “myths” vanish like the morning “mist” in the face of the rising sun. This is how you “handle folks like Kevin and Lee”. For if you make the mistake of allowing them a fair opportunity to state and defend their position in a formal debate. Then you just might leave our readers in the awful position of being persuaded to actually worship using the very type of music that God specifically commanded them to use in their worship! And you will then no longer be able to attract crowds with your love of entertainment and self -gratification in the worship of God.

Then you say:

“ That is my opinion.”

And it is a pathetically ignorant one, isn’t it? But you are entitled to it.

Then you say:

“ If it offends anyone, I am sorry.”

We are not “offended” and if we were we would doubt very seriously if you would truly be “sorry” for expressing it. For no one should be “sorry” or in any way regret to hold to and express their “opinions” even if those opinions might offend someone. We do not expect you to be sorry for expressing any opinion that offends us.

But, we are convinced that you opinion of how to “handle folks like Kevin and Lee” is an ignorant and stupid opinion. And it is one that you hold only because you are not willing to allow for a fair, reasoned, and objective formal debate of the issues. For such would require you to do some work in preparing and conducting a one to one debate of this issue with “folks like Kevin and Lee”. Work that you are completely unprepared, incapable, and simply pathetically too fearful to do.

But, you are right about one thing. If you are seeking to prevent an objective and fair discussion of the issues and hide the truth from those who have not hear it you must “handle folks like Kevin and Lee” as you recommend. But for those who are interested in truth such handling is designed to thwart any real chance of even approaching and understanding of the entire issue and coming to knowledge of the truth concerning it. For as long as you argue only with yourselves you will never hear facts and arguments that u would not think of yourself. But if you face a real opponent from the opposing side you will then hear arguments that may have never occurred to you and you may learn something you did not know before that would change your picture of the entire matter. But this must be avoided if you are trying to hold to your belief without any concern that you just might be wrong about it. WE are willing to submit our position to such intense objective scrutiny with the complete willingness to change our minds about the matter if we are proven to be in error. But the same cannot be said in this forum of our opponents concerning this issue, can it? For they must at all cost avoid an objective debate of this issue in order to “handle folks like Lee and Kevin”. And it is clear that “handling folks like Lee and Kevin” is the objective rather than “handling aright the word of truth”. Brethren, the fact that these men refuse to engage in formal debates shows a terrible lack of interest in the search for truth and a complete unwillingness to engage in a fair discussion of this issue which has so terribly divided the body of Christ. And we submit to you that Brother Darrel and those who think as he does about this matter should be ashamed of themselves.

Then you say:

“It's getting old, as is this thread.”

SO what? The issue is an “old issue” isn’t it? Face the facts, Brother Darrel, no one is just going to give up just because YOU are tired! Ha! If you are tired then we suggest that you get some rest and come back when you feel better, but if you expect us to just “go away” because YOU are tired you can simply forget it for that is not going to happen in this life. And you object to our persistent efforts to stand for the truth of God’s word on this matter. The fact that it suddenly occurs to you that this standing for truth is “getting old” is evidence that you are not quite aware of just how long the battle between truth and error has been raging in this world. Now, one side or the other on this matter is wrong for both cannot be right. And if one were truly interested in the truth they would not object to a formal debate. In fact, if you want to see an end to our insistence upon a debate all you have to do is agree to debate us. If you do not wish to do so that is your business. But we remind you that you opposition to a debate is just as old as our insistence upon one, isn’t it? So, if your old opposition to debating this issue remains in the forum our “old” insistence upon one will remain as well. And that is just the way it is going to be and there is simply nothing you can do to prevent it, now is there?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001

I quote from above: "And it is a pathetically ignorant one, isn’t it? But you are entitled to it. Then you say: “If it offends anyone, I am sorry.” We are not “offended” and if we were we would doubt very seriously if you would truly be “sorry” for expressing it. For no one should be “sorry” or in any way regret to hold to and express their “opinions” even if those opinions might offend someone. We do not expect you to be sorry for expressing any opinion that offends us. But, we are convinced that you opinion of how to “handle folks like Kevin and Lee” is an ignorant and stupid opinion"

Lee, you have offended me, a brother in Christ. I am so tired of your calling peoples opinions stupid or ignorant. Maybe I am the only one who is tired of your use of words and phrases like that, then again, maybe I'm not. But I am offended. You have offended a brother in Christ. You also offend me greatly when you decide that I don't mean what I say. I said I was sorry if I offended anyone, and I truly am. How you can know my mind to decide otherwise is beyond me. Maybe YOU are not sorry if your opinions offend someone, but I am. Maybe you make comments in order to offend people, and maybe you don't, but I don't. That is not my purpose.

I offered an open apology to all concerned some time ago, over the E Wee thing, and other items. I meant it, no matter if you believe me or not. Others accepted my apology. I do not know if you did nor not, since you didn't post on the issue. My apology to you, and everyone else, still stands.

Maybe I shouldn't take offense at your tone, words and phrases, but I do. You have offended a brother in Christ, and have been made aware of it.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001

This thread has gotten so way out of hand. Darrell, I back your response. My truest opinion on this issue and others was given in a response yesterday on the Christian liberty thread. Y'all can read it.

As for you E. Lee, I too have had enough of you. You are pompous and self righteous. You have not demonstrated to me that you are willing to work anything out but what you want. You refuse to find a middle ground on any request. Antagonistically you hang to your antiquated "we". It is not out of any other reason than pride that you do this. It is not more scholarly, it is to show to "us" that you are right in what you do. Well sir, I have had enough. Yes that statement means nothing as there are no consequences behind it. Only that your attitude sickens me. Darrell gave an apology and you stomp all over it. Excuse me just how is that obeying Peter: "love one another deeply from the heart?" (Yes and I know you will scald me over using that verse, and I know I will have to answer to God for it, so write your three page rebuttal.)

Finally put up or shut up. I'm tired of comments similar to we will show you if you debate us. Baloney!!!!

My comments in the christian liberty thread are thus: Give me 1, just one verse where God forbids instruments with a specific command and you win. But you cannot find one, period. Just give me one verse where God says, it is ok to use certain AIDS if we deem it appropriate. Not once will you find it. Put up or shut up, give US book chapter and verse. Where does it say, thus saith the Lord. No more excuses. No more hiding.

Don't denigrate us with a reply that does not answer the question. You can say you are hurt or condemn me all you want, but be a christian, answer the question. No debate, just give book chapter and verse then any other 5 page comment you want to make. But don't reply without a specific scripture or your point is dead in the water.

Bill Umstetter

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001

Bill said: “This thread has gotten so way out of hand. Darrell, I back your response. My truest opinion on this issue and others was given in a response yesterday on the Christian liberty thread. Y'all can read it.”

If our readers will only scroll back to the beginning of this thread, I made a comment about hand clapping, and it digressed from there. So, please scroll back to see who in fact took this thread “way out of hand”?

Bill said in the Christian Liberty thread: “Therefore if the Lord is silent, we CANNOT speak for him. It is, to me, Christian liberty. If YOU believe using an instrument is sin, then you must not use one. I am not under that judgement, as the Bible does not say.”

What kind of double talk is this? First you say “Therefore if the Lord is silent, we CANNOT speak for him.” Then you turn right around and contradict what you just said by saying “It is, to me, Christian liberty.” I just have to shake my head on this one… How can you in the same breath say I respect God’s silence, then you turn right around and say that If the Lord is silent, then I have liberty? Where is your scripture verse to support this statement? Please give Book, Chapter and Verse. Then you say “I am not under that judgement, as the Bible does not say.” The Bible says that in Acts chapter 15 that certain men tried to bind circumcision on the Gentile converts to which the Apostles gave no such commandment. These certain men did not respect God’s silence on this issue and tried to bind elements of the Law on the Gentiles.

Men are not divided over what the Bible says but what it doesn't say.

The Bible is a precise and calculated revelation:

Jesus spoke ONLY what he heard: John 12:49-50

The Holy Spirit speaks ONLY what He hears: John 16:12-13

The All sufficiency of scripture: 2 Pet 1:3; Jude 3

Do not ADD: 2 John 9-11; Prov 30:5-6

Faith comes by hearing: Rom 10:17

Cain and Abel: Only Abel offered by faith: Heb 11:4

If we can't "hear it in the Bible" it is not "Bible faith"!

Two Bible examples to prove my point:

1. Nadab and Abihu: Lev 10:1,2: were told to get the fire from altar: Lev 16:12; 6:12,13; Num 16:46

2. Jesus could not be priest: Heb 7:13,14 + 8:4; Jeroboam ordained non-Levites priests: 1 Kings 12:31; God forbid non Levites: Num 18:22-23; The Hebrew writer (Hebrews chapter 7) doesn't say God forbid Judah (even though he had), but rather stated that God spoke nothing about someone from Judah being a priest. This proves that God expects men to respect His silence.

Then Bill said: “Finally put up or shut up. I'm tired of comments similar to we will show you if you debate us. Baloney!!!!”

Well now, are the words “Put up or shut up” Christ like? I still continue to be amazed that I hear words like this but yet, in response to most of my posts, there is very little argument and/or reasoning from scripture. Why is this the case?

Then Bill said: “My comments in the christian liberty thread are thus: Give me 1, just one verse where God forbids instruments with a specific command and you win. But you cannot find one, period. Just give me one verse where God says, it is ok to use certain AIDS if we deem it appropriate. Not once will you find it. Put up or shut up, give US book chapter and verse. Where does it say, thus saith the Lord. No more excuses. No more hiding.”

For the second time we hear these words: “Put up or shut up”? Can you give a “thus saith the Lord” for those comments? This works both ways, How about one verse that COMMANDS the use of instruments? Just one verse where God COMMANDS instruments with a specific COMMAND and you win. Can’t you do better than this?

Then Bill says: “Don't denigrate us with a reply that does not answer the question. You can say you are hurt or condemn me all you want, but be a christian, answer the question. No debate, just give book chapter and verse then any other 5 page comment you want to make. But don't reply without a specific scripture or your point is dead in the water.”

Dead in the water? I think not. God HAS SPECIFIED the kind of music He wants!

There are different kinds of music - vocal and instrumental.

Besides these two kinds of music there is no other.

Despite the differences in practice among the many churches of men, and the abundance of arguments that have been made over this issue, there are really only two simple questions that Bible believers must answer.

First, is the authority for church music general or specific?

Second, if this authority is specific, did God specify vocal music or did He specify instrumental music?

The answer to these questions is plainly revealed in the New Testament.

Matthew 26:30 - "And when they had SUNG a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives." Acts 16:25 - "But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and SINGING hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them." Romans 15:9 - "and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy, as it is written: 'For this reason I will confess to you among the Gentiles; And SING to Your name'." 1 Corinthians 14:15 - "What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding; I will SING with the spirit, and I will also SING with the understanding." Ephesians 5:19 - "Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, SINGING and making melody in your heart to the Lord," Colossians 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." Hebrews 2:12 - "saying: 'I will declare your name to My brethren; in the midst of the assembly I will SING praise to You'."

Note that EVERY passage specifies SINGING.

Christ's law is SPECIFIC with regard to the kind of music that is to be used in worship to God.

By adding the instrument, men ADD to the word of God and violate His specific instruction.

Will you stand upon the solid ground of book, chapter and verse authority (1 Pet. 4:11), or will you venture onto the quicksand of human OPINION and speculation?

If one wishes to return to the Law of Moses for religious authority (i.e. Instrumental music), then he is bound and obligated to go there for ALL of his religious authority! If not, why not?

According to Galatians 5:3, the man who uses the Old Law to bind circumcision is "a debtor to keep the whole law." Earlier, in Galatians 3:10, Paul stated, "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them"

Thus, the person who returns to the Old Testament for his authority for one practice is scripturally obligated to live by all of its authority!

Of course, here lies the problem - No mere man ever lived the law perfectly. Galatians 3:22 says, "The scripture has confined all under sin...," and Romans 3:23 says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Truly indeed, "You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace" (Galatians 5:4).

By His sinless life, Jesus fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law and "took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross" (Col. 2:14; Matt. 3:15; 5:17-18). He "abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances" (Eph. 2:15). Those who look to the Old Testament for modern religious authority are "looking to the end of what was passing away" (2 Cor. 3:13).

We are now under the "New Covenant" (Heb. 8:7-12). God has made the first Covenant obsolete (Heb. 8:13).

Finally, Ceremonial worship which using musical instruments was a part of (2 Chr 29:25), was abolished at the cross because the Bible says: "It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience--concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation." (Heb 9:8-10)

I have attempted to reason from Scripture, please make an attempt to return the favor.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2001

Kevin;

Yes, when I say put up or shut up it is not a very loving statement. I am tired of E. Lee's condescending rhetoric. I am tired of how he puts people down. And though I do not accept the ridicule he has gotten, I understand how he gets it. He is stubborn and strong willed and will only do what he wants as opposed to trying to find ways to bridge the gap. An example specifically is the 3rd person vs. 1st person arguments (and I am not talking about scripture).

I agree with many points that you make in your letter. But I again tell you that you in fact, are adding to scripture, when you say that you can use aids that God does not specifically allow. You can't have it both ways. IF God makes exceptions, that is his business. If God wants a certain thing, he can make that case specifically in his word. IF he cannot then is scripture the true word of God? Therefore I believe that if God wanted it that there is to be no instrumental music he would have said it plainly, and condemned it in Paul's lists of sinful behavior that would keep a person from heaven. As in I Cor 6:9. Please address this, if using instruments is so damnable, why did Paul not list it here????

Your argument that prohibits instrumental music is akin to putting us under a new law. The new Testament was not meant to be a second coming of the 1500 laws of the OT. IT was meant to put us under 2 laws. Love the lord your God with all your heart your soul your mind your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. I also thought I was under grace (Eph 2:8). So therefore what ever you do whether in word or deed do it all in the name of Jesus. (Col 3:17) Rev. 2:10 says Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life.

My understanding of the new testament then is that I am saved by grace Also, I am to love God with all of me, and the same for my neighbor. If I am faithful in serving him, I will have eternal life.

Having said that, because God did not say, do not use instruments, then I have the freedom to praise him, as much as I have the freedom to do in a building or a home. For the moment you say a church building is just an aid, you added to scripture. He did not command you to do it. So using your logic, you can't have it both ways. Just because in your mind it is an aid, does not give it a special release. BTW using a building alters sound, because of the acoustics, therefore singing with the voice is altered. Therefore one cannot sing to God in worship in this building. It does not give God the pure sound you seem to think he wants.

Now to your comments specifically.

you say:What kind of double talk is this? First you say “Therefore if the Lord is silent, we CANNOT speak for him.” Then you turn right around and contradict what you just said by saying “It is, to me, Christian liberty.” I just have to shake my head on this one… How can you in the same breath say I respect God’s silence, then you turn right around and say that If the Lord is silent, then I have liberty?

I say: There is no double talk. It is my point that if God does not require it or if God does not disqualify it specifically, it is my choice to do it. Because I am not under any other law than to love him and love my neighbor. Your response leads me to believe the Christian has no liberty. That a christian is under the yoke of a law, albeit a new one that is just as choking as the old one. So Christ's death is now meaningless, we have to serve a new code.

You said: The Bible says that in Acts chapter 15 that certain men tried to bind circumcision on the Gentile converts to which the Apostles gave no such commandment. These certain men did not respect God’s silence on this issue and tried to bind elements of the Law on the Gentiles.

I say: This is the exact point I am trying to make to you Kevin. God's word does not say, so why are you trying to bind me with a law that says I have to refrain from instrumental music. God does not say it so why do I have to bow to it.

you say: The Bible is a precise and calculated revelation:

I say, no it is not. God leaves much in the new testament up to us. He tells us specifically to take the Lord's supper but gives us freedom as to how we do it. One cup or many. One prayer before or two, take as it is passed or in unison or when you are ready. All choices that God is not specific about. He tells us to worship, he does not tell us a specific order of service, how many songs to sing, how long the sermon or even how to preach. There are not total specifics. The NT is not precise becuase we are under grace NOT law anymore. I can't follow or live under law. I prefer grace. Roms. 8 tells us we have freedom as children of God. Can you explain what the freedom is if you want to put us back under the law in God's silence. Remember we have the talmud and mishnah because man wanted to make a greater law under God's silence. Would you do that too?

you said: Do not ADD: 2 John 9-11

I say: You're using a scripture that hits you. this passage says: Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.

I am solid on what the bible says. I am continuing with what the bible says. you however do not bring this teaching in this one sense, you ADD to it by telling me, I have to conform to a way that God DOES NOT command. That is illogical: To have to conform to your way, that God does not command.

You say: Two Bible examples to prove my point:

1. Nadab and Abihu: Lev 10:1,2: were told to get the fire from altar: Lev 16:12; 6:12,13; Num 16:46

2. Jesus could not be priest: Heb 7:13,14 + 8:4; Jeroboam ordained non-Levites priests: 1 Kings 12:31; God forbid non Levites: Num 18:22-23; The Hebrew writer (Hebrews chapter 7) doesn't say God forbid Judah (even though he had), but rather stated that God spoke nothing about someone from Judah being a priest. This proves that God expects men to respect His silence.

I say: Amazing how you have gone to the OT to support your point. You don't want to go there. The writer of Hebrews was talking to Jewish Christians who may have been of the priestly line. But if you want to use OT scriptures, then you have no grounds to stand on with the music issue. God accepted the praise of men accompanied by instruments and again, I remind you - he never once condemned it. So if you use the OT to prove your point, you must use the OT all the way and it defeats your point.

you say: Despite the differences in practice among the many churches of men, and the abundance of arguments that have been made over this issue, there are really only two simple questions that Bible believers must answer.

First, is the authority for church music general or specific?

Second, if this authority is specific, did God specify vocal music or did He specify instrumental music?

The answer to these questions is plainly revealed in the New Testament.

Matthew 26:30 - "And when they had SUNG a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives."

I say:

In your scripture example you assume there is no instrument. What if there was an instrument but it is understood, and you missed it? The point you miss is this: what if this issue is so petty to God, because he wrote a word that believers could assume certain concepts. If this is the case, you missed the point. YOu cannot say for certain there was not a harp or lyre in that room when they sang. You cannot make a case from silence.

Also is the authority for music general or specific. Well I think it is as general as the issuance of the Lord's supper in the example I already gave. We are told to sing, not how loud, how fast, how soft, with acoustic, just in open air, accompanied by instruments, ad nauseum. Brother Kevin please note Paul said all scripture is inspired. This includes the OT and the book of revelation. God did away with the sacrifices of the OT because of the sacrifice of His son. But did he abolish all OT practices, I don't think so. Many NT concepts came from the OT such as elders, such as prayer. IF this is the case, God inhabited the praise of his people when they used instruments. And as the holy author of his own word he never condemned it and allowed it to be written.

So to me it does not come down to, is the authority for music specific or general. I believe it comes down to the Bible. Is the whole word for instruction and training in righteousness or is just the parts we want? IF I use the whole Bible I see God is praised with instruments in the OT and in Revelation, what more do I need to tell me that God is praised with instruments. Besides it is he who gave us music. It is he gave the talent to the many to write the music, it is he gave the many the ability to play the music. Is it really God's will that these people to whom he gave the talent to be silent if they want to praise him. So it is ok to write and sing and play the acid rock music but not godly music? IF we can not write and sing and play music to God, then why did he give this talent and ability? It is absurd to say he did, but you can't use it to worship him.

You say: If one wishes to return to the Law of Moses for religious authority (i.e. Instrumental music), then he is bound and obligated to go there for ALL of his religious authority! If not, why not?

I say: The law, the prophets and the writings are there to teach us. We are not under the 1500 laws to live by, but use it as a Guide. Especially when the NT is silent, the OT can fill in blanks. Music is an exact example. There is no command in the law to use music instrumentation that I am aware of, but there is music instrumentation in the OT that was accepted by God, so therefore, I can follow that example. Big difference brother.

Kevin, when I said put up or shut up, I was talking to E. Lee and not you. E. Lee has many times said to the effect, I have an answer but I will not give it until we have a formal debate. I was saying to HIM lay it out there and stop blowing all this wind.

Finally, I realize my responses are not going to change your mind or help you truly understand my view. But I again affirm that my view of scriptures, leads me to beleive that where God is silent and mans's law is silent, we have to make up our own law for that which is not covered. Therefore, if you decide a thing is wrong, then don't do it or else you will sin. I may not see it that way, so I am free as Paul says in 1 cor 6:12 everything is permissable but not beneficial. you must decide what you will for your life, but you cannot hang a new law (especially that is undeclared specifically by God) on your brothers and sisters.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2001

Brethren:

Notice how Brother Umstetter, who originally agreed to debate us on the issue of authority and then backed out expresses how he is “feed up with us”.

“This thread has gotten so way out of hand.”

Indeed it has do that. And this is the very thing that we tried to avoid by arranging for a formal debate with guidelines and moderators to enforce the rules which we have agreed upon which would have prevented our discussion of this important subject from getting so far “out of hand”. But Brother Umstetter did not want a formal debate, now did he? He wanted things to go along in such a way as to “get out of hand”. He was not willing to agree to arrange things in a fair an equitable way that would ensure that the participants would not “get out of hand”. SO, those of you who are not willing to agree to a formal debate only have yourselves to blame for this “out of hand” situation that Brother Umstetter is now whining about.

Then he says:

“ Darrell, I back your response.”

Well, this does not mean much. The thread is out of hand and Brother Umstetter is “backing” these responses which are a part of the thread that he says is “out of hand”. Does he mean that ALL of us are “out of hand” or does he simply mean that those of us who oppose him are “out of hand”? He is the one who wants the discussion to progress with no “controls” or guidelines to prevent it from getting out of hand. And now that his choice of rejecting a formal debate which is designed to provide some measure of control and order that would prevent things from getting “out of hand” has brought him some trouble he is sorely upset. All he need do is agree to some guidelines, set up formal propositions for both sides to affirm and deny and have moderators to keep order such as one sees in an honorable debate and he would not now be weeping over how “out of hand” things have gotten, now would he?

Then he says:

“ My truest opinion on this issue and others was given in a response yesterday on the Christian liberty thread.”

We suppose he means that his other opinions we not as true as the ones he expressed on the Christian liberty thread. WE are not interested in Brother Umstetter’s opinion. WE are interested in what God has to say about this subject. And we believe that God has spoken very clearly concerning the issue of his authority and the type of music that he has commanded in the worship of the church in the New Testament. And we have offered to demonstrate such in a formal debate wherein a discussion can be had in such a way as to prevent it from getting “out of hand”.

Then he says:

“Y'all can read it.”

We have read it.

Then he says:

“As for you E. Lee, I too have had enough of you.”

Well, we are certain that you are not the only one that has “had enough of us”. This often occurs when persons cannot answer our arguments. But in this case you have “had enough of us” without even encountering our arguments. In fact, you have had enough of our persistent demand that this subject be discussed in an orderly formal debate that prevents all from “getting out of hand”. So, you whine that things are “out of hand” but you complain of our request for a formal debate, which would prevent the disputants from getting out of hand!

But we must regretfully inform Brother Umstetter that there is nothing much he can do about our being on this forum. Therefore he will just have to “put up with us” if he wishes to read the forum or he can just do what most people do and “ignore” everything that we say. But the last thing he is willing to do is engage us in a formal debate of these issues, now is it? Yes, he has “had enough” without even debating us. WE can only image how frustrated he would be in a formal debate. For in a formal debate he could not accuse us falsely of “getting out of hand”, now could he? In a formal debate he would have to make an appeal to the moderators and establish that we had in fact violated our agreed upon rules for the debate and they would make a determination and tell us to correct our way if we were in fact unruly. But he does not want to have this kind of discussion, does he? For if he had this type of discussion his frivolous and unwarranted accusations would fail, wouldn’t they?

Then he says:

“ You are pompous and self righteous.”

Now that is another fine assertion for which you have not offer one shred of evidence to support, isn’t it?

Then you say:

“You have not demonstrated to me that you are willing to work anything out but what you want.”

Now what proof do you have concerning this matter? Just because we have not yet agreed on anything does not mean that we have not been trying to do so. And you offer no evidence to show how we have actually “demonstrated” our “unwillingness” to “work anything out”. In fact, we cannot find a single place wherein you tried to “work anything out” with us. WE have offered to debate this subject formally in this form and we even agreed to have a thread after the debate wherein every one could ask us questions and we would respond to them all. This was a compromise that gets you what you want, a thread wherein everyone can just ask and expect E. Lee Saffold to answer their every question concerning this matter. And it gets us what we want which is a formal debate which allows our position to be put forth in its entirety in a fair and objective manner and in a format that prevents anyone from “getting out of hand” and ensures us that our arguments will receive a fair hearing. Now, that was some very good middle ground. You even said you liked that suggestion of ours. So, you cannot say that we have not offered to “work things out” concerning a formal debate of this matter. But then you back away from the idea of a debate. But we have not backed away from anything. WE will still keep our promise to have a thread wherein we answer every question asked of us about authority and instrumental music etc. But we will only do so AFTER a formal debate is had and our position is given an opportunity to be heard completely and in fair circumstances that do not “get out of hand”. And we also want a formal debate wherein those of you who believe that instrumental music is authorized in the New Testament have a fair opportunity to take the burden of proof and attempt to show from the word of God that God has authorized it.

Then you say:

“ You refuse to find a middle ground on any request.”

That is surely not true, as we have demonstrated above. But even if it were true it would not matter. For we are not here to “compromise” on what God has to say. No one has any authority whatsoever to compromise the truth. Now we are willing to work out compromises on things that are simple matters of opinion and matters related to debates and the guidelines for them etc. But, compromise on the truth we will not ever do.

Then you say:

“ Antagonistically you hang to your antiquated "we".”

Now again you cannot prove what you say. If anyone were “antagonistic” it would be you Brother Umstetter. For it is you who despises our appropriate and acceptable usage of the word “we” to “avoid the personal character” as the dictionary makes quite plain is something that writers do. And it is your opinion, not ours, that such usage is “antiquated”. But even if it is “antiquated” it is still correct and we still have our right to use it if we so desire. But we made it quite plain to you that if you could show that we would, in a formal debate, in any way place you at a “disadvantage” by using such a correct English form as we proved to be correct that we would forego using it in our debate. But you could not show that we would in any way place you at any disadvantage by using this form. In fact, you did not even attempt to show that we would be placing you at any disadvantage by using such words. It was a simple fact that you, for your own personal reasons and absolutely no other reason than your own personal opinions and feelings about it did not like our use of this word. It was not offensive to you, it was not incorrect English usage, and it was not in any way whatsoever placing you at a disadvantage. You just did not like it. But simply because you did not like it you insisted upon having your way on nothing.

Nevertheless, we are not merely “hanging on” to our use of the word “we”. What we are hanging on to is our right to chose our own words and to give up those rights only when there is some good, compelling reason to do so. You could not give us any better reason than the fact that you personally do not like it. And that, Brother Umstetter is not good enough. WE have not sought to limit your use of the English language or a single word that you might chose to use. But you have very arrogantly sought to demand that we yield to your personal taste in our writing style. Such is absurd for anyone to do and we rightly reject it. Even though we tried to “work it out with you” by offering to avoid its use in our debate if you could show that we would disadvantage you with its use. But you did not even seek to “work with us on it”, now did you?

Then you say:

“ It is not out of any other reason than pride that you do this.”

Could you prove what you have asserted above? Are you not attempting just here to “read our hearts” and “judge our motives”? What evidence do you have that proves that pride is our motivation when we have stated that we are using this form to avoid the personal character as the dictionary so plainly states is one of its appropriate uses? It does however appear to us that it could be that it is nothing more than “pride” that causes you to demand that we yield to your personal preferences in our writing in this forum. For thus far you have given no better reason for your objection to our usage except your opinion that it is “antiquated” and you do not like it. Give us a good reason and we will think about it but those two reasons are not good enough. It seems that we may have hurt your “pride” a bit by refusing to honor your request that we avoid its use. Now you have the right to make such a request and we the right to accept or deny it. And we have told you that we would consider it if you gave us some good or compelling reason why we so avoid such usage. And you have not even attempted to show any good reasons for it, now have you? SO, it does appear to us that your pride is the reason for your insistence that we speak, as you would have us speak. IF we do not stop using the word “we” in this fashion you will soon “have enough of us”. Well, Brother Umstetter we are convinced that you are being a bit ridiculous to continue to insist that we avoid this correct usage of the word we just to please you. And that, Brother Umstetter is very arrogant, isn’t it?

Then you say:

“It is not more scholarly, it is to show to "us" that you are right in what you do.” We are not trying to be or not be “scholarly”. We have state our good reasons for the use of this word and we could use it without explaining our reasons to anyone. But, we did explain them for those of you who asked, We are using it to avoid the personal character and we have that right and will not sacrifice it just because you what us to do things your way without even giving us any good reason for doing so. Give us a good reason other than the fact that you do not personally like it and that it is your opinion that it is “antiquated” and we will consider changing it. So, far you have shown yourself completely incompetent to give us any GOOD reasons to avoid such.

Then you say:

“ Well sir, I have had enough.”

Well, Brother, we thought that you had had enough when you withdrew from the debate. It seems that you have not really had enough, now doesn’t it? If you had you would have just ignored us. But instead you keep coming back for more. So, we do doubt that you have truly “had enough”. But we shall see about it, now won’t we? But even if you have had enough just what exactly do you think you can do about that awful situation? What does your “having enough” have to do with what we are discussing? Or are you just joining the crown in “getting a bit out of hand yourself”? Ha!

Then you say:

“ Yes that statement means nothing as there are no consequences behind it. Only that your attitude sickens me.”

You are right it does mean nothing. And if you are sick we can recommend the “great Physician”. Go to him in prayer for the type of sickness that you are suffering and you will “find help in time of need”. But coming into the forum and throwing up in front of everyone is not calculated to do more than gain some much needed sympathy for you. But it will not cure your disease, now will it?

Then you say:

“ Darrell gave an apology and you stomp all over it.”

We are not convinced that Darrel gave an apology. Not every time someone says they are “sorry” are they really apologizing even though they might be sincere in thinking that they are doing so? But, an apology that does not begin with an admission of wrongdoing or harm committed against another whom you have truly harmed is not a real apology. It might be an expression of regret but it is not an apology. And when one “apologizes” for something that he admits he will continue doing he is not apologizing. And when one blames others first and then offers an apology for their inability to “take a joke” he is not sincerely apologizing. Now, it is hypocrisy that we have “stomped all over” not an apology.

Then you say:

“ Excuse me just how is that obeying Peter”

Why do you ask us to excuse you for something that you intend to do before you have done it? It is like seeing a person in a crowd and deliberately planning to slam into him and shouting out before doing so, “excuse me”. Try that in a crowd of ruff people someday Brother Umstetter and we can guarantee you will not try it often again!

Then you quote Peter:

"love one another deeply from the heart?" (Yes and I know you will scald me over using that verse, and I know I will have to answer to God for it, so write your three page rebuttal.) Now, why would we “scald” you for using that verse? We are just thankful anytime you use a verse of scripture since it is such a rare thing for you to do. It is a beautiful verse and we should all live by it. In fact, we do try our best to obey that verse. And the problem with your words is that you have not demonstrated that we have failed to follow that verse in anything we have done in this forum, now have you?

Then you say, obviously because you love us “deeply from the heart” the following:

“Finally put up or shut up.”

Now, not only have you gone from trying to control the words that we use in this forum to suit your taste. You now progress to arrogantly demanding that we “put up or shut up”! Ha! The legs of the lame are indeed unequal aren’t they brethren? We have “put up” brother Umstetter. We offered to put up our words in a formal debate, you accepted the debate and then you withdrew from it. So, we put up and we will not ever for any reason follow your command to “shut up” and there is simply nothing that you can do about that now is there?

Then you say:

“ I'm tired of comments similar to we will show you if you debate us.”

Well, just because you are “tired” is no reason that we should abandon what we are convinced is the best way for this subject to be fruitfully, and fairly discussed so as to prevent things from “getting out of hand” as you complain about. We have promised that we would not discuss this matter except in a formal debate and we have kept our promise and will continue to keep it. For we are even more strongly convinced that this subject needs and deserves a full, fair and objective study with both sides having been presented in full. And both sides having taken upon themselves the burden of proving their propositions in a circumstance with guidelines and with propositions being taken up in a logical and reasonable order. So that all of our readers can make sense of what is being said and misrepresentations from either side can at the very least be reduced to a minimum. In fact, that is what a formal debate is designed to accomplish and it does it quite well. SO, we given more than once our good reasons for offering to answer every question in a formal debate and then AFTER a formal debate we have agreed to have a thread wherein we respond to everyone’s questions and comments as long as they like to ask them of us. Now this is fair. We have agreed to do it both ways and have only asked that a debate occur first so that we can have the opportunity to present our case in full before engaging in a “free for all” that often, as you have pointed out gets “out of hand”. So, there is nothing wrong with our approach here.

Then you say:

“ Baloney!!!!”

We suppose that you mean by this that we are “lying”? We are not sure but it does seem that way. It is not “baloney” brother Umstetter, it is simply the way it will be and there is just nothing that you can do about it, now is there? Sooner or later someone will actually have the courage to engage in a formal debate of this subject and we will have the opportunity to present our case in a fair and reasoned manner. And after that we will have a thread to which everyone who heard the debate can come at us in any manner they so desire. Now, just because you do not have the desire to participate in such activities does not mean it is baloney. What really seems to be at work here is the fact that you withdrew from the debate and your feelings are hurt when we point out the fact that none are willing to engage in a fair and formal debate of this issue. Well, it is not our fault that none that believe in using instruments of music in the worship are willing to debate the matter in a fair and formal way in this forum. And if you were to say that they are then we would justly say to you “baloney”! And our readers would agree. For several from your own camp have asked for a formal debate and some have even wondered out loud as to why you are so unwilling to engage in such. You especially Brother Umstetter. For you let your “pride” get the best of you and decided to debate us and then, for whatever reason thought better of the idea and withdrew from the debate. Now we cannot help it if your pride has led you to this point. We certainly have not led you down this road. In fact, we have not discussed this subject in this forum at all until others bring it up. And they cannot bring it up without mentioning our name and calling for us to answer their questions. And we have said that you can have answers to your questions if you will agree to a formal debate and accept guidelines that require you to answer OUR QUESTIONS as well. Now we are expecting fairness and none, not a single one of you are willing to ensure that such fair circumstances are set in place before we debate this matter.

Then you say:

“My comments in the christian liberty thread are thus: Give me 1, just one verse where God forbids instruments with a specific command and you win.”

Now again you show the reason that a debate should be had. You see in framing this question you expect us take up the burden of proving that which you should be proving. You see we can show you numerous scriptures wherein God specified that we SING in the worship. We can show how he commanded vocal music and specifically commanded vocal music. So, our practice of singing in worship to God we can prove from the scriptures to be authorized. We use vocal music in worship as God commanded us and because he so commanded us. But, you practice of using instrumental music has not such authorization from God, now does it? And you cannot prove that it is authorized so you must demand that we prove that it “forbidden”. Now you will have to let us know what position it is that you take before we can answer you. Do you take the position that all that we do in the worship of God must be authorized by him? Or do you take the position that we are allowed to do whatever we want to do, whether it is authorized or not, so long as it is not specifically forbidden?

In a formal debate you would be required to chose a position and then defend it as we denied it. So, if you will state your position clearly in the form of a positive proposition that you wish to affirm we will see if we disagree with it and then if we do we will deny it in a formal debate, if you will not withdraw from it.

Now we do not know which proposition you would affirm. So, if you will chose a position and state it clearly and engage us in a formal debate we will deny it. But it would seem to us that if you want to bring instruments of music into the worship of God it is you that needs to give the Scriptures that authorize you to do so. But only if the scripture teach that we must have authorization from God for all that we do in the worship and service of God.

You are using the old trick of trying to get a person to “affirm a negative”, aren’t you? We are convinced that the scriptures specifically command vocal music in the worship of God. And you are convinced that either instrumental music is authorized or you are convinced that it needs no authorization because it is not specifically forbidden. But you have not been willing to state which position you take but you want us allow you to frame what we will seek to prove in your words and not our own.

If you that believe that God authorized instrumental music in the worship of the church, then you must bear the burden of proving such nonsense. But you come in here asking us to affirm the negative of your positive proposition. That is not how reason works. You affirm that the New Testament authorizes the use of instrumental music in the worship and we will deny it. And we will affirm our position that only that which is not authorized by God in worship of the church you deny it. For, if God requires that all that we do in the worship and service of Christ be done by His authority (Col. 3:17). And instrumental music is without any authority from God, and then it follows that it would be forbidden by virtue of the fact that it has not authorization, now wouldn’t it? But, we do not even know whether you believe that we must have authority from God for all that we do in worship or not. SO, you can see that there are good reasons to clear these matters up first before we discuss the issue. For failing to do so will only case us to have even more confusion.

But, no one can doubt that our practice of singing in the worship of God is acceptable because it is authorized. And if one believes that whatever we bring into the worship of God must be brought in by his authority then he will be compelled to leave instrumental music out of the worship of the church for it is without any authority from God.

But then you say:

“ But you cannot find one, period.”

Well, you see Brother Umstetter. It is you who believe that God accepts instrumental music in the worship of the church and therefore it is you that must prove it. And you are the one who cannot find one verse; not one period that supports your practice, now can you? But we have numerous scriptures, which support our practice of vocal music in the worship, and Kevin has quoted all of them many times.

Now we see why you avoid debates. For in a debate you would have to affirm your position and prove it. And it is your position that instrumental music is authorized. Or it is you position that it is acceptable even though it is not authorized. We do not know which one is your real position. But you agree to debate the matter and make your position clear and we will answer all of your questions. Anyone that cannot see why we need to debate this matter formally is just plain blind.

Then he says:

“Just give me one verse where God says, it is ok to use certain AIDS if we deem it appropriate. Not once will you find it. Put up or shut up, give US book chapter and verse. Where does it say, thus saith the Lord. No more excuses. No more hiding.”

No one is hiding Brother Umstetter. We are merely insisting upon a clear definition of the propositions that we are debating before we begin so as to avoid misunderstanding and misrepresentation. If anyone were hiding it would be Brother Umstetter for he ran away from the debate as soon as he realized that a formal debate would place him in the position of affirming his propositions and staking upon himself the burden of proof. He wants to avoid that, doesn’t he? We are willing to prove our position if he is willing to assume the responsibility to prove his. So, what do you say Brother Umstetter. Do you want to debate this issue or would you prefer to remain in your hiding place?

Then he says:

“Don't denigrate us with a reply that does not answer the question.”

Replying without answering the question does not “denigrate you” now does it? If so how does it “denigrate you”? Are we denigrating you simply because we do not yield to your every demand? We have said it before and we say it again we will answer anyone and everyone in this forum concerning this matter if you will engage in a formal debate and accept your responsibility top bear the burden of proving your position and answering our questions. We are tired of answering questions only to have ours ignored. Now it is your turn to “put up or shut up” as Brother Umstetter likes to put it. For if you do not debate it in a fair way you will have a hard time convincing our readers that you have the courage of your convictions or very much confidence in the truthfulness of your position or both.

Then you say:

“ You can say you are hurt or condemn me all you want, but be a christian, answer the question.”

Now Brethren just look how stupid one can be when he allows his emotions to get carried away with him. How is it that we would not be Christians if we refuse to answer any questions until we arrange for a formal and orderly debate of the issues that requires that the propositions be clearly stated and defined. How is it that we are not Christians unless we yield to Brother Umstetter’s demand to answer his questions outside of the debate that he run away from? What if we had said “be a Christian and debate us”? We know that he can be a Christian and not debate us and if he had any ability to think while in this emotional state he would admit that we can be Christians while waiting until someone debates us to answer questions. And that is what we will do whether he particularly likes it or not.

Then he says:

“ No debate, just give book chapter and verse then any other 5 page comment you want to make. But don't reply without a specific scripture or your point is dead in the water.”

Yes, we will have a debate with someone if we ever find anyone with the courage, knowledge, sincerity and willingness to engage in that which is honest, honorable and good for all concerned. SO, far Brother Umstetter has shown nothing but a complete unwillingness to debate the matter. But he is more than willing to order us around and is frustrated that we do not obey him! But we will not obey his order and we have therefore replied without answering him. But we are willing to answer all of his questions either when he agrees to debate us. Or when someone else debates us and after the debate we have an open forum for questions. He can ask it then and we will give him an answer. But one thing Brother Umstetter will never do. He will never give anyone in this forum a single passage of scripture from the New Testament that AUTHORIZES the use of instrumental music in the worship, now will he? But this may not bother him since he might think that we do not need any authority from God for what we do in our worship.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2001

Bill,

I'm sure it is obvious to you by now that E. Lee is incapable of having a rational dialogue on this, as well as any other biblical matter. You're wasting your breath on him. He is not our brother, nor does He believe in the Christ of the Bible or the Church He founded. He is a cultist, plain and simple.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2001

Barry -- I don't know if he is a cultist or not, but it is plain to see by his many posts that he is capable of knowing the hearts of others who post. He knows I mean to cuss when I use a term of exasperation. He knows I'm not really sorry when I say I am sorry and apologize. He knows more about what I mean than what I say.

Jesus could look into a person's heart and know what they were thinking ... a great gift. I wonder if E Lee has that sort of power. He does seem to be exercising something along those lines.

It amazes me how ... oh never mind, it really isn't worth taking the time.

Bill -- thanks for your comments.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2001

To all;

I pasted E. Lee's response to MS Word and was going to reply to it. It turned out to be 10 pages. My he can write many words. I started to respond, but my words were sinking me to his level. I will not or cannot do this anymore. Though I do not recommend any one to actually read his 10 pages, if you do you can see the cuts, put downs, and the total lack of regard for another who disagrees with him. You can read it for what its worth. I have decided that I will not respond to the man in any way again until I see a difference in his heart as represented by his writing. For those of you who deemed my post was written in anger and a bad thing, I apologize to you. I know you all know my writings have not been as biting and in an unkind way, and I do not want to write in that way anymore.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2001

Good advise Bill, and maybe the best way to handle the situation.

I think, with regard to E Lee, I will take some great advise I heard long ago, and which certainly applies to this situation:

If you can't say something nice about someone ...

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2001

This has been some of the best reading I have done in a long time. Thank you all. Especially Bill Umstetter! Well-thought out response! This thread will be continued in a new post.....

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2001

Out of many worthy subjects that can and should be discussed, how in the world did it come to this? Hand clapping has received more responses than any other thread!!!!!

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

It is dishonest to reject Old Testament practices in worship that were not superseded by Christ's first coming and the commands of the New Testament. Clearly, animal sacrifice, non-judical capital punishment, and other Old Testament "laws" were superseded by Jesus' appearance, and New Testament theology, but worship practices that were not defined by "the Law" are still relevent to the New Testament Church. Church historians have deducted that the New Testament Church adopted the "street style" of worship, which included hand clapping and musical accompiniment. There is no historical evidence that instruments are forbiddin, and anyone who can't accept the New Testament use of "Psalmos" is either ignorant or dishonest. The OT clearly commands us to worship with musical instruments, hand clappings, hand raising, dancing... The New Testament word used for Psalms in Ephesians 5:19, Colosians 3:16, and I Corinthians 14:26 is always defined "to sing with musical accompiniment", even when it is refering to the Book of Psalms. "By your own traditions, you have made the Word of God of no effect."

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001