The "Authorization Only" hermeneutic essentially states that..."only those things specifically authorized by Scripture are authorized for worship."

If that, in fact, is the hermeneutic the Bible follows......then....I can point to you in Scripture.....a MAJOR....inconsistency.

According to the O.T......the ONLY AUTHORIZED PLACE OF WORSHIP....was the temple in Jerusalem. All others were rejected and in fact....labeled as false worship and strictly forbidden.

Question.....If that is the case.....where is the Scriptural authorization for......the synagogue???

Where is the O.T. Scripture that authorizes the use of the synagogue??

At stake here is the worship of Jesus. Every Sabbath Jesus went to the synagogue to worship and in the tradition of visiting Rabbi's was asked to read from the Scriptures.

Nowhere do we read of Jesus condeming the practice of synagogue worship which had existed since shortly after the Persian captivity. Nowhere do the prophets of the O.T. condemn it. We know synagogue worship probably transpired during at least the ministry of Malachi. While Malachi condemns many things....he does not condemn synagogue worship as "unauthorized."

There is not a single hint anywhere in the N.T. from Jesus or the apostles.....condeming their "unauthorized" synagogue worship.

Unless this inconsistency can be seriously dealt with....I cannot accept the hermeneutic that says..."Silence condemns."

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Answers

Danny,

You said: "Where is the O.T. Scripture that authorizes the use of the synagogue?? "

My Reply: I was admonished in another thread to: "If we are a NT church and we are only going to use the NT for our authorization for worship practices, then let's just stay away from the OT completely."

So, I would suggest that we practice what we preach.

In 1 Corinthians 4:6, the apostle Paul warns the Corinthian Church to "...not go beyond what is written." This is similar to the warning in the Book of Revelation (Rev. 22:18-19) Since we must obey Christ and follow his commandments and we cannot go beyond what is written, then there IS authority in the silence of the Scriptures.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Nice try Kevin.

Problem is....you have Jesus participating in "unauthorized worship"....according to your hermeneutic.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Danny -- I told ya so!

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Brother Danny:

I am very pleased to see you again. The truth is that I have missed you of late in the forum. Welcome back Brother! The point you bring up in this post is interesting. And from it I can understand that you have what you perceive to be some good reasons, based upon your current information and understanding, for your objection to the need for authorization for what we do in the worship of Christ.

For you have said:

“There is not a single hint anywhere in the N.T. from Jesus or the apostles.....condeming their "unauthorized" synagogue worship. Unless this inconsistency can be seriously dealt with....I cannot accept the hermeneutic that says..."Silence condemns."

Indeed if I were you and I perceived that such was indeed an inconsistency I would share your concern. But there is also one other misconception of our position that we would like to point out. Our position is not that “silence condemns”. Our position is that God’s specific commands exclude anything not specified in the command. Just as an example to illustrate what I mean and not an argument per se please consider Naoh. For when God told Noah to build and ark of gopher wood it was not God’s silence that prohibited the use of any other wood but God’s specific command to use a certain kind of wood that prohibited the use of any other wood that he did not specify. So, I am only, with this comment, pointing out a misrepresentation of our position. By this I do not really mean a deliberate misrepresentation but I mean an honest misperception of our position. WE are not saying, and have never said, that “silence alone prohibits anything” we are saying that when God specifies he excludes anything not specified in his commands to us.

And we do believe that we can seriously “deal”, as you put it, with what you think is an inconsistency in our position seen in what you believe to be “unauthorized synagogue worship”. We believe that we can show that such worship was authorized. And you have said that this matter not only should be “dealt with” but that it should be “seriously dealt with”. And to this we agree. And for that reason we offer to deal with it in a serious and formal debate. For that is what debates are for, isn’t it? It is a place for those with serious differences to seriously consider one another’s propositions affirmations and the arguments used to support them.

Please understand that we have good reasons to insist upon dealing with all of these matters in a formal debate. It has been our experience that every time this subject comes up and we were not the one’s who brought it up, that we are not allowed to have our say without much interruption and disorder. For we receive floods of more questions than we can get to and arguments that are not designed to support any clearly defined proposition which is consistent with the positions of others who want to put in their comments. Thus making it difficult for an orderly, fair and just consideration of our position to be presented.

WE would like very much to discuss these matters in a formal, organized and fair manner in this forum and we would be more than willing to take up the sensible and even the insensible arguments from the opposing side of this discussion. Your above argument we accept as being among the reasonable and thoughtful ones and we would like very much to deal with it along with others in a formal debate.

Sister Muse has asked us to debate this matter of “authorization” in this forum. And we have agreed to do so with anyone willing to seriously and reasonably agree to debate propositions with some guidelines or rules that would ensure a one on one debate. A debate wherein both sides assume equal responsibility to share the burden of proof by stating their position in affirmative propositions which they will defend and denying the affirmations of the other.

In such a debate the good points, such as the one you mention above and others that you have mentioned elsewhere can be dealt with patiently and with some sense of order so that the issue is clear. And if we never have an organized discussion of these matters then it will continue to arise in the form of a “free for all” wherein we have nothing but confusion and no hope whatsoever of even understanding one another’s position. And the assumption that everyone reading this forum understands the real issues and difference between us on this matter in not a justifiable one in the least.

So, we acknowledge that your above comments are interesting and should be “dealt with” and we will be happy to examine them in a formal debate with anyone willing to debate the matter and bring such arguments into the debate.

WE have great respect for you as always and thank God for you and the work that you do. Please try to understand that we want very much to discuss these matters but we must insist upon a fair and equitable debate wherein we can be heard in full without unnecessary interruptions and unfair and silly distractions. WE sincerely feel that we have right and good reasons to seek a fair hearing in this way and we sincerely hope that you understand this.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Synagogue worship was neither condoned nor condemned in the Old Testament, in fact it was not mentioned at all. Yet Lee says, "We believe that we can show that such worship was authorized."

Instruments are neither condoned nor condemned in the New Testament, in fact they are not mentioned at all. Yet Lee and Kevin say they believe that they can show that such worship was not authorized.

Hmmmmmm...

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Oh, Oh!

The Sheriff is back in town!! :-) So, Danny.... How was Deer Hunting? (I assume that is what has been keeping you away!!) Gun Season starts this Saturday in Wisconsin... and there are a few Big Ones running around.... :-)

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Brother Danny:

You have said:

“Synagogue worship was neither condoned nor condemned in the Old Testament, in fact it was not mentioned at all. Yet Lee says, "We believe that we can show that such worship was authorized."”

WE do believe that we can show that synagogue worship was authorized and we also said that we would be willing to show that it is if anyone is willing to bring this argument as well as any other into a formal debate on the subject of authorization. And we still maintain that position. Synagogues are found in the Old testament and so is the worship that was conducted within them. That they existed is clear from this statement from the book of psalms. “They said in their hearts, Let us destroy them together: they have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land.” (Psalms 78:4)

The Synagogue was nothing more than a “place of assembly” and the word itself is found only once in the Authorized Version of Psalms 78:4 where the margin of Revised Version has "places of assembly," which is probably correct. And therefore the idea that these “places of assembly” did not exist in the Old Testament is not true and the things that they did in worship to God in these “places of Assembly” were authorized. But a detailed discussion of this matter we will reserve for anyone who is willing to engage in a debate of the issue of authorization. We will discuss it at that time and place.

And we can demonstrate that such worship in the synagogue was authorized and are more than willing to do so in a formal debate on the subject of Authorization. But read the following passages if this matter interest you very much. (Eszra 8:1;14:1; Ezra 8:15; Neh. 8:2;4-8). There is much to be learned and studied concerning the origin of the synagogue and its worship that we do not have time at the moment to discuss. But, we will be more than willing to establish the fact from the scriptures that the idea of worshipping God in the synagogue and the things that they did in such was authorized of God from even before its origin. And we will do so with anyone who is willing to engage in a formal debate of the issue of authorization with us in this forum.

Then you say:

“Instruments are neither condoned nor condemned in the New Testament, in fact they are not mentioned at all. Yet Lee and Kevin say they believe that they can show that such worship was not authorized.”

E. Lee Saffold has said that he believes that instrumental music in the worship of God is not authorized in the New Testament and if you say they are not mentioned at all then you cannot claim that they were authorized. But as we showed in our last post we do not believe that instruments are not authorized simply because they are not mentioned but rather because they are other than that which God specified when he commanded us to sing in the worship. And we also stated that we are willing to affirm that instrumental music is not authorized in the worship of Christ and we will defend that position with anyone willing to engage us in a formal debate of the matter.

Now every one seems to be willing to nip at the fringes of this discussion without being willing to take on the entire issue in a formal debate. They seem to be avoiding a situation where both parties are discussing this issue in a one on one fashion and others are not allowed to distract the two opponents from their discussion. So, again we repeat that we will defend both of these positions in a formal debate with ANYONE willing to engage us in a fair, reasonable and objective debate of this matter in this forum. And we are still waiting for anyone who would like to take up a serious discussion of this matter in a formal debate in this forum. But thus far we have found no one willing to do such. All they are willing to do is make arguments that are not attached to any formally stated proposition that they intend to prove in a formal debate of this matter.

Then you say:

“Hmmmmmm...”

And we hope that this means you are “thinking”. In fact, if we know you, we are certain that you are always thinking and we appreciate you for it.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

E. Lee,

Just a couple of things. The reference in Psalms you mentioned is 74:8, not 78:4, and, the word used in the LXX in that passage is not the word for synogogue. It is the Greek word "heortas." The Greek word for synogogue is "sunagoge." I cannot read the Hebrew but would think that had it been the Hebrew word for synagogue the the LXX translators would've translated it that way.

I do not wish to debate you on this matter, I do not feel it worth the effort. Not as a lack of respect, you have my respect and I think you know that. I do, however, believe their is merit in Danny's example and I relegate this all to the arena of preference.

-- Anonymous, November 15, 2001

Brother Scott:

You have said:

“E. Lee, Just a couple of things. The reference in Psalms you mentioned is 74:8, not 78:4, and, the word used in the LXX in that passage is not the word for synogogue.”

You are correct. It seems that I “transposed” the numbers. I thank you for the just correction. And I also agree with you that the original word in the Hebrew is not the word for “synagogue”. And that it was not so translated by the translators of the Septuagint. But it was so translated by the king James translators and that is why I pointed out the marginal reading given in the Revised Version. While we agree that the word “Synagogue” is not found in the Old Testament, we do not agree that “synagogues” did not exist and were unauthorized when they began to exist. For we are convinced that “synagogues” under a different name did exist in the Old Testament. In fact, we are certain that “Synagogue worship” had it origin during the Old Testament Period after the Carrying away into Babylon. And that the Synagogue paved the way for the simple worship found in the New Testament Church as if God was preparing men to understand and accept such when it came into being. But that is yet another discussion which would take more time than we currently have to write.

Then you say:

“It is the Greek word "heortas." The Greek word for synogogue is "sunagoge."”

And to this I also agree. But there were other words in Hebrew used to describe the same thing that the Greeks called the “sunagoge” which had the same meaning. The Hebrew word here is “mow`ed {mo- ade'}” and it is translated in the King James version as congregation 150 times, feast 23 times, season 13 times, and synagogues 1 time. And that 1 time is in the verse we quoted from Ps. 74:8. This word has various meanings as follows: Appointed place, appointed time, meeting; appointed time (general) sacred season, set feast, appointed season appointed meeting; appointed place; appointed sign or signal; tent of meeting”. And because the synagogue was a place of meeting at an appointed time for worship the translators of the King James Version translated it as synagogue in this place. And there are more detailed reasons that explain this translation that we do not have time to go into now. But, we do agree with what you have said about the fact that the Greek word is not “sunagoge” which is the word that we usually translate into English as synagogue. But the Hebrews, when speaking in their own language did not use the word synagogue. They used, among other words, the word “mow`ed {mo-ade'} and we can give many references both in and out of the scriptures to support what we have said. But for now we only what to say that one can see how that an appointed place of meeting at an appointed place and time would certainly be correctly said of what the Greeks called a synagogue.

Then you say:

“ I cannot read the Hebrew but would think that had it been the Hebrew word for synagogue the the LXX translators would've translated it that way.”

You may be right but you may also not be right about this.

Then you say:

“I do not wish to debate you on this matter, I do not feel it worth the effort. Not as a lack of respect, you have my respect and I think you know that.”

I understand and you know how very much I love and respect you as well. While I believe that a debate is worth the effort I want you to know that my statement concerning a debate was not intended to “challenge you” so to speak. But rather because this entire discussion concerning authorization was started by a request directed to me asking if anyone would debate me on the subject and asking if I would agree to debate it. I did agree to do so only to be given a barrage of questions and comments with none willing to debate. And I also mentioned it because some of these matters involve a more in- depth look at things than is allowed in a “free for all” where the ridiculous comments are allowed to interfere with the serious investigation of a subject. But I understand your reasons and do not in the least take it as a sign of any “disrespect” directed toward me on your part. I am confident that if you were to debate such subjects with me that you would do an excellent job and we would all benefit from such. Of this fact I have no doubts whatsoever.

Then you say:

“ I do, however, believe their is merit in Danny's example and I relegate this all to the arena of preference.”

I would agree with you at least to the point of saying, as I said in my previous post that his contention is an interesting one that deserves or merits our serious investigation and examination. And that is why I offer to give it such an examination. But if I do such in this forum on this particular topic I have to do so in a formal debate for reasons that I have stated often and that all who have been reading these exchanges can see clearly for themselves. I am hopeful that you can understand this.

So, I did not mean by any of my remarks that Danny’s contention had no merit at all. I simply meant that I am convinced that we could show that synagogue worship was authorized. WE did not intend to show such in our response. Instead we only wanted to state that we believe that we can prove that it was. For Just as Brother Danny asserted that it was not authorized, without going into proving that it was not, we wanted to assert the opposite without going into evidence to prove our assertion until we engage in a debate of this matter. And we are willing to do so in a format that allows us to explain fully without interruptions and silly “jokes”, insults and innuendo being thrown out at us as we attempt to do it. But, as you know we do not accept that these matters are nothing more than mere preference. WE are convinced that it is a matter of being absolutely certain that we are doing the will of God and not man. We know that you do not agree with this and understand your reasons but we cannot agree that this is a mere preference.

I thank you for your response and look forward to more of your excellent writing in this forum. I love and respect you highly, as I am sure that you know. And it does grieve me that we must disagree about these things. And that fact alone is sufficient reason that a debate on this matters is, in our hearts, very much worth the time. If we did not love God, and love, respect and care greatly for our brothers in Christ none of these things would be an issue to us at all and would not be worthy of the great amount of time we have already spent on them.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 15, 2001

I disagree Lee. I did plainly show that, according to your definition of authorization...i.e., an explicit command authorizing....there is no such thing for synagogue worship.

The O.T. was very explicit....only the Temple was the acceptable place of worship.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Danny,

I may have missed something in this long discussion on Authorization, but I have tried to keep up....

I'm not sure that E. Lee's definition of Authorization is only "an explicit command authorizing....". For example, if there was a scripture clearly showing Paul strumming on a guitar while teaching... I think E. Lee would accept that. So, if it can be shown that synagogues were used and acceptable... then that is authorized, right??

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Robin....

I believe it is....for E. Lee has a number of times used the instructions concerning the building of the tabernacle given to Moses which stated...."Build it exactly according to the pattern."

So the question, logically becomes....where is the pattern for synagogue worship in the O.T.??

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

I don't think you can automatically assume that, Robin.

The Northern Kingdom of Israel worshipped in the makeshift temples set up in Dan & Bethel, just as their 1st King (Jeroboam) commanded them to do. So these places were used & were acceptable TO MEN..........but they were obviously NOT acceptable to God. Therefore, Presumed Authorization means absolutely nothing and cannot be considered reliable.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Brother Danny:

You have said:

“I disagree Lee. I did plainly show that, according to your definition of authorization...i.e., an explicit command authorizing....there is no such thing for synagogue worship.”

Indeed you are correct in what you say above. For you did in fact show, quite clearly I might add, that there was no “explicit command” authorizing Synagogue worship. Yet, my point was that you did not by doing so prove that such worship was not authorized. You only proved that it was not authorized by any “explicit command” to worship in synagogues. And to this we whole heatedly agree.

But, we believe that things are authorized by God’s word in three specific ways. It is authorized by approved examples, by which we mean that the examples of men who were inspired of God leading others to do a certain thing has divine approval inasmuch as the inspired men were doing it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Just to illustrate, when we see Christ going into a synagogue to worship we are convinced that inasmuch as the son of God set the example we can say that we have an “approved example” which would authorize such. And we cannot imagine the sinless Son of God doing anything that God did not authorize him to do. And then of course there is the matter of a necessary inference. And by this we are not talking about a “mere inference” but a necessary one. And we are convinced that we can show that it is necessarily inferred that synagogue worship is authorized.

But we do agree with you that it is not authorized by any “explicit command” and you have made that case quite well. But when we said that you have not offered evidence to support your assertion that synagogue worship was not authorized we meant that you had affirmed a negative. When one affirms a negative they cannot actually offer evidence of its truthfulness. They can only deny the existence of evidence of the positive affirmation. In other words, I could affirm that synagogue worship was authorized and you could, with your argument deny that there is any evidence of it. And then it would be my responsibility to show evidence of such. But by simply denying that there is any specific command authorizing such is not sufficient to PROVE anything. But it is rather an excellent way to DISPROVE our assertion if the only way God authorized anything was by means of an explicit command. WE were not saying that you had done what so many in this forum often do. We were not claiming that you were merely making an assertion without offering good reasons for what you said. For we know that you have never done any such thing in your writing in this forum. And we just cannot tell you how much we appreciate you for that significant truth about you.

Then you say:

“The O.T. was very explicit....only the Temple was the acceptable place of worship.”

We are convinced, and believe that we can show that after the Babylonian and Assyrian captivity it is not so “explicit” as you say it is. And we admit that we have not gone into the details of the matter with anyone because we want to avoid discussing the matter in detail outside of the confines of a formal debate of the authorization issue, which we have been asked to formally debate. WE sincerely hope that you can understand this. We are not challenging your above statements but only saying that they have enough merit to desire an thorough investigation and examination in the light of what the word of God has to say. And that is specifically what we meant by the things that we said. WE believe that we can show that God beginning at a time when it was impossible to worship in the temple because it had been destroyed authorized the synagogue worship and the people carried away into captivity. And the fact that it was Christ “custom” to worship in the synagogue gives it much “authorization in our minds. For he was the Son of God and all authority had been given to him in heaven and on earth. Any example of Christ doing something we would consider to surely be an approved example that others were authorized to follow. Though we believe that Synagogue worship was authorized of God even before Christ was born. And I am willing to take up your interesting argument in any debate on the subject of “authorization” that I might be engaged in this forum. And I have stated my reasons for this often and I am convinced that I have very good reasons for taking this approach.

Brother Robin:

You have quite correctly said:

“I may have missed something in this long discussion on Authorization, but I have tried to keep up.... I'm not sure that E. Lee's definition of Authorization is only "an explicit command authorizing....". For example, if there was a scripture clearly showing Paul strumming on a guitar while teaching... I think E. Lee would accept that. So, if it can be shown that synagogues were used and acceptable... then that is authorized, right??”

You are right in what you say in your above comment and we appreciate you pointing it out my absence for I have been quite busy at work lately. If anyone found an approved example of anyone using instrumental music in the worship of God in the church of Christ in the New Testament you would find me playing the guitar next Sunday. For an “approved example” would establish authority. Note I said, “approved example”. This means someone doing something with the approval of God.

Brother Mark:

You have said:

“I don't think you can automatically assume that, Robin.”

It does not seem to me that Robin was “assuming anything but rather accurately stating how he perceived we might see it and asking if such was in fact the case.

Then you say:

“The Northern Kingdom of Israel worshipped in the makeshift temples set up in Dan & Bethel, just as their 1st King (Jeroboam) commanded them to do.”

This is true but this was not the beginning of “synagogue” worship, which is what we are talking about. We have stated that we are talking about it’s being authorized after the destruction of the Temple and in times of captivity both of which made it impossible to worship in the temple. So, the example that you mention is surely not what we have repeatedly called an “approved example”. In other words it is not an example that we can show of something being done by with God’s approval. In fact, it is clearly an example that we know that was not with God’s approval and it is also an example that we know has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin and practice of synagogue worship.

Then you say:

“ So these places were used & were acceptable TO MEN..........but they were obviously NOT acceptable to God.”

This is true and this is again not an example that we have pointed to as supporting what we assert, now is it?

Then you say:

“Therefore, Presumed Authorization means absolutely nothing and cannot be considered reliable.”

No one has said a single word about “presumed authorization” now have they? We certainly have not. We are not claiming to “presume” that such was authorized. We are instead asserting that we can show that approved examples and necessary inferences authorize it. And there is nothing presumptuous about any of those two means of establishing authority from God for anything. So when you speak of “presumed authorization” you merely “presume” to know how we would argue when we have done nothing thus far than assert what we are willing to prove in a formal debate on the subject of authority. We have made no assumptions or assertions about authority that was based upon any “presumption” whatsoever. And if anyone wishes to take up the general subject of authorization in a formal debate we will discuss it at length and our readers can decide for themselves whether our arguments are presumptuous or not. But we do not think that it is fair or reasonable for anyone to assume before hearing our real arguments presented that we will argue any “example” that is not an “approved example” that certain things are “authorized” or not. It takes more than a mere example for something to be authorized of God. SO, if any example were not one in which we can show that God approved of the behavior in that example would not be enough to establish that anything was authorized of God in the scriptures. This subject is one that requires that we discuss it in an organized way and not disjoined and disorganized fashion. SO, if you would like to debate the authorization issue and bring this argument into such a formal debate then we will clear up your “presumptions and misconceptions of our arguments after we make them. It is unreasonable to make judgements about them before hearing what they are, isn’t it?

But, we know that you are not being unfair to us. You are saying that if our arguments were based upon the examples that you gave we would be presuming too much and to this we very much agree. But we want our readers to be clear that we have not argued in this way and would not do so. We do not want them to assume from your words that we have in fact made any such arguments. And we hope you can understand our reason for our reply to your words.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

E. Lee,

I intentionally didn't not mention any "presumptions" because you indeed did not make any.........yet.

But in the line of Danny's original question, I have a follow-up question of you.

You just said, "And the fact that it was Christ's “custom” to worship in the synagogue gives it much “authorization in our minds. For he was the Son of God and all authority had been given to him in heaven and on earth. Any example of Christ doing something we would consider to surely be an approved example that others were authorized to follow. Though we believe that Synagogue worship was authorized of God even before Christ was born."

If this is true, explain the Book of Judges. All of the Judges in the Book were used by God to accomplish His will.......and yet, everyone of them were flawed in major ways (Ehud, a cripple & a liar; Deborah, a woman who had to lead because the men were all wimps; Gideon, a "mighty man of valor" who lacked faith so that a fleece was necessary; Jephthah, one who made ill-advised vows; and Sampson, a Nazirite who hung out in vineyards, eating out of dead bodies, & chasing pagan women).

Did God APPROVE of them throughout their corruptions or did He just find ways to USE them to accomplish His will in-spite of their corruptions?

In like manner, could Jesus have USED the synagogue system (even though it was never the approved method of O.T. Worship) to reach the people and accomplish His will?

My understanding of the Scriptures shows that God has always reached down to man where he is currently at in order to raise him up to be what he should be. Could not the Synagogue system have been another such effort on His part?

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Brother Mark:

I thank you for your kind response and your interesting comments as follows:

“E. Lee, I intentionally didn't not mention any "presumptions" because you indeed did not make any.........yet.”

And you will not see us make any in the future either if we are able to do what is our intention. But we are thankful that one with your intelligence and ability are watching to protect us form any errors. And we thank God for you in that regard.

Then you accurately quoted our words in reference to Brother Danny’s original question as follows:

“But in the line of Danny's original question, I have a follow-up question of you. You just said, "And the fact that it was Christ's “custom” to worship in the synagogue gives it much “authorization in our minds. For he was the Son of God and all authority had been given to him in heaven and on earth. Any example of Christ doing something we would consider to surely be an approved example that others were authorized to follow. Though we believe that Synagogue worship was authorized of God even before Christ was born."”

To which you replied as follows:

“If this is true, explain the Book of Judges.”

There is not a single word in the book of judges that controverts in any way what we have said in our above quoted words.

But you then continue as follows:

“ All of the Judges in the Book were used by God to accomplish His will.......and yet, everyone of them were flawed in major ways (Ehud, a cripple & a liar; Deborah, a woman who had to lead because the men were all wimps; Gideon, a "mighty man of valor" who lacked faith so that a fleece was necessary; Jephthah, one who made ill-advised vows; and Sampson, a Nazirite who hung out in vineyards, eating out of dead bodies, & chasing pagan women).

“Did God APPROVE of them throughout their corruptions or did He just find ways to USE them to accomplish His will in-spite of their corruption?””

We cannot imagine that anyone could conceive of how God would “APPROVE OF SIN” can you? So, it is clear that he did not approve of their corruption. But we are not convinced that Synagogue worship was any kind of “corruption” and we have not seen anyone prove that it was such, have you? And while it is true that God accomplished his will despite their corruption it is far from true that he specifically authorized their corruption in order to accomplish his will, now isn’t it. And in order for you to apply this to the synagogue you must first prove that synagogue worship was in fact a “corruption” and that it was not ever “authorized” by him. And this is the point of contention between us, isn’t it. Now once you have proven these two things beyond doubt then, and not before then, would your above concept have any application to synagogue worship. So, you see your argument is based upon the assumption that we have already settled the difficulty in favor of the idea that Synagogue worship was a corruption that God did not authorize. But this is what we do not accept. Our assertion is that it was authorized and acceptable worship.

These men were corrupt and God used them to accomplish his purpose but he did not authorize their corruption. And we are certain that if Synagogue worship were not authorized of God it would have indeed been a sinful corruption and one that even Christ our Lord participated in committing. For if as you say it was not authorized for men to worship God in any place except the temple ever in the history of the Jews then when Christ participated in worship in the synagogue he would have been disobeying God. And it is one thing to say that God used men to accomplish his purpose despite their sin and corruption and quite another entirely to assert that God himself became sinful and corrupt in order to accomplish his purpose. The former we accept as true but the latter we emphatically deny.

But is true that God accomplished a very significant and important part of his great purpose through the synagogue worship. In fact, we can learn much about how we should teach the word of God by looking at the example of the synagogue activities. But the issue we have been responding to in this thread is whether or not synagogue worship was authorized. And the matters that you bring up from the Book of Judges have absolutely no bearing on that question in the least bit.

And the subject of the synagogue worship was brought up in connection with the subject of authority, which we have agreed to debate in this forum at the request of Sister Muse. But it seems that everyone wants to just jump into the middle of this matter. And they seem to be more interested in proceeding rather ad hoc and piecemeal without the benefit of an organized discussion of it. For we must first settle the issue of whether God demands that we have authorization for all that we do in his service and our worship toward him. And then we can look at whether any specific thing was "authorized” or not. But to decide that because certain things appear to have had no authorization from God does not prove that God did not require it, now does it? Now, it may give us some important things that we must "explain" as you correctly demonstrate. But it has absolutely no bearing on the issue that first must be settled now does it? For if God required that everything must be authorized and we determine that the synagogue worship was not authorized then we have matters to consider and explain that we would not have otherwise. But if God never required anything to be authorized and it turns out that he authorized synagogue worship it would be a moot point to even mention the fact, now wouldn't it? For if he never required authorization for what we do in worship to him yet he authorized synagogue worship his doing so would not change the fact that he does not require the authorization that he gave. So, let us settle the real issue first and then proceed to discussion of any apparent complications related to what we know to be the truth. Let us not proceed backwards or the other ways around of finding all kinds of potential or apparent difficulties before we first learn what is the truth. For if we know the truth and have difficulties facing those truths then we can at least proceed on solid ground to face those issues. These things are interesting and worthy of our time and study. And that being the case we should be willing to pursue the subject of authorization in an organized format that does not place the “cart before the horse” so to speak. And an organized debate with clearly stated propositions would be just the format to provide such orderly discussion of the matter. And we are convinced that sisters Muse’s suggest that we debate the matter formally in this forum is a wise one indeed.

Then you say:

“In like manner, could Jesus have USED the synagogue system (even though it was never the approved method of O.T. Worship) to reach the people and accomplish His will?”

Well the two (the corrupt judges and the synagogue) are not alike in one very important way. WE have evidence beyond doubt that these Judges were corrupt and that God used them. But your words in parenthesis above concerning the synagogue which were “even though it was never the approved method of O. T. Worship” has not been proven by any evidence to be true. We have stated that we are convinced that we can prove that God authorized Synagogue worship. And we are convinced we can do it and anyone who wishes to debate this as a part of a debate on the subject of Authorization then we will be glad to show the evidence of the authority for synagogue worship. But, there is a very big difference between those convicted of corruption and those not convicted aren’t there? And synagogue worship has not been found guilty of being in some way a rebellion against the will of God.

Then you say:

“My understanding of the Scriptures shows that God has always reached down to man where he is currently at in order to raise him up to be what he should be.”

WE understand what you are saying here but we do not think that it has anything whatsoever to do with the affirmation you are trying to prove.

Then you say:

“ Could not the Synagogue system have been another such effort on His part?”

No, we think not in the way we understand you to mean such. God did not just allow men to disobey him in order to rescue them. If the synagogue worship was not authorized of God and the Temple was the only place, even after the captivity, that God authorized men to worship. Then God would have been forcing the Jews to disobey him in order to “reach down to man where he is and to raise him up to where he should be”. Or in other words God condemned them by forcing them to sin in order to save them. I think not.

But I thank you for your kind reply and your good questions. I would like very much to go into details on this and the many subjects that I am now discussing in this forum. But I have not very much time to do so. I will make time for an organized debate on any of these matters but as was pointed out I am currently working on several expositions of the word of God for the forum and as much as I enjoy the “distractions” etc. I must avoid them for the time being in order to keep another promise that I have made to our readers. But, my willingness to debate the subject of authorization with any person in this forum in honor of the request made by sister Muse still stands for any of you who would like to pursue this matter further with me.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2001

E. Lee, you wrote:

we want to avoid discussing the matter in detail outside of the confines of a formal debate of the authorization issue

you might as well just forget the formal debate and go with the flow in this "forum" debate....

This isn't like "hiding our weapons" and saving them for the real war kind of thing, is it?

Didnt think so. Good

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2001

Brother Duane:

You have correctly quoted us as follows:

“E. Lee, you wrote:

we want to avoid discussing the matter in detail outside of the confines of a formal debate of the authorization issue”

To which you respond:

“you might as well just forget the formal debate and go with the flow in this "forum" debate....”

Now, why should we “just forget” about our promise to Sister Muse that we were willing to debate this issue formally in this forum as she requested? We do not take our promises lightly, Brother Duane. We are committed to debate this subject formally in this forum with anyone that has the knowledge, will, courage, time, and faith in their convictions concerning this matter to engage in it. And one can only surmise why all of you to a man is deliberately unwilling to engage in a fair and equitable discussion of this subject. Are you telling us that we are to just forget about a debate and that we have no alternative but to submit to the “flow” in this forum? If you are then you can “forget” about that idea as well. For we do have alternatives and we will pursue them always. For if the brethren here are unwilling to debate the subject then they can forget about discussing it with us in this forum. And there is no “debate” actually going on in this forum. A free for all” for sure but not a “debate”. In fact, it more like a “bar brawl” than a “ring fight”. Yes, just a free for all with a large dose of pure nonsense thrown in and a twist of innuendo and silly jokes and a terribly lack of serious intent to seek the truth. But there is no debate going on here. And this is thanksgiving and you have invited the “turkey” for dinner and he thanks you very much but he simply must decline. Not that he has anything to “hide from you” but only that he does not like the intent of the event.

A debate is one that has two opponents who have affirmed certain propositions that they have agreed to prove are true. And they have each agreed to deny the affirmations of the other. And a debate has guidelines wherein all fairness can be assured to both sides. And those who fear this kind of discussion are not competent to engage in any kind of discussion that would produce any good result whatsoever.

I am sure that everyone would like for us to “forget about” the debate that they are all unwilling, unable, or afraid to join. Now, we have discussed many things in this forum by means of the “natural flow of the forum” and we can count hundreds of questions that we have asked that remain simply ignored to this day. And we have been discussing many issues following the “flow of this forum” only to have our arguments completely ignored. WE have answered numerous questions asked of us only to have our questions treated as if they were never asked. Now it is time for us to have some fairness in this forum. WE will debate authorization. WE will debate instrumental music with any man in or out of this forum. And we will not forget about it.

For this ignorant desire to have an unorganized discussion in a forum wherein those whom you oppose are in an extreme minority. And the eagerness to have a discussion wherein this minority must be subject to a barrage of comments, few sensible but most simply ignorant and contradictory to each other is not acceptable. In fact, such is not acceptable to anyone from either side who wants to get to a reasonable and productive discussion of the real issues. And just because the opposing side is not willing to engage in discussing this matter in a fair, equitable and reasoned fashion as that provided by a formal debate is no reason that we should cease calling for such, now is it? And if we were to ever decide to actually discuss this matter, which obviously moves the majority in this forum to uncontrollable “emotions” which invariably come out in their responses. Then, because there are no guidelines or rules that would ensure fairness and require responses to what we say and the questions that we ask. We would have to take our vacation time and do noting but sit at this computer and respond to every single word spoken by every single person who opposed us. And we would have no choice but to take those pathetically ignorant, contradictory and silly remarks and use them against your position as if they were truly representative of your position. For we would not have time to explain everything in all fairness. Now we are not in favor of doing this not merely because it is unfair to us but also because it is extremely unjust to the cause of truth and right. SO, we will not forget about the debate and we will ever call for it. And otherwise we will respond as we deem it appropriate and as we see fit.

Then you asked:

“This isn't like "hiding our weapons" and saving them for the real war kind of thing, is it?”

Brother, a reasonable debate between two brothers in Christ seeking the truth is nothing like a “real war” as you put it. WE are not hiding weapons and saving them for any “real war”. However, if we must use the “real war” analogy in order to be understood then you could say that we are using a sensible strategy. A strategy that ensures that we chose battlefield conditions that is more conducive to success in obtaining our objective. And we know that our “enemy” will always seek to lure us into a position that would be more to their advantage. Now it is quite clear that a formal debate of the authorization issue would is not perceived by most in this forum as the most advantageous position for them to be in for they do not seek the truth. Instead they are just convinced that they already have it and they do not want to risk the possibility that they might not. We, on the other hand, believe that we know the truth on this subject but are willing to allow our position to come under fair, equal but intense scrutiny. We do this with the sincere willingness to correct it if it is in fact found to be in any way an error that is contrary to the doctrine of Christ.

But for those of us who seek the truth, in this way, a formal debate is indeed the most advantageous place to be. For a debate requires that both sides respond to what the other says and it requires that proposition that either side is not only clearly stated but also defined and defended. It also requires that the negative respond and either accept or give reasons that we all should deny the proposition that has been stated. The truth has nothing to lose and much to gain from such a format. But error on the other had cannot stand the light of day under such conditions. And it is the TRUTH that we sincerely seek. We are convinced of the strength and truthfulness of our position, as are all of you. But those who are not willing to allow their arguments to undergo a fair, equitable and just examination in a formal debate that ensures such objective scrutiny of propositions clearly stated, defined, and the arguments that are marshaled in support of them just have no interest in truth.

What we are saying is that we will discuss these matters in such a format because truth will prevail and we will all benefit from its victory. And we are not saying which side holds the truth. We believe that we do but we are willing to be corrected by anyone who will make the effort to engage in such a debate. But to continue your allusion to “Real War” you might say we are somewhat like the sniper on this matter. “One shot, one kill.” And this strategy we most certainly understand, believe me.

So, no, Brother Duane, we are not deliberately withholding secret information or arguments that none have ever heard before. In fact, we will be willing, for the benefit of anyone who wants to debate this subject with us in this forum, to write all of our arguments in advance, send it to them via email and allow them ample time to prepare to respond to them. Now how is that for not “hiding any weapons”? But we are not going to just cast them out into a general, and might we add hostile, forum wherein many people do nothing more than scoff, scorn, grit their teeth and ridicule us without making any attempt whatsoever to even TRY to answer us directly. Nor will we allow them to be simply ignored and covered up with a barrage of nothing more than “smoke screens designed to make everyone’s vision blurred. WE are seeking a clear view. But they expect us to respond to everything that they ask of us.

Now we repeat, we are willing to debate formally in this forum anyone who is willing to join with us in such the subjects of authorization and thereafter the subject of instrumental music. Now if you are unwilling to engage in such that is your business. But, if you have questions that you sincerely want us to answer then you will have to agree to a debate the subject with us. That is the way it is and the way it will be. If our Brethren who believe that we do not need authority from Christ, the head of the church for all that we do in service and worship to him. And those who believe that the use of instrumental music in the worship of the church of Christ is acceptable as an expedient or, as others claim, it is authorized in the worship of the church of Christ. If these wish to avoid this fair and equitable discussion of the subject in honorable debate then we will just have to accept the fact that you are not prepared or able or willing or all three to prove your assertions to be true. Which is what we do at this moment believe to be the case unless someone is willing to help us believe otherwise.

Then you say:

“ Didnt think so. Good”

We know that you are not ignorant and only an ignorant person would have thought that we were seeking a debate and “hiding our weapons” until the debate. Especially if he is one who thinks that he has faced all of our so-called “weapons” before. Now would that person be just plain stupid?

So, for now we will pay more attention to our writing a “Christian Exposition of the scriptures in this forum as we stated a few months ago that we would do. And if anyone in this forum just cannot bear to not have a discussion of instrumental music or authorization with is then they can decide to debate us and “come get me” so to speak and I will be happy to debate anyone concerning this matter. But for now, we have important things to do concerning the complete exposition of the word of God in this forum. That is what we are now greatly interested in doing. But we will keep our promise to Sister Muse. For our promise was that we would debate the subject of authorization with anyone willing to engage us in such a debate. If anyone wants to take up that issue with us in a formal debate in this forum you know where we are. WE will be writing Christian expositions of the word of God.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2001

Oh...

OK.

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

Lee

Coming from someone that has said he does not have a sense of humor, that (turkey to dinner) statment was a 10.

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001