This is a continuation of the thread entitled "What About Hand Clapping?" If you have not been following this thread, please read it first....

Post of the year award goes to Bill Umstetter: I repeat it here:

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.

Bill Umstetter

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2001

Answers

Couple observations to the general viewing public....

First....the views expressed here by Kevin and E. Lee....DO NOT....represent the views of the majority of people in the non- instrumental fellowship. I know way too many of them....and have had them both worship with me....and even place their membership in the congregations where I have served. In 21 years of ministry....every single one of them...without exception stated...."Very few, including me....ever believed that. We prefer non-instrumental music....but do not consider instrumental music as something that condemns you to hell." (Which parenthetically...I might add....was the exact position of A. Campbell.)

Now the response from E. Lee and Kevin will probably be something along the lines of....."We do not determine what is true by who believes it....etc...etc" That's fine. Understandable. I will not respond to that.

However, my pointing this out is more directed towards Duane...who in one sweeping generalization....seemed to condemn all non-instrumental brethren. I think this is a grave error. (Duane...if I misunderstood you....I apologize ahead of time. Maybe you need to clarify.)

Second....Kevin's position can be summed up with this statement..."You must not use the instrument or you are in violation of the gospel." Bill's position is....."There is no clear command...therefore allow conscience and liberty to dictate."

My question is...."Who is adding to the gospel??"

The answer is explicitly clear to me.

Now....what does this have to do with hand clapping??

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2001

John....you stated..."It is just as simple as that."

Ahhhhhhhhh....there's the problem!! :)

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Kevin...

The fallacy of your last post was you would have everyone believe that only vocal singing has been authorized in the N.T. There is no such thing.

You assume that everyone will agree with you that "psallos" was without a stringed instrument. You assume that everyone agrees with your view of "hymn." You assume everyone agrees with your view of "spiritual song."

The biggest error you make is you assume that when those words are used it is always in the context of a worship service. With the exception of 1 Cor. 14....where only the word "psallos" is used.....every other place those words are used has absolutely nothing to do with worship. NOTHING. In each case be it Colossians or Ephesians....the purpose is to show the contrast between the Christian life...and the former life. Lifestyle is being discussed....not worship.

What this boils down to...is your assumption that just as God clearly authorized the Levitial priesthood....He also clearly authorized only vocal singing.

Not only is that a huge leap of logic.....it also lacks hermenutical, grammatical, Scriptural, and historical support.

To date....I have not seen you cite any lexicons to support your position...and I most certainly have not seen you cite any historical references. What Scripture you do quote...relies heavily on your assumptions....and as Bill rightly pointed out...your theological bias.

If I was wanting to convince someone of the need for immersion...I could certainly...find plenty of grammatical and historical references to support that position. I'd like to see the same.

Brother Lee made the assertion...."I had my mind made up"....suggesting I have never studied the issue.

Again....assumption....based on his lack of knowledge concerning my life.

21 years in the ministry, three degrees, and a working knowledge of both languages....Greek and Hebrew....I would think at least puts me in the ball park of studying both sides of the issue.

Of course, your canned response will be...."That means nothing." Maybe not....but is shows the fallacy of making the assertion that someone has their mind made up without studying the issue. Please...I will follow truth where ever it leads me.....so please enlighten me.

The most overwhelming thing you must overcome....is the lack of linguistical support for your position. It simply is not there. The second thing you must overcome...is the lack of historical support for your position.....(previous to John Calvin, that is, who fostered the modern day non-instrumental movement).

I must warn you ahead of time....it will be difficult for you to come up with something different that has not been said since the Civil War.

But....if you can do it....I'm listening.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Benjamin asks...."quick side question. Did the jews use instruments in worship in the first century?"

The answer is....absolutely. Josephus, the Jewish historian points out that during the time of Christ....there were 1,000 musicians and singers employed for use in temple services including the major feasts.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Benjamin....as per your question as to why some of us "piano boys" won't debate....I cannot answer for others...and will only say what I have said in the past. The issue is not worth my time. I have nothing to prove. It makes no difference to me one way or the other. In fact, I've told Brother Lee both on line and on the phone...anytime he wants to come and worship with my congregation....no problem. I'll ask the instrumentalists not to play that day...and we'll sing accapella in order to accomodate him. Same applies for Kevin.

As per your request about Calvin....I'll be glad to do that....but cannot promise the "when." As soon as I find the time to get my historical references lined up.....I will post them.

Regards,

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Just to clarify....I DO NOT....have the ability to check ISP addressess. Duane may have the technical knowledge to do so...but I do not.

I've used a computer for years....and just figured out what "ISP" means just a short while back. :)

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Sorry Kevin....you are going to have to do better than that.

Notice first of all....that the vast majority of your quotes, as I stated.....come mostly at or near the time of Calvin....a time when the Protestant reformation....was protesting everything in the Catholic church....including the pomp and circumstance of its worship. The worship of the Catholic church was but one instance of the moral refomations they thought necessary in the church. Their arguments....as you can tell from the quotes....are not based upon sound exegesis of Scripture....(where is there one quote from Scripture....or one Greek or Hebrew support??)....but their distaste for the corruption of the church. Cavin's quotes are more driven by a theological axe to grind against the Catholic church....than they are on the bases of sound exegesis.

To the best of my knowledge....you quote three people that could be considered...."Early church Fathers."

First Augustine. What I find interesting about Augustine is....he is making an observation of the church in Alexandria. He is telling why something was not done there. It is far from an exegesis of why he considers instrumental worship unScriptural. In fact, where is the Scripture?? Also....what biases he did have were governed by my further historical observations.

Now concerning Clement and Chrysostom...I want the readers to take note of how many quotes Kevin has.....that come from Catholic sources. This helps to explain the "anti-instrument" bias. Please note from every single quote....there is not a single shred of Scriptural or linguistical evidence.

What one does see however....is the anti-Semitism which was prevalent from the time of Clement on. Has no one read Church history and not understood that for many years of the early Catholic church...the Jews were persecuted by the church??

Take note of my quote...from Kevin's quotes.....

AQUINAS "That she may not seem to Judaize." (Notice...Acquinas...a 14th century Scholastic Catholic Scholar's reason for the church not using instruments. He was afraid, in essence, they would become like those Jews.)

CALVIN "Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists therefore, have foolishly borrowed, this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to him. (Notice in this not only Calvin's loathe of Catholicism....but the Jews as well.)

CATHOLIC "Although Josephus tells of the wonderful effects produced in the Temple by the use of instruments (Notice: D.Lee...this proves my point....you can search the archives of Josephus yourself to find the direct quote)"the first Christians were of too spiritual a fibre to substitute lifeless instruments for or to use them to accompany the human voice. Clement of Alexandria severely condemns the use of instruments even at Christian banquets. St. Chrysostum sharply contrasts the customs of the Christians when they had full freedom with those of the Jews of the Old Testament." (Notice again....the anti-Semitism. The Christians were "more spiritual.")

Another note about Clement. Clement was from Alexandria, Egypt during a time when the "allegorical approach to Scripture" was in vogue. (This is why a discussion of this devoid of history is so futile.) Due to the influences of Dualism and Gnosticsm....the belief developed that the "real meaning of Scripture was not the literal meaning...but the allegorial meaning." For instance, Clement was the one who developed the allegorical approach to the Song of Solomon. That is.....Solomon represents Christ....and the woman reprents the church...and so the "real" meaning of the text is Christ's love for the church. All those physical allusions in the Song of Solomon bothered Clement....so he spiritualized the text. (Which, I might add....is a perversion of the true meaning of the Song of Solomon..i.e., a celebration of physical love.)

Note again....Kevin's quote from Clement....

CLEMENT "The Spirit, to purify the divine liturgy from any such unrestrained revelry chants: 'Praise Him with sound of trumpet," for, in fact, at the sound of the trumpet the dead will rise again; praise Him with harp,' for the tongue is a harp of the Lord; 'and with the lute. praise Him.' understanding the mouth as a lute moved by the Spirit as the lute is by the plectrum; (Note: Where is chapter and verse for spiritualizing the text?? What gives him the right to suggest that what is meant by the lute is throat???) 'praise Him with timbal and choir,' that is, the Church awaiting the resurrection of the body in the flesh which is its echo; 'praise Him with strings and organ,' calling our bodies an organ and its sinews strings, for front them the body derives its Coordinated movement, and when touched by the Spirit, gives forth human sounds; 'praise Him on high- sounding cymbals,' which mean the tongue of the mouth which with the movement of the lips, produces words. (Am I the only one who sees this??? His beliefs are not based on one shread of Scriptural or linguistical evidence. Rather...it is based upon his allegorical approach to Scripture.)

So Kevin...it appears...that just as you attempt to proof text with Scripture...you also commit historical malpractice...by pulling historical quotes out of the air.....without attempting to explain to your readers....the context...the setting....and the theological biases that drove these quotes.

These quotes did not occur in a vacuum.

Folks......you have got to study history. Only when you study history....and try to understand the context in which people say the things they do....do things begin to make sense. If you do not study history yourself....you will be unable to make rational, objective, decisions about various issues.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Oh...one more thing.

All any reader has to do is pick up one of the following sources (you do not need to be Greek scholar to use these).....Strong's Analytical Concordance or Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

Look up the word "Psalms"....and see for yourself.

If you have any working knowlege of Greek....pick up any Greek lexicon.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Kevin....

Your apology is honorable....but....unnecessary. I do appreciate the love of Christ that you show in your apology and I take it as an example for me to follow when necessary.

I do want to respond to your question. Allow me to restate it...

"Is it possible for someone to read just a plain English Bible if there were no lexicons, greek words, study Bibles, etc. available and come to his own conclusion that the only way to praise God in worship is through vocal singing only?"

Kevin....may I ask why you feel it necessary to be a slave to the English Bible??? How could one understand Shakespeare......Dante....or Plato...without the use of lexicons, knowledge of the ancient language.....study aids....etc???

The simple fact of the matter is....it does not make a wooden nickel's worth of difference what a word means to us in our day. The Bible was written 2000 years ago....in a different culture (thus the need for historical studies)....and in a different language....(thus the need for linguistical studies).

I want to add....this is not a discipline of the "clerical elite." With the modern study tools available both in book....and on computers....literally anyone can gain a working knowledge of a language. All the writings of the early church fathers have been committed to the internet. You can link up to them. All the writings of the Restoration fathers are also on line.

I may be misreading what you are doing...and I apologize if so.....but you seem to be inferring that scholarship and the use of linguistical tools is a danger to your position which is predicated on the English Bible.

I feel no allegiance to the English Bible at all. In fact...I feel free at times in pointing out where the translators are just plain wrong (especially in the NIV).

There are only two truley ispired texts...one was written in Hebrew...the other was Greek.

Thanks for the discourse Kevin!

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Kevin....

What is....a "regular Bible?"

To me.....a regular Bible...is a copy of the Hebrew O.T. and the Greek N.T.

Everything else....is a translation.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

When you think about it, we need to pray for our erring accapella brothers... For the sin they have blindly been entangled in is that of the Galatians, trying to go back to the Law, and trampling afresh the blood of Christ. Pray for their souls, and be patient in your persuasion, without resorting to personal attacks, for you may be snatching a backslidden brother from the flames of hell.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2001

Bill,

You said: “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?

Well, another reply without justification from scripture. You are claiming that I am adding to scripture? Please, I would like to hear you explain this a little bit more. Did Noah sin by using anything except his hands to build the ark? God didn’t tell him specifically to use anything to make it, but he did command that the ark was to be made of gopher wood. Now I ask you again, do you believe that Noah made the ark with nothing but his hands? Please don’t use the excuse that we can’t use the Old Testament, because the OT was written for our learning. It has NO AUTHORITY for us today, but we still must study and learn to do our best not to make the same mistakes over and over again.

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). You are the one who has decided to use Instrumental music in your worship to God, to which he gave NO COMMAND. Now, who is ADDING to Scripture?

Then you said: “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????

Does 1 Cor. 6:9 list everything that would keep a person from heaven? Does God have to list everything that is not permissible? If so, then the Bible would be a very large book would it not? The Bible was written to teach us what God wanted from us not to forbid everything that could come into the mind of men. (Jude 3; 2 Tim. 3:16,17)

Then you said: “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.”

The Bible plainly teaches we are "under law to Christ" (1 Cor. 9:21).

The Bible also teaches that we humans are free moral agents. God has set before us a blessing and a curse -- a blessing if we OBEY His commands, and a curse if we choose to DISOBEY (Deut. 11:26-28; Rom. 2:6-9).

The Bible also says: “This is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, that as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in it. (2 John 6)

You said: “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.”

Please show me how when I say that a church building is an AID that I have added to scripture? Please show me how in my saying that a church building is an AID that I have changed the nature of the command to “assemble”? What am I adding?

You said: “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.”

So, what you are saying is because I teach that there are any rules or commandments we must follow except just to love God and your neighbor, I am putting a yoke on the neck of the Christian and the Christian has no liberty because of it? It would seem by your teaching that the grace of God will cover almost every sin except the sin of teaching that we are under obligation to obey the commandments of the Lord!

You said: “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.”

Who is trying to bind you to a law? Please tell me which law I am trying to bind you to?

I said: “The Bible is a precise and calculated revelation:” To which you replied: “I say, no it is not. God leaves much in the new testament up to us.”

Excuse me? Book, Chapter and Verse please?

Then you said: “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.”

Well now, you told earlier me that: “For the moment you say a church building is just an aid, you added to scripture.” But yet, you turn right around and instead of using the word “AID” for such things as Lord’s Supper etc., instead you substitute the word “freedom”? This being the case, then are you not ADDING to scripture? This sounds like to me that it is all right for you to have “freedom” in carrying out God’s general commands however, when I carry out God’s general command to “assemble” and I call it an AID, then you accuse me of ADDING to God’s word? Makes you wonder?

Then you continued with: “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?”

Brother Bill, you are WRONG in saying that we are NOT under law anymore. The Bible says, under the New Covenant, only those with God's law in their hearts are the people of God. How then can we have the law of God written on our hearts? By hearing His word. Each of us should ask ourselves: Is the law of God being written on my heart? If it is, it will not be by accident. Paul told the believers at Corinth that they were a letter of Christ, "written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart" (2 Corinthians 3:2,3).

James tells us that we must receive the word of God into our hearts like a seed so it can produce fruit in our lives: "Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does" (James 1:21-25).

Paul says in Romans 2:14-15 “for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them).”

By the way, Romans chapter 8 does not give us freedom as children of God to live any way we please. Romans 8:14 says that “For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.”

Then you said: “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.”

Illogical??? Hello!!! The Bible says that we will be judged by Jesus words (John 12:48). Since there is NO COMMAND in the New Testament for Instrumental Music, then who is rejecting Jesus and not receiving His words?

You said: “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.”

So, why is it that you can go to the OT to justify the use of instrumental music, but yet when I go there to prove a point you throw up your hands and say ah ah ah…you don’t want to go there? Why is it that I must remain in the NT to justify doctrine, but you can run and hide in the OT to protect yours? This doesn’t make sense now does it? Please show me where the Bible says that I must use the OT all the way and in so doing it defeats my point? Let me point out to you again, that we are NOT under OT law anymore. I agree God accepted the use of instrumental music in the OT and he actually commanded it (2 Chron. 29:25). Where is the command for instrumental music in the NT?

Then you said: “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.”

I assume there is no instrument? I am still waiting for you to produce a verse that commands it’s use? So, who is the one arguing from silence? Please give me Book, Chapter and Verse where we can ASSUME any concepts that God has written. While you are at it, how about Book, Chapter and Verse where the Bible says that there was a harp or lyre in that room when they sang. Hypothetical situations prove nothing. Was the Bible not written in such a way so that everyone can understand?

You said: “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.”

WRONG again Brother Bill, We are told SPECIFICALLY how to SING in the NT. Please show me in the NT where some of the OT practices were not abolished? Was not the law a tutor to bring us to Christ? (Gal. 3:24- 25) Since many NT concepts came from the OT were they not spoken of in the NT? If not, please show me where this is the case?

Then you said: “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.”

King Solomon was the wisest man ever on earth and thru inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he penned these words which are applicable: “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man's all.” (Eccl 12:13)

You said: “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.”

Nice try brother, that is your OPINION, where is your scripture verse to back up your claim? As I said earlier take a look at 2 Chronicles 29:25 to see that God did in fact command the use of instrumental music.

Then you ended with: “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.”

Well, it sure does sound like you ventured onto the quicksand of human OPINION and speculation doesn’t it? And quite often in your response I might add. You used a 6 whole verses to justify your position. This doesn’t surprise me in the least. As for your version of 1 Cor. 6:12, I disagree with you again, Christian freedom IS based upon law, the law of Christ (I Cor. 9:21), and upon order or enforcement of that law, effected through obedience (Heb. 5:9; Jn. 8:36).

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! If not, why not?

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)

This being the case, how do you justify your use of musical instruments in worship today? No long wordy opinions, just Book, Chapter and Verse from the NT please.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2001

Duane,

You said: “When you think about it, we need to pray for our erring accapella brothers... For the sin they have blindly been entangled in is that of the Galatians, trying to go back to the Law, and trampling afresh the blood of Christ. Pray for their souls, and be patient in your persuasion, without resorting to personal attacks, for you may be snatching a backslidden brother from the flames of hell.”

Now, who is trying to go back to the Law? Your “accapella brothers” as you call us have done nothing of the sort.

As I recall, WE are not the ones who are trying to justify anything at all now are we? Brother Duane, you do err, not knowing the Scriptures. If you recall, the Galatians (Chapter 5 to be exact) were trying to force the Gentile converts to OBEY the Law of Moses in order to have them be circumcised. The Law of Moses was taken away at the cross, so the Gentile converts did not have to be circumcised. This is what Paul was arguing.

YOU, not your “accapella brethren” are trying to do the same exact thing with your instrumental music. You are trying to have the Gentile converts (Christians) OBEY the Law of Moses with your use of instrumental music in worship are you not? If not, why not?

This is another example of where human OPINION is involved where there is no justification or proof offered. Your “accapella brethren” have repeatedly stated and argued from the Scriptures that the Law has been abolished and nailed to the cross.

So, Brother Duane, where is your proof that WE are trying to go back to the Law? Just because you say so? It is easy to make a statement, but much harder to prove it.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2001

Brother Duane:

You have said:

“When you think about it, we need to pray for our erring accapella brothers...”

WE sincerely appreciate your prayers, Brother. For praying for us is a good thing isn’t it? But we wonder if you are really as concerned as you attempt to make it appear. For it seems to me that if you were so willing to pray for us because we are erring you would also have enough concern for us do whatever it takes to persuade us that we are in fact erring. For we have said that we are willing to be taught and even corrected. And we have even explained how we could be persuaded. We have said often that if anyone would debate the subject fairly with us and allow for a fair hearing of our reasons for what we believe that the scriptures teach on this matter then we would give all of their arguments serious consideration. But it is far easier to “pray for us” than to work to prove beyond doubt that we are in error and persuade us of it, now isn’t it? For you have yet to prove that we are in error. In fact, the way that we worship God is perfectly in harmony with what God commanded. He commanded us to sing and that is what we do. It is your practice that has not authorization from God in the New Testament. So, it is just very likely that you are in error. And in either case we have been praying for you for a long time before now. And in harmony with our prayers we have also worked very hard to get anyone who believes as you do to debate these issues with us so that we can do our best to persuade you that you are in fact in error. And we would do this by giving your words, as much opportunity to be heard as our own words would receive. And we would not ignore a single word that you uttered in a debate with us. WE would give them all serious and fair consideration. But, this is not something you are willing to do to save us from what you deem to be our error, now is it? For no one is willing to allow such a debate in this forum even though the people that you claim to be in error have requested that you so engage us and do your best to persuade us of our error. But you refuse to take advantage of this opportunity to actually lead us away from what you perceive is our error. Yet you are all anxious to pray for that which you are completely unwilling to work toward, now aren’t you?

Then you say:

“ For the sin they have blindly been entangled in is that of the Galatians, trying to go back to the Law, and trampling afresh the blood of Christ.”

Well, now that is a fine assertion Brother Duane, but what evidence do you offer that would give any thinking person a reason to believe what you have said is the truth? Simply NONE whatsoever. Now, we do not want to be guilty of “trampling under foot the Son of God”. And if we thought that a brother was guilty of such a terrible thing and he offered to debate us we would not hesitate to engage him with the hope and prayer that we might persuade him that he is guilty so that we could lead him to repentance. But you are not willing to debate us, now are you? So, are you really as concerned for our souls as you PRETEND to be? WE do sincerely doubt it. It seems that this is just your way of saying that we are lost for doing what God commanded us to do and urging our brethren to do the same without adding to His divine word.

Then you say:

“ Pray for their souls”

Please do pray for us for we appreciate prayers. But do not try to persuade God of things you are completely incompetent to persuade anyone else is true. For thus far you have been unwilling to engage in a fair and equitable formal debate of this matter. Which is a clear indication that you do not have enough concern for our souls to engage in any hard work to help save us from our error by persuading us with conclusive evidence that we are in fact in such error. So, your prayers may be nothing more than hypocrisy. But we would indeed appreciate sincere prayers of those who are willing seriously, fairly and objectively to engage us in a debate of this obviously important subject. But those who use prayer only as a means of leaving a false impression that others should not listen to our arguments because we are going to hell while avoiding the need to offer any real evidence that such is actually the truth is shameful. And this is what we are convinced our Brother Duane has deliberately done with his hypocritical request that everyone pray for us. Sectarians have done this to us for years. Rather than debate us they are always telling the world how they are “praying for us because we do not believe in the “blood of Christ” or some other deliberate misrepresentation of which they cannot prove to be anything near the truth. This is what Brother Duane has done here Brethren and it is a strong indication that he has no arguments to support his case that can stand the scrutiny of a formal debate and he must prop it up with these feeble and helpless tactics. It is shameful Brethren, indeed shameful. He should be embarrassed but he will probably just “wipe his mouth and say I have done no wrong”. But he has done wrong for prayers are not to be used in this fashion. If you want to pray for us, fine, pray. But if you sincerely believe we are in error to the point of being headed for hell then get busy and debate us and make your best effort to correct us. Then, and not before then will we be persuaded that your request for prayer on our part was in the least bit sincere.

Then you say:

“and be patient in your persuasion”

Indeed we agree. Please be patient. In fact why not be patient enough to engage in a formal debate of this matter? So that we can present our case and hear you demonstrate conclusively that we are in error, if you are capable of doing such. Then it would make sense for you and others to pray during the debate that the truth would emerge and whoever is in error will see that they are and turn from it? But you are not really so concerned, now are you? For if you really cared about our souls and we sought a debate that would allow you to examine our arguments and point by point correct us in a fair, honest and equitable enviornmenment. But you do not care enough about our souls to so engage us, now do you? But we are expected to believe that you care enough to sincerely pray for us. WE just do not buy it.

Then you say:

“without resorting to personal attacks, for you may be snatching a backslidden brother from the flames of hell.”

Well, if we are headed toward the “flames of hell” as you assert but have not even attempted to prove we recommend that you spare no amount of effort even if you must insult us to make us see it. And if we thought that our brothers were on the brink of hell for any reason and they asked for a fair debate of the very subject that we believed was the cause of their being in such a condition. Then we would JUMP quickly at the opportunity to have such a dialog with them so that we could do as much as is in our power to “snatch them from the flames of hell”. But you do not care this much now do you? But you are willing to say a quick prayer for us and go off to sleep. You are willing to do anything that does not require any real effort to “save our souls”. In fact, you are so unwilling to save us from the fires of hell you feel compelled to ask God to do it for you as if he were your servant instead of the other way around. If you are going to “pray” without having any willingness to “plow” or “plant” then you need not expect a harvest!

WE cannot help but think that your suggestion that our brothers pray for us is rather disingenuous. For you show little willingness to actually make any serious efforts to meet us in a fair debate wherein you would have an excellent opportunity to convince us of our “error” and then it would make sense to be praying for us as you work sincerely to persuade us. But avoiding a fair debate is only further evidence that could indicate that you do not really care for our souls as much as you claim isn’t it?

And, by the way, the post of the year award actually goes to Kevin Walker for his response to Brother Umstetter. May our Lord bless you Brother Kevin for your love for the truth and your strength in standing firmly for it. We thank God for you often in our prayers.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2001

A loud round of hand-clapping applause due you for the cogent analysis. Clarification. I was referring to Kevin and E. Lee as the "erring accapella brothers," not the accapella brethren in general. I concur with you Danny; most of those I know do not consider it a matter of salvation, and as you may remember, I preached at a non-instrumental church of Christ for a few months, while they looked for a full-time "non" preacher.

It was wise of you also to preempt their response with the acknowledgement that we don't measure truth by counting heads. Although true, it is helpful to have the reminder that the "We" in E. Wee is not the church of Christ.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2001

Another observation for the general public, which the more astute of you have probably already noticed:

Scroll through the original thread on this issue (after it LOADS! Ha!) and notice how LONG (in general) are the posts espousing instrument prohibition, and how short are the other side. It does not take long to cut through the sophistry and just write the truth. But it takes VOLUMES to compile Scripture verses, proof text and mis-apply, and speculate as to the principles found therein.

The reason Scripture is not needed to refute their heresy is because Scripture does not address their heresy. To quote Scripture and deduce from principles therein is fine; but it leads to the temptation to do as they are doing.

I'll not be intimidated by the charge "see, you do not have a Scripture to back up your response", because if the Scripture is silent on an issue, I should not try to use it to defend my view.



-- Anonymous, December 09, 2001

Danny (and all)

I made the origininal post re: the handclapping question. I had been leading a children's time prior to the Sunday PM service at a non church of Christ, and had the children sing a song in which there was hand clapping as a part of the song.

One of the elders asked that I not use that song anymore, since the NT doesn't say anything about hand clapping.

It was then noted by Kevin (I believe) that hand clapping is an ADDITION to the worship, and not an AID, equating hand clapping with the instrument issue re: authoritization.

I would note that, outside of two of the elders there, no one else had a problem with the clapping ... including the evangelist, who has been with the non church of Christ for many, many years now.

You are correct in saying that there are many (most?) members of the non church of Christ who do NOT see the instrument/authorization issue as a test of fellowship. In talking with many of the folks in the larger congregation here in Indiana (they run over 100 each Sunday morning) they attend the non church of Christ because of the Bible teaching ... and not the instrument issue.

Even so, there are some things that are a bit strange. One example: for funerals or memorial services, they will have folks come in a day or so early to record their singing of hymns to be played while folks are entering, being seated, etc. Obviously they can't play "canned" instrumental music, or have someone play the piano. And, since they can't allow a choir or group to sing (since neither is authorized by the NT) they must pre-record the music.

Now, I can't quite understand the difference between pre-recording the singing, and having the singing at the service ... but I guess they can. I have not asked about this, so maybe someone on this site can give us a concise opinion as to why they might do this.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2001

TO our Brethren among the “general viewing public”:

Notice what Brother Danny has said:

“Couple observations to the general viewing public....”

Indeed Brethren we are very much aware that you are viewing these things. And you are seeing clearly that none that support the unauthorized use of instruments of music in the worship of the church are in the least bit willing to engage in a formal debate of this issue. For in a formal debate their many deliberate misrepresentations can be given fair and intense scrutiny. And they are not willing to take upon themselves the burden of stating their propositions clearly and defending them in a fair an honorable way. So, they simply continue their misrepresentations.

Then Brother Danny tells us something that he could not prove to be true to save his life with the following:

“First....the views expressed here by Kevin and E. Lee....DO NOT....represent the views of the majority of people in the non- instrumental fellowship.”

We are not trying to “represent the views” of a “majority” of any group of people in any “fellowship”. We are representing what God says in his eternal word concerning his specific command that we sing, or use vocal music in our worship. (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19; James 5:13; Romans 15:9;Matt. 26:30; Acts 16:25; 1 OCR. 14:15). This is what God commanded and this is what we represent. And we can show that God in his divine word teaches what we are trying to have the opportunity to present to you in a fair and honorable debate. SO, even if Brother Danny could prove that no person in the world agrees with what we are teaching it would be meaningless until he could prove that God is against what we are teaching. And this we have offered to give him and all of his brethren the opportunity to do in a fair debate. But none of them are willing to even attempt it, now are they?

And we doubt very seriously if he could prove his above statement that the majority of those who worship in the church as God commanded by singing without the use of any unauthorized instrument of music do not agree with the truth that these instruments are not authorized. In fact, that is the very reason that they do not have an instrument in their worship. And Brother Danny has not presented ANY evidence to support his above assertion now has he?

He offers the following as his reasons for believing this:

“ I know way too many of them.... And have had them both worship with me.... And even place their membership in the congregations where I have served. In 21 years of ministry.... every single one of them...without exception stated...."Very few, including me....ever believed that.”

Now just here he claims to “know way too many of them”. Well, the problem is that he does not demonstrate to us that he knows enough of them to be able to say that he could take a scientific poll with a sufficient sample that would establish without any doubt what the “majority” believe. He could come to Georgia at the congregation where we worship and he would not find a single person in the entire congregation of about 300 people that would agree with his statements. He could go to the congregation in Alabama where we worshipped while living there and he would not find one person in 270 people that would agree with what he has said. Now we do not deny that he might find some whom he has known, and we have no idea just how many that number would be, that do not believe just as Brother Kevin and E. lee Saffold believe. But we are certain that he has not ever known the “majority” of the more than 3 million members of the church of Christ in this country so that he could with any degree of accuracy tell you exactly what the “majority” of them believe. We are sure that you in our “general viewing public” do not really believe that our brother Danny knows that many people among us do you?

Then Brother Danny states what these few Brothers who ended up going to worship with him said to him as follows:

“ We prefer non-instrumental music....but do not consider instrumental music as something that condemns you to hell."”

Well, we have not even discussed this matter as to whether using instrumental music will condemn one to hell or not. So, how Brother Danny can speak as if we believe that we can prove that God is going to send anyone to hell or not is not based upon any discussion he has had with us of this matter is hard to imagine. What God will do with them for their disobedience to his command concerning worship is a matter that needs to be discussed after we settle the issue of whether such is disobedience to God or not. You see these men want to get the cart before the horse so that your minds can be prejudiced against anything we might say before we say it. This reminds us of how the Baptist were always trying to get us to say their friends and family are all going to hell before they even discussed what the scriptures teach about the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38). For if they could get people to think that we were simply trying to send them off to hell they would not even listen to us. So, let us decide what God says instead of the opinions of a few people that Brother Danny knows so that we can be sure that God is not going to send you to hell for disobeying his commands. You see that is what Brother Danny needs to show us. Show us that using instrumental music is commanded of God and that when one uses it he is obeying God’s will and then we will agree that it will not affect your salvation. But if we are able to show from the word of God that using an instrument in the worship is an act of disobedience to God then we are sure that you would be able to understand that disobedience to God can possibly affect your eternal salvation. But let us not get the cart before the horse. Let us see if God’s word commands us specifically to sing and thus specifying the type of music that God has commanded and determine if we use anything other than what God commanded are we disobeying him. And then, if we determine that we are disobeying him if we use instruments of music then we will have a basis upon which to decide the question of just how much impact this disobedience has upon our salvation, now won’t we? But taking a poll of the few people that Brother Danny knows among us is not productive of giving us a truthful answer to either of those questions now is it?

Then parenthetically he reminds us of Brother A. Campbell’s position on this matter as follows:

“ (Which parenthetically...I might add....was the exact position of A. Campbell.)”

We are not sure if this is true. But it would not matter in the least for we are not trying to establish what “Brother Campbell believed”. WE are talking about what GOD has commanded and whether or not the use of instrumental music is in obedience to God or not. Any arguments made by Brother Campbell are worthy of consideration but they are only valuable if he ever showed from the word of God that his “position” was correct. We do not care what Brother Campbell believed for our faith is not based upon what he thought or said. Our faith is from God’s word (Romans 10:17) and this is what we are interested in and we are convinced that our “general viewing public” is equally interested in this over the opinions of all men.

Then he says:

“Now the response from E. Lee and Kevin will probably be something along the lines of....."We do not determine what is true by who believes it....etc...etc" That's fine. Understandable. I will not respond to that.”

We are glad that Brother Danny with this statement admits that his words prove nothing. And it makes one wonder just why he said them if they have no evidence of any value to the settling of this issue.

SO, he explains his reasons:

“However, my pointing this out is more directed towards Duane...who in one sweeping generalization....seemed to condemn all non- instrumental brethren. I think this is a grave error. (Duane...if I misunderstood you....I apologize ahead of time. Maybe you need to clarify.)”

And to this we very much agree with him but our reasons are not because a few brethren do not consider the issue as one affecting salvation. We believe that Brother Duane’s egregious error is to draw the conclusion before settling the argument. For if instrumental music is in fact disobeying God’s specific command to use vocal music in the worship then those who use it are disobeying God. And if one were to ask Brother Duane if disobeying God could affect someone’s salvation he would probably agree that it could. But he assumes that the issue is settled that God in the New Testament authorizes instrumental music. This he does without anyone having offered a single scripture that shows it to be authorized. And he will not engage in a formal debate to hear our arguments presented, which we have not presented to anyone yet and will not outside of a formal debate that prevents people from constantly getting the cart before the horse.

Then brother Danny says:

“Second....Kevin's position can be summed up with this statement..."You must not use the instrument or you are in violation of the gospel."”

We are convinced that Brother Kevin would better state Brother Kevin’s position. But the word of God teaches that God commanded us specifically to sing or use vocal music in the worship. And those who do anything other than what God commanded are disobeying him.

Then he says:

“ Bill's position is....."There is no clear command...therefore allow conscience and liberty to dictate."”

We are not sure if this is Brother Bill’s position because Brother Bill is unwilling to state his position clearly so that anyone can hold him to a particular position. But we know that the word of God does not give a less than “clear command” concerning vocal music in the worship. And it does not command instrumental music at all. In fact, it does not by any means; command, approved example, or even a necessary inference authorizes the use of instrumental music in the worship. And there is not a single passage in the New Testament that grants anyone’s “conscience”, including Brother Bill’s, the liberty to dictate anything contrary to the specific commands of God concerning this matter.

Then he ask:

“My question is...."Who is adding to the gospel??"”

We are certain that our “general viewing public” would be able to answer that question more clearly if they were allowed to hear a formal debate of the issue. Wherein both sides would clearly state their position in a well-worded proposition, define it and defend it while the opposing side denies it. For nothing clarifies things better than when men take upon themselves the BURDEN of proving what they affirm and others can come along to deny it in an orderly and fair arrangement. But, this is not what Brother Danny or anyone else wants to allow our “general reading public” to witness, now is it?

Then Brother Danny says:

“The answer is explicitly clear to me.”

We do not doubt that Brother Danny has made up his mind. And this is his right to do but whether he has made up his mind to accept the correct conclusion or not is yet to be seen, now isn’t it? For he has made it clear to himself but he is unwilling to engage in a formal debate of the matter in order to help make it clear to others, now is he? SO, one must wonder just how “clear” he really is confident of being! Then he ask:

“Now....what does this have to do with hand clapping??”

Well, we are not sure but we suspect that Brother Darrell brought up the subject of hand clapping knowing that it would eventually lead to a discussion of other matters not authorized in the word of God and eventually instrumental music would come up. Since it is among the long list of things God has not authorized and sanctified for worship in the church of Christ. For this is twice now that he has used other subjects to instigate a discussion of instrumental music. But even he is unwilling to engage in a fair debate of the subject for that would be just too much for him. He would have to prove what he says in a formal debate and his quaint jokes and subtle insinuations would be useless to him and his deliberate misrepresentations of the facts would melt like dew in the heat of the morning sun. This neither he nor anyone else who accepts instrumental music in the worship is willing to face in this forum. So, no, this issue of instrumental music has nothing to do with hand clapping. But Sister Muse suggested that we debate the issue of “authorization” first and then it would be appropriate to discuss other issues to determine if they are authorized. But no one wanted to do that either. They want to always have some unrelated subject that they can “retreat” to when they must run away from the facts. SO, we suspect that what this all has to do with “hand clapping” is that the subject of hand clapping provided some “sheep’s wool to camouflage the wolves that wanted to enter into the flock unnoticed to do other things besides enjoy the sheep’s company. In other words the issue of hand clapping was not what anyone was actually concerned about nor was it anything they really wanted to discuss for they left that subject very quickly for the subject of instrumental music and have not returned to it since. Now, if you really want to discuss instrumental music just say so. But this apparent pretense of wanting to discuss something else in order to protect yourself from the charge of constantly bring up a subject that causes controversy that you are completely unwilling to debate in a fair and formal manner is shameful. But that is what “hand clapping” appears to have to do with the subject of instrumental music in this case. It was intended to make it appear that hand clapping and instrumental music were identical issues in order to make the objection to instrumental music appear more absurd and thus prejudice the case further against it before the subject receives a fair hearing.

Now, if we had a formal debate on authorization, instrumental music or even hand clapping we would not have this problem of “drifting off subject” now would we? But you brethren who use instruments in the worship appear to like this situation because it allows you to slip away from the heat of battle when the going gets to ruff. But we are seeking to have a fair debate of this matter in a format that allows for both sides to be heard without all of the distractions that keep coming from the peanut gallery. And our “general viewing public” can see what is really happening and how those who use instruments of music are deliberately avoiding a fair and formal debate. And we think that they are beginning to perceive the real reason that these men avoid a fair debate of this subject.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2001

Danny -- you have been "saffolded." Your integrity has been called into question ... your knowledge has been called into question ... your courage re: the debate issue has been called into question ... join the club :)

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2001

I wish to address just the first part of Kevins last post.

He first quotes me, then replies: You said: “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?

Well, another reply without justification from scripture. You are claiming that I am adding to scripture? Please, I would like to hear you explain this a little bit more. Did Noah sin by using anything except his hands to build the ark? God didn’t tell him specifically to use anything to make it, but he did command that the ark was to be made of gopher wood. Now I ask you again, do you believe that Noah made the ark with nothing but his hands? Please don’t use the excuse that we can’t use the Old Testament, because the OT was written for our learning. It has NO AUTHORITY for us today, but we still must study and learn to do our best not to make the same mistakes over and over again.

Now kevin, you look at my first paragraph and tell me what needed a scripture to justify. Sentence one, If you add anything to scripture or do anything that God does not specifically authorize even if it is an aid as you call it, any intelligent or logical person can see, you are adding to scripture. That is a question of logic, not scripture. Stating it simply, any thing used that God does not specifically authorize is adding to scripture, even if it is an aid

Sentence two says you cant have it both ways. Again there is no need for scripture. You must all the way choose to free yourself from additions, even if they are aids. Or accept that all aids of any type as long as they are not anti scriptural (note anti, not unstated) are acceptable. This is again logic not scripture, you must chose one way or the other you cannot have it both ways to suit you.

Sentence three: If God makes exceptions that is his business. Sir, I don't need a scripture to say, I don't make up God's mind rather it is thy will be done (meaning God - not you). But to satisfy you, Matt 6 - Thy will be done.

Final two sentences - God is capable, do I need a scripture to prove to you God is able to do what he wants??? Finally, I am saying if God cannot reveal in his word what he specifically wants, then he is an impotent God. Again no scripture needed, just a judgement call. But to be sure, I beleive if something is important enough to send someone to hell, then God would say specifically what it is and not make most miss it due to silence.

Finally Kevin, the rest of your response in this paragraph is exactly what I was saying to you. The OT is for us to learn by and from. So God did not say how to build the ark. God also did not say how to worship him - and I am talking form and style. He did not say how many songs, how long the sermon, when to place communion.

The problem as I see it kevin is that your logic processes are blinded by your theological bias. Look logically at what you have said, you can't have some OT but not all OT, some aids but not all aids. It is illogical.

I say to you read the Bible with no bias, if it is possible. Don't look for what is not said but what is said. In my heart and mind, when I read worship, I don't read, uh oh will I do this right and use an aid that will screw me up. No I think of all the examples in scripture about worship and then give it all with all things I can use, I have to give praise to my master and my God. Think of it in those terms, and be free.

More later....

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2001

Well, now…Instead of answering questions that were posed to him, Brother Duane conveniently ignores what E. Lee and I posted and instead answers Brother Danny’s post by saying “I was referring to Kevin and E. Lee as the "erring accapella brothers," not the accapella brethren in general. I concur with you Danny; most of those I know do not consider it a matter of salvation, and as you may remember, I preached at a non-instrumental church of Christ for a few months, while they looked for a full-time "non" preacher.”

Then he continued with: “It was wise of you also to preempt their response with the acknowledgement that we don't measure truth by counting heads.”

Brother Duane, what do we measure truth by? Certainly not by human wisdom now do we? The Bible says in Proverbs 23:23 “Buy the truth, and do not sell it…” But it seems that you don’t want to listen to the truth, the words of the Prophet Jeremiah ring true even today, “'This is a nation that does not obey the voice of the LORD their God nor receive correction. Truth has perished and has been cut off from their mouth.” (Jer 7:28)

Brother Duane, there is only one source of truth in this world: “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.” (John 17:17)

Then, instead of responding to what he says is an “erring accapella brother” he resorts to belittling E. Lee’s name yet once again even after he has been told repeatedly that this was not acceptable.

Then he makes the following assertion: “Another observation for the general public, which the more astute of you have probably already noticed:Scroll through the original thread on this issue (after it LOADS! Ha!) and notice how LONG (in general) are the posts espousing instrument prohibition, and how short are the other side.”

Since it has already been decided that God’s word is truth, it isn’t any wonder how SHORT (in general) are the posts espousing the use of instrumental music because there is very little or any of God’s Word in their replies?

Then he says: “It does not take long to cut through the sophistry and just write the truth.”

Let's see, we have already established that God’s Word is truth. I am sure that our readers can figure it out.

Then he continues with: “But it takes VOLUMES to compile Scripture verses, proof text and mis-apply, and speculate as to the principles found therein.”

Well now, this is another fine assertion with NO proof whatsoever to back up his statement.

Then he said: “The reason Scripture is not needed to refute their heresy is because Scripture does not address their heresy. To quote Scripture and deduce from principles therein is fine; but it leads to the temptation to do as they are doing.”

Scripture does address this, and you and your brethren are unwilling to defend your position at all now are you?

Finally he ended with: “I'll not be intimidated by the charge "see, you do not have a Scripture to back up your response", because if the Scripture is silent on an issue, I should not try to use it to defend my view.”

I will end with another quote from the Word of Truth. The Bible says: “Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3)

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2001

Brother Bill, it seems to me that you believe in a different form of freedom. You teach a freedom that is based on what you call a freedom from law, a freedom built upon a perverted view of God's love, a "law of no law." You basically say, "We have the right to believe and practice as we choose."

This rebellion against God's law is also a form of freedom. It is the freedom Paul speaks of in Rom. 6:20, “For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.” When anyone, Christian/or non-Christian, presents themselves to sin as obedient servants, they are free regarding righteousness. Of course, we understand that Paul is teaching that this kind of freedom is actually bondage!

Readers, do not be fooled into believing in this sort of "freedom" as though you may live as you please, while naming the name of Christ. “Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free," (Gal. 5:1). “For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh " (Gal. 5:13).

Please understand that when you became a Christian, you were called to freedom, but not to freedom from law nor to do as you please!

Remember the words of Gal. 5:16,17 “I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.”

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2001

Brothers and sisters;

It is my opinion that either Kevin is becoming a disciple of E. Lee in terms of this forum. Or, Kevin is E. Lee in hiding and now is coming out. My belief is built on the posts of kevin that are begining to read in form and style just like E. Lee's. This is eerie.

For Kevin I say, you have distorted much of what I have said. Twisted it to different meanings and now infer that I am walking by the flesh. Well if you only knew the turnaround of my life, you would see and know, my prayer life is daily diligent and my walk with the Lord is stronger than it has ever been. So to you I say, I am through. Responding to you is talking to a person so caught up in his theological bias that he can not see how he defies true logic. The mistakes of scripture are made because of religious bias not good exegesis by this brother. To him I hope he could step back from it all and rethink it as though he has never thought it through before. For surely I think, this "truth" he holds is not self evident from scripture but rather from people who hold to his persuasion who has indoctrinated him. As one of my professors said, "it takes professional help to misunderstand the scripture." One truth about God that I subscribe to is that his truths are self evident. One does not have to search the greek to have a clue. In any language the Word truly reveals God's desires and purposes clearly. I know that I would never see the doctrine of music less worship unless I had been told about it. So can any of you non brethren tell me, that you were reading scripture and it just hit you that musical instruments were a sin to God in worship or did the first time you hear that "truth" it was not from your own study but from someone telling you that is the way it is supposed to be?

I'm through with this character assasination, theologically distorted issue. Lets talk some other issues - like prayer life development and evangelism and discipleship. Any body got small group thoughts to share in another thread???

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2001

Brothers and sisters;

Brother Bill has said: “It is my opinion that either Kevin is becoming a disciple of E. Lee in terms of this forum. Or, Kevin is E. Lee in hiding and now is coming out. My belief is built on the posts of kevin that are begining to read in form and style just like E. Lee's. This is eerie.”

Is this because I ask questions that you are unwilling or unable to answer?

Then you said: “For Kevin I say, you have distorted much of what I have said. Twisted it to different meanings and now infer that I am walking by the flesh.”

Were these not your own words? “The NT is not precise becuase we are under grace NOT law anymore. I can't follow or live under law. I prefer grace.” Yes or No? And were these not my words in response to you? “You teach a freedom that is based on what you call a freedom from law, a freedom built upon a perverted view of God's love, a "law of no law." So to you I say, where is the twisting?

Then you said: “So to you I say, I am through.”

Brother Bill, this is the exactly the type of response I expect from someone who can’t or won’t answer questions. Instead of following up to even attempt to show me where I am wrong, you just throw up your hands and run into the corner and hide. This is exactly the same response that you gave to Brother E. Lee on another thread. You didn’t bother to answer his questions either I might add. This is also coming from someone who said the following to Brother E. Lee: “for I was saying to HIM lay it out there and stop blowing all this wind.” Well now, I certainly laid it all out there for you now didn’t I?

Then you said: “ Responding to you is talking to a person so caught up in his theological bias that he can not see how he defies true logic. The mistakes of scripture are made because of religious bias not good exegesis by this brother.”

Well now, that is a fine assertion to which you offer no proof Brother Bill. Paul gave the following instruction to Timothy: “Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.” (2 Tim 4:2) For this very reason, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” (2 Tim 4:3-5) Are you fulfilling your duty in this regard? It doesn’t appear that you are at all now are you?

Then you said: “To him I hope he could step back from it all and rethink it as though he has never thought it through before. For surely I think, this "truth" he holds is not self evident from scripture but rather from people who hold to his persuasion who has indoctrinated him.”

Really? Now who is the one who is trying to read minds? This is once again your OPINION, to which you offer NO proof whatsoever. Where does faith come from? Let me quote this for you: “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Rom 10:17) Is it possible to OBEY the Gospel by only reading the Bible? Remember where “truth” comes from.

Then you said: “As one of my professors said, "it takes professional help to misunderstand the scripture."

Well now, it does appear that YOU have had that help from your professors now haven’t you? I for one have not been to college of any sort for any of my Biblical understanding.

Then you said: “One truth about God that I subscribe to is that his truths are self evident. One does not have to search the greek to have a clue. In any language the Word truly reveals God's desires and purposes clearly.”

I said before “The Bible is a precise and calculated revelation” to which YOU replied: “no it is not. God leaves much in the new testament up to us.” This is what the Bible says: “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,” (2 Peter 1:20) Who are we to believe, you Brother Bill, or the Bible?

Then you said: “I know that I would never see the doctrine of music less worship unless I had been told about it.”

Now Brother Bill, It is apparent that you haven’t been reading your Bible, because if you had, then the following verse applies: Eph 4:14, “that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,”

Then you said: “So can any of you non brethren tell me, that you were reading scripture and it just hit you that musical instruments were a sin to God in worship or did the first time you hear that "truth" it was not from your own study but from someone telling you that is the way it is supposed to be?”

The Bible says again: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Tim 2:14)

Then you said: “I'm through with this character assasination, theologically distorted issue. Lets talk some other issues - like prayer life development and evangelism and discipleship. Any body got small group thoughts to share in another thread???”

Well now, I was not the one that brought any of these issues up now did I? Please show me where I have done any type of “character assassination”? I have done my best to do what the Bible says on this subject: “but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head--Christ--" (Eph 4:15) So now, I ask you, “Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” (Gal 4:16)

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2001

Attn: Kevin Walker

Your arguments don't work. Your starting assumtions are the problem. Someone has taught you that instruments "be BAAaaad!" and you bought into it.

Has God authorized the wearing of neckties in worship? what about suits? If not, *YOU* better be attending worship service in 1st century Jewish garb....

Has God authorized electricity in worship? Lightbulbs overhead projectors, etc etc etc.? If not, *YOU* better be sitting in an unheated (at least not eletrically) dark building, light only by sunlight or oil lamp....

Has God authorized the english translations of His Word? Spanish, German, etc etc? If not *YOU* better be reading Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek in your worship services....AND that from SCROLLS- Books not being authorised by God either.

Has God authorized modern construction techniques? engineered trusses, concrete, polyurathane and paint? IF not, *YOU* better be worshipping in a 1st century style jewish dwelling OR a VERY good repro of the TEMPLE....

I could go on and on and on. See what happens when you make an argument from silence? it turns you into a NeoPharisee....and THAT is something *NOONE* should aspire to.

Do you actually desire to put others under Law? if so....

WHY?

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2001

Someone Who Cares:

If Someone Really Cared, then they would sign their real name and email address, and not just hide in the shadows.

Your logic is faulty, because it is not based upon the Word of God. Is it possible to give someone a Bible and for them to understand it and OBEY the gospel and carry out the requirements of Matt 28:19-20? The answer to that question is a resounding YES because, “The seed is the word of God.” (Luke 8:11) and, “having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,” (1 Peter 1:23).

I also say to you, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” is the solemn warning from Hosea 4:6 to the people of God who fail to “grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:18).

We are commanded to 'go' into all the world, but 'how' we are to go is not specified now is it? It may be easy to fly. More often it is easier to travel by car. Sometimes it is expedient to go by train. If the manner of going had been specified - if we had been told, for example, to 'go on foot' - we would not be free to choose how to obey the command now would we?

We have been commanded to worship. We have also been told HOW to worship. Therefore we may not worship just any way we please.

We have been authorized to 'sing' in our worship. In order to sing we must in some way know what words to sing. This has not been specified now has it? Therefore, when we use songbooks, we are still only singing It is a way of knowing what to sing. I could go on and on…

I am not arguing from silence as you say, where is your proof that I am guilty of such? The Bible clearly states what type of SINGING is AUTHORIZED.

Please do tell me which “Law” I am placing others under?

Brethren, let us always “abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming.” (1 John 2:28). May we all diligently seek the mercy of God that was shown Paul when we "act ignorantly in unbelief" (1 Tim. 1:13).

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2001

Kevin;

You say, "We have been commanded to worship. We have also been told HOW to worship. Therefore we may not worship just any way we please." But have we? We have been told we should worship in Spirit and in truth. We have been told we should worship corporately. We have been told we should sing. We have been told as oft as we meet together, we should partake of the Lord's Supper. We have been told to continue in the Apostle's teaching and in prayer. But beyond this, we have not been told, step by step in great detail, HOW to worship. We have not been given a printed bulletin with the order of service (sorry to disappoint any lurking Baptists LOL). One of the things we have NOT been told is whether or not we may use instruments. Therefore this is one of the things in which we have Christian liberty. It is just as simple as that.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Brothers and Sisters;

First, let it be noted that brother John has admitted that he can find NO scriptural authority for mechanical instruments of music in worship, because he has said: "One of the things we have NOT been told is whether or not we may use instruments. Therefore this is one of the things in which we have Christian liberty."

If he had such authority, he could not argue has he has done in his post above. If the premises of his reasoning in his post is true, instrumental music cannot be justified by any reference to Scripture. Forevermore, he has cut himself off from every appeal to the Bible to justify their use. He cannot cite the Old Testament. He cannot reason that the scriptural terms, "sing," "psalms," or "make melody," include the instrument in their meaning. No, he can never make such arguments, for he here contends that the use of such instruments is without a "thus saith the Lord."

The issue is, "What does the Bible teach?" Does the word of God show that "if there is silence in Scripture, we can use liberty on the subject," or does it teach that, "If the scriptures do not have a "thus saith the Lord" on a subject, then...we must not do it"?

Please read Acts chapter 15 verse 24. Since the apostles had not spoken, others were not at liberty to speak. Their silence did not authorize others to issue commands. Yet, concerning our worship brother John has said, "One of the things we have NOT been told is whether or not we may use instruments. Therefore this is one of the things in which we have Christian liberty."

Neither the Scriptures nor the apostles had said, "thou shalt not bind the law or circumcision," either. Still, there was NO liberty for them to presume to permit anything else. Why not? Because the apostles had given "no such commandment."

If there were but one Scripture to demonstrate the fallacy of John's argument that silence gives consent, it would be the text of Hebrews 7:11-14: After reading these verses, notice, (1) The Levitical priesthood was not sufficient. Another was prophesied (Melchizedek), and it came. (2) Since the law of Moses authorized and recognized only the priesthood "after the order of Aaron," the existence of the priesthood of Christ logically demands "of necessity a change also of the law." But, why is this true? (3) It is true because Moses only spoke of a priesthood from the issue of Aaron, the Levitical priesthood, but Christ did not come from that tribe, from the tribe of Levi. No, he came from the tribe of Judah. (4) Consequently, therefore, if a new priesthood exists (and it does!), then a new law also exists since Moses "spake nothing" (was silent) about priests from another tribe.

You will note that the Spirit of God here did not reason as does brother John. Brother John says, "One of the things we have NOT been told is whether or not we may use instruments. Therefore this is one of the things in which we have Christian liberty."

In Hebrews, the Spirit says that since Moses "spake nothing" concerning any tribe, other than that of Levi, then NO priest could come from any other tribe. John would have said, "If the Scripture does not say 'thou shalt use another tribe for the priesthood, we find this a liberty."

See the glaring contrast between the two? Brother John and the Christian Church use "the hermeneutic" which the Spirit of God rejected in Hebrews 7. If his principle and his understanding of the silence of the Scriptures is correct, I challenge him to apply it and say that priests could arise from some other tribe. Since Moses did not say, "Thou shalt use another tribe for the priesthood," let brother John tell us if the tribe of Judah could serve as priest under the law. He should have no problem telling us directly, for he argues that, "One of the things we have NOT been told is whether or not we may use instruments. Therefore this is one of the things in which we have Christian liberty." Well, since Scripture does not say "thou shalt use the tribe of Judah in the priesthood," does he find that "a liberty" also? The Spirit did not. Does brother John?

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Thanks again Kevin for clear writing on that last post. The issue is indeed ""does the word of God show that 'if there is silence in Scripture, we can use liberty on the subject,' or does it teach that, 'If the scriptures do not have a "thus saith the Lord' on a subject, then...we must not do it"?

So you are saying that since Moses only authorized a Levitical priesthood, Jesus only authorizes vocal singing.?

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

The "remedy" for sin used to be the blood of animals. Now it is the blood of Christ and accapella singing.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

quick side question. Did the jews use instruments in worship in the first century?

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Yes Duane, in answer to your question, the Bible only authorizes vocal singing.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Thank you, Mr Gabbard.

very meaty stuff.

I've been reading this forum for 2 years, and have posted rarely. Another side question: Are there non-instrumental groups in other denominations? If not why not?

I am not a member of either of your groups, but am guessing that the reluctance of you piano boys to debate the nons is because of the tactics they are using in this forum. I have enough material here that you have provided me in your posts... I'd be glad to debate these guys. But first, they would have to answer the following questions which you have already asked in this thread:

As in I Cor 6:9. Please address this, if using instruments is so damnable, why did Paul not list it here????(Bill)

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?(Bill)

What if there was an instrument but it is understood, and you missed it? ...what if this issue is so petty to God, because he wrote a word that believers could assume certain concepts...(Bill)

IF we can not write and sing and play music to God, then why did he give this talent and ability?(Bill)

For funerals or memorial services, they will have folks come in a day or so early to record their singing of hymns to be played while folks are entering, being seated, etc. Obviously they can't play "canned" instrumental music, or have someone play the piano. And, since they can't allow a choir or group to sing (since neither is authorized by the NT) they must pre-record the music?(Darrell)

My question is...."Who is adding to the gospel??" (Danny)

So can any of you non brethren tell me, that you were reading scripture and it just hit you that musical instruments were a sin to God in worship or did the first time you hear that "truth" it was not from your own study but from someone telling you that is the way it is supposed to be? (Bill)

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Oh and answer Danny's charge: "Not only is that a huge leap of logic.....it also lacks hermenutical, grammatical, Scriptural, and historical support."

Danny could you go into more detail (another thread?) about John Calvin and the non-instrument connection?

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Brethren:

Just a brief note to clarify something from Brother Darrel’s ignorant remarks as follows:

To Brother Danny Darrel said:

“Your integrity has been called into question ... your knowledge has been called into question ... your courage re: the debate issue has been called into question ... join the club :)”

Now we want to make it abundantly clear that we have never questioned Brother Danny Gabbbard’s INTEGRITY. We do seriously doubt Brother Darrel’s integrity but we have said nothing that would question Brother Danny’s integrity and Brother Darrel simply makes the charge without offering any proof of it. And we have also not doubted Brother Danny’s knowledge. We consider him very knowledgeable and we have always held him in high respect and though we disagree with him on this issue we shall continue to respect him. We did doubt that his small sample among Brethren who do not use instuments was sufficient for him to say that the “majority” of our brethren do not see this issue as we do. But that is far from doubting Brother Danny’s knowledge. It simply doubting the sufficiency of the sample from which he drew his conclusion to justify the conclusion that he drew. We know that Brother Danny is knowledgeable, in fact very knowledgeable. We do not think the same about Brother Darrel, however. And we have not doubted Brother Danny’s courage. We do doubt Brother Darrel’s and many others as well. But we know that if Brother thought it were useful to debate us formally in this forum on the issues of authority and instrumental music that he has the integrity, the knowledge, and more than enough courage to do so. And he has stated to us in the past that he would not “walk across the street to debate the subject with us”. And we believe what he said. And he also stated that he is very busy these days and would not have the time to engage in such activity. And we believe him. But what we said about debating this issue is the simple fact that NONE in this forum is willing to engage in a fair debate of this issue for various reasons. Some have shown that they have plenty of time to WRANGLE about the matter but no time to formally debate it. Now these are the one’s that we suspect do not have the integrity, knowledge or courage to debate the matter. But you all can be certain that Brother Danny is not in this class. Thus he is not a member of the club of which Brother Darrel belongs in this regard.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Well, you're lucky that Mr Gabbard won't enter into a "formal" debate with you. From what I have read of his posts in the past, from the looks of his "informal" challenge to Kevin, he would clean your clock.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Danny -- good points re: the assumptions made by folks. You know, when I served in the Navy, a crusty old Chief Radioman told me it was bad to assume anything, since when you assume something ... well, you know the rest.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Brethren:

Notice the following stupid remark by Brother Umstetter, which is useless and has no bearing whatsoever upon the issue. It is an ignorant thing that he would not be able to do in a formal debate without making a complete idiot out of himself as follows:

“It is my opinion that either Kevin is becoming a disciple of E. Lee in terms of this forum.”

Brother Umstetter gives no evidence whatsoever upon which to base this pathetic opinion. Brother Kevin is clearly a disciple of Christ for he is doing as Christ commanded and urging others to do the same. For Christ commanded us to sing and Brother Kevin is urging us all to obey Christ command to sing given through the apostle of Christ. He knows that Christ has no where commanded us to play instruments of music. No one can follow Christ in playing instruments of music in the worship of the church for Christ never commanded such a thing and never participated in such activity in the church. So, it is evident to any thinking person that Brother Kevin is a disciple of Christ. And there is not one shred of evidence that he is a disciple of E. Lee Saffold. If he were attempting to be such E. Lee Saffold would correct him for it. But, he is not guilty of this pathetically ignorant an unsubstantiated charge. But, Brother Umstetter cannot discuss the issue of instrumental music nor can he answer Brother Kevin’s arguments so he must resort to insults. And indeed it is an insult to charge a disciple of Christ falsely of being a disciple of anyone other than Christ. WE are sure that our Brethren can see clearly that Brother Umstetter is simply being pathetically STUPID in this remark.

Then he even becomes more stupid by saying:

“Or, Kevin is E. Lee in hiding and now is coming out.”

Now we can prove to anyone who wishes to objectively view the evidence that Kevin Walker is not E. Lee Saffold. He is better than E. Lee Saffold in many ways. But he is not E. Lee Saffold. We have talked with Kevin on the Phone and sister Muse has spoken with him by Phone and if you will write Brother Kevin Walker and ask for his number we believe you can get it and call him for yourself. And if anyone is really interested you can tell by virtue of the fact that we have both given valid email addresses, which can be traced, to two different individuals. But a simple phone call will clear the matter up but Brother Umstetter was too stupid to check the facts before making this pathetically ignorant charge. And this is the reason why we say he does some pathetic things.

Then he gives his pathetically ignorant reasons for thinking that Brother Kevin Walker is actually Brother E. Lee Saffold in “hiding coming out” as follows:

“ My belief is built on the posts of kevin that are begining to read in form and style just like E. Lee's.”

Very little can be determined by judging from a writer’s “form and style”. In fact, upon the basis of just this kind of nonsense men have doubted the authenticity, integrity and genuiness of the Scriptures. And this is just an example of how wrong one can be when he tries to decide something on the basis of what he perceives to be the “style and form” of someone’s writing.

He does not prove that our “style and form” of writing are the same. But even if he could prove such nonsense it would not prove that the persons are the same people, now would it. It might prove that one person was, possibly inadvertently imitating another, but it would not be conclusive evidence that one person was in fact the author of both text, now would it?

Again, write Brother Kevin an email and ask for his telephone number and call him. Then write E. Lee Saffold an email and ask for his number and call him. For we have called Brother Kevin on the phone. And when you do this you will have a phone bill that will show two separate parts of the country and two separate charges for these calls. And when you speak to each of us you will have conclusive proof that we are not by any means the same person. WE have no doubt that you will like Brother Kevin far better than you will like E. Lee Saffold. But you will know beyond any shadow of doubt that we are two separate individuals who happen to have a common faith in Christ. In fact, our faith in Christ and his word is so much in common that Brother Umstetter, without checking his facts in advance, has made this stupid and egregiously ignorant error.

If he would make such an error over such a simple matter for him to check out how could anyone trust him to be competent to judge whether instrumental music is authorized of God in the worship of the church of Christ. After seeing this example of his inability to determine and judge the actual facts in such a simple matter we would not trust his judgement on anything! HA!

And we note also that it is Brother Umstetter that is hiding from a fair debate. He refuses to do this because he knows that he would be susceptible to making such stupid arguments and such assertions as the one he has made in his above statements. If we were as stupid as his above remarks show him to be we would hide from a formal debate as well.

Then he says:

“ This is eerie.”

Indeed, that a man can be so pathetically ignorant, incompetent and prejudiced as to make such stupid remarks as these could actually pretend to be a teacher of the word of God among us is indeed very “errie” isn’t it?

Now, we know that some liars in this forum have actually made the effort to pretend to be someone that they are not in order to hide their identity. But we have never do such and we have caught those who have done it and warned them via email that we would expose them with conclusive evidence of what they had done if they did not stop it. But we are not so stupid as to accuse someone openly in the forum of doing such a thing without being able to prove beyond any doubt that they were guilty of it. Brother Umstetter, however, is stupid enough to do such a thing.

Now Brethren this false charge of Brother Umstetter’s is just plain stupid and we are stating a pure fact when we say so. We have proven it to be false and also established beyond doubt that it was a stupid thing to do. And worse it was a stupid thing that has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject he is trying to discuss.

Now, we defy anyone to prove beyond doubt that E. Lee Saffold and Kevin Walker is the exact same person. And we do mean DEFY. Brother Umstetter could prove such a thing if we HELPED HIM DO IT. The reason he could not prove such a thing is not only that he is too stupid to prove much of anything. But also because it simply is not the truth and HE KNOWS IT or he could have known it if he had only had the good sense to check it out first. Now, Brother Danny and Brother Duane also both know that the two writers in this forum, E. Lee Saffold and Kevin Walker are tow distinct persons and they can verify it for all in this forum if they were willing to do so.

Now Brethren, this is not just a mistake made by Brother Umstetter. It is instead a deliberate attempt, among several others that he has made which failed, to prejudice everyone against those of us who speak for obeying God’s commands to use vocal music in the worship of the church. He does not want to hear us in a fair, objective and honorable way. And the only way he can prevent you from doing such is to prejudice your minds against us in advance.

We have given all of you a way to verify that E. Lee Saffold and Kevin Walker are two separate individuals writing their own words in this forum. Write us both via email and get our numbers and call the both of us and you will see that we are not the same person.

Now, you may be satisfied with such pathetic nonsense used as a tactic to avoid the real issue. But if you want to know what the word of God says you will avoid such pathetic ignorance as Brother Umstetter has displayed with these words. He really should apologize for such stupidity. But we doubt that he will do such and we doubt if we would even accept an apology from an impenitent deceiver.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Brother Watts:

You have said:

“Well, you're lucky that Mr Gabbard won't enter into a "formal" debate with you.”

WE do not think that such is good luck for we respect Brother Gabbard so much that we do believe that everyone, including ourselves would benefit from discussion with him. And to not have the benefit of his sincere efforts in this regard is not good fortune for any of us.

Then you say:

“From what I have read of his posts in the past, from the looks of his "informal" challenge to Kevin, he would clean your clock.””

Well, Brother if our clock needs cleaning we would appreciate his cleaning it for us. But you do not see him making any effort to “clean” our clock, now do you? In fact, we do not see anyone, including yourself, that is willing to make any attempt to “clean our clock” in a formal debate. Yet, you think our clock needs cleaning. Then why do you not step up to the plate and “clean it”. And we are certain that if anyone could clean our clock if he saw that it was needed brother Danny would be one more than capable of doing such. But however capable he is. He simply is unwilling to do it, now isn’t he?

So, maybe you are as competent as he is. Would you like to “clean our clock”? You are welcome to make some effort but you must first prove that our clock is dirty and even needs a cleaning. But if you wish to take up the task in a formal debate we more than welcome you to do it.

But we don’t see ANYONE in this forum that is willing to engage us in a formal debate of this matter so if our “clock is dirty” as you say. And you really care about it such that you feel the urge to “clean it” then step up and agree to debate us. And if you clean our clock we will appreciate it. Though we doubt very seriously if you are competent to do the job. But do beware of the fact that your clock just might be cleaned instead. "Let not him that putteth on his armor boast as he that taketh it off"”! Ha!

Brethren, this nonsense is just ridiculous isn’t it? Now we have hurt Brother Watt’s pride and he must simply say that he knows that our clocks would be cleaned if Brother Danny debated us formally in this forum. Well, we say LET US SEE. All he need do is agree to debate us. Then and not one moment before then can anyone KNOW whether Brother Watts is right. But make no mistake about it, if Brother Danny nor Brother Watts nor anyone else debates us on this subject we will NEVER know whether any of them really could have “cleaned our clock”, now would we? But you can rest assured that if he “cleans our clock” because it needed cleaning we would very much appreciate the favor. But it appears that everyone, including Brother Danny, is perfectly satisfied to just look at our “dirty clock”. And they are happy to merely talk of how dirty it is but none, including Brother Watts and even our beloved Brother Danny are willing to even “walk across the street to “clean our clocks”, now are they? What Brother Watts appears desperately to NEED is a victory without a battle. Well, he can delude himself if he must because his pride needs such support. But no one will have a victory for truth without a struggle to find it.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Danny,

You said: “Josephus, the Jewish historian points out that during the time of Christ....there were 1,000 musicians and singers employed for use in temple services including the major feasts.”

Can you give me a reference for this?

Thanks,

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Benjamin,

You said: “I am not a member of either of your groups, but am guessing that the reluctance of you piano boys to debate the nons is because of the tactics they are using in this forum.”

And: “Well, you're lucky that Mr Gabbard won't enter into a "formal" debate with you. From what I have read of his posts in the past, from the looks of his "informal" challenge to Kevin, he would clean your clock.”

Talk about tactics! And of course, that is what this is all about… cleaning a brother’s clock!

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Brother Danny:

You have said:

“Just to clarify....I DO NOT....have the ability to check ISP addressess. Duane may have the technical knowledge to do so...but I do not.”

But you do have the means to verify without checking IP addresses that Brother Kevin and myself are two different people. You have talked with me on the phone and you could write an email to Kevin Walker and talk with both of us. In fact, since I would for AT&T I can easily arrange to conference all three of us together to establish that we are in fact two separate and distinct individuals and you can verify it for the rest of the forum. And since you have decided to comment on this matter will you take our above suggestion and verify for our readers the facts in this case? We know that you already know that we are two distinct individuals and we have always believed that your integrity would prevent you from being a party to such nonsense as Brother Umstetter has utter concerning this matter. You are one of the moderators in this forum and we thus look to you for such verifications when they are called for. But anyone can contact us for verification if they like and We will arrange a conference call for their benefit in order to prove to any that would like to have such proof that Brother Umstetter’s deliberate false charge is unjust and wrong.

Then you say:

“I've used a computer for years....and just figured out what "ISP" means just a short while back. :)”

WE understand, but you can pick up the phone and call both Kevin and E. Lee Saffold to verify the truth. In fact, if you will call me collect I will conference Brother Kevin in on the phone for I have his number. We want you, as one of the forum moderators to verify this and state the facts for all in the forum to see. This is the right thing for you to do and we are asking you to do it. It is wrong to allow us to be falsely charged with such nonsense when it is within your power to correct it. Will you do this verification that we request?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

TWO SEPARATE PEOPLE... I can attest to that.... as if it were not obvious in the difference in writing styles... It looks as Ben is ready to debate... assuming of course you can answer his questions to his satisfaction.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Duane,

They were not Benjamin’s questions.

And E. Lee has already said on numerous occasions that he will not answer such questions without the debate format.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Brethren:

Notice Brother Darrel’s remarks:

“Danny -- good points re: the assumptions made by folks.”

Brother Danny is just as apt to make assumptions as anyone else is and Brother Darrel makes nothing but assertions based solely upon assumptions. And it seems that we have detected the reason from his following words:

“ You know, when I served in the Navy, a crusty old Chief Radioman told me it was bad to assume anything, since when you assume something ... well, you know the rest.”

Yes, we know the rest, and the rest is not fit for a Christian to speak, is it? Now, we were in the Navy and we greatly appreciate the “crusty old Chief” but when it comes to the truth of the word of God the “crusty old Chief” is not a good source. If Brother Darrel could quote the word of God as well as he quotes the “crusty old Chief” we doubt that he would have such problems with his constant never ending assertions based solely upon assumption. And it is likely that the “crusty old Chief” told Brother Darrel this about assumptions because Brother Darrel was as susceptible to assumptions when he was in the Navy as he demonstrates himself to be in this forum. And for that reason the “crusty old Chief” tried to teach him a lesson that he apparently did not learn.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

I have spoken with E. Lee by phone many times and corresponded by email too many times to even count.

I have emailed Kevin several times.

Of course they are not the same person.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

They were questions which Benjamin asked to have answered... regardless of who originally posed them... and they are legitimate questions which should be answered. I think Ben is saying, "why bother trying to debate formally when they avoid direct questions in an informal forum?" Correct me if I am on the money, Ben.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Brother Duane:

You have said:

“TWO SEPARATE PEOPLE... I can attest to that.... as if it were not obvious in the difference in writing styles... It looks as Ben is ready to debate... assuming of course you can answer his questions to his satisfaction.”

Indeed, even you know that Brother Umsteeter’s assertion that Kevin and E. Lee Saffold is the same person is just plain stupid, don’t you? And you know so for reasons other then mere differences in our writing styles. His is clearly better than mine is!

But it is obvious that Brother Ben, and we assume from what you have said that you are talking about Brother Watts, is not even remotely considering debating us. And if he is willing to debate us we will answer any of his questions in the debate and of course any questions related to the arrangements for a debate while making the arrangements.

But so far no one has actually agreed to debate this issue formally in this forum. The fact that someone just might be “ready” to debate is useless. It will only have meaning when that person step up and actually agrees to debate the subject. SO far, Brother Ben has not done that, now has he? Nor has ANYONE ELSE.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Danny,

It is indeed strange how someone can read the Bible without any help whatsoever and become a Christian, yet you say that is not the case in regards to being able to figure out that God only requires vocal singing?

It doesn't matter what I say, it only matters what the Bible says now doesn't it? It's funny how when the Bible was translated even if there was a hint of using any type of instrumental music in the NT, it would have been translated that way would it not? You argue the same way that the denominationalists do in regards to greek words and lexicons etc. in a vain attempt to show that your hermeneutic is correct.

I am still waiting for one verse that conclusively says that the use of instrumental music is authorized in the NT. You yourself have even said that it isn't there, so you argue from silence.

Here is what some early Christians said about the instrumental music question:

AQUINAS "Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize." (Thomas Aquinas, Bingham's Antiquities, Vol. 3, page 137)

AUGUSTINE "musical instruments were not used. The pipe, tabret, and harp here associate so intimately with the sensual heathen cults, as well as with the wild revelries and shameless performances of the degenerate theater and circus, it is easy to understand the prejudices against their use in the worship." (Augustine 354 A.D., describing the singing at Alexandria under Athanasius)

CHRYSOSTOM "David formerly sang songs, also today we sing hymns. He had a lyre with lifeless strings, the church has a lyre with living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre with a different tone indeed but much more in accordance with piety. Here there is no need for the cithara, or for stretched strings, or for the plectrum, or for art, or for any instrument; but, if you like, you may yourself become a cithara, mortifying the members of the flesh and making a full harmony of mind and body. For when the flesh no longer lusts against the Spirit, but has submitted to its orders and has been led at length into the best and most admirable path, then will you create a spiritual melody." (Chrysostom, 347-407, Exposition of Psalms 41, (381-398 A.D.) Source Readings in Music History, ed. O. Strunk, W. W. Norton and Co.: New York, 1950, pg. 70.)

CLEMENT "Leave the pipe to the shepherd, the flute to the men who are in fear of gods and intent on their idol worshipping. Such musical instruments must be excluded from our wingless feasts, for they arc more suited for beasts and for the class of men that is least capable of reason than for men. The Spirit, to purify the divine liturgy from any such unrestrained revelry chants: 'Praise Him with sound of trumpet," for, in fact, at the sound of the trumpet the dead will rise again; praise Him with harp,' for the tongue is a harp of the Lord; 'and with the lute. praise Him.' understanding the mouth as a lute moved by the Spirit as the lute is by the plectrum; 'praise Him with timbal and choir,' that is, the Church awaiting the resurrection of the body in the flesh which is its echo; 'praise Him with strings and organ,' calling our bodies an organ and its sinews strings, for front them the body derives its Coordinated movement, and when touched by the Spirit, gives forth human sounds; 'praise Him on high- sounding cymbals,' which mean the tongue of the mouth which with the movement of the lips, produces words. Then to all mankind He calls out, 'Let every spirit praise the Lord,' because He rules over every spirit He has made. In reality, man is an instrument arc for peace, but these other things, if anyone concerns himself overmuch with them, become instruments of conflict, for inflame the passions. The Etruscans, for example, use the trumpet for war; the Arcadians, the horn; the Sicels, the flute; the Cretans, the lyre; the Lacedemonians, the pipe; the Thracians, the bugle; the Egyptians, the drum; and the Arabs, the cymbal. But as for us, we make use of one instrument alone: only the Word of peace by whom we a homage to God, no longer with ancient harp or trumpet or drum or flute which those trained for war employ." (Clement of Alexandria, 190AD The instructor, Fathers of the church, p. 130)

CLEMENT "Moreover, King David the harpist, whom we mentioned just above, urged us toward the truth and away from idols. So far was he from singing the praises of daemons that they were put to flight by him with the true music; and when Saul was Possessed, David healed him merely by playing the harp. The Lord fashioned man a beautiful, breathing instrument, after His own imaged and assuredly He Himself is an all-harmonious instrument of God, melodious and holy, the wisdom that is above this world, the heavenly Word." … "He who sprang from David and yet was before him, the Word of God, scorned those lifeless instruments of lyre and cithara. By the power of the Holy Spirit He arranged in harmonious order this great world, yes, and the little world of man too, body and soul together; and on this many- voiced instruments of the universe He makes music to God, and sings to the human instrument. "For thou art my harp and my pipe and my temple"(Clement of Alexandria, 185AD, Readings p. 62)

ERASMUS "We have brought into our churches certain operatic and theatrical music; such a confused, disorderly chattering of some words as I hardly think was ever in any of the Grecian or Roman theatres. The church rings with the noise of trumpets, pipes, and dulcimers; and human voices strive to bear their part with them. Men run to church as to a theatre, to have their ears tickled. And for this end organ makers are hired with great salaries, and a company of boys, who waste all their time learning these whining tones." (Erasmus, Commentary on I Cor. 14:19)

EUSEBIUS "Of old at the time those of the circumcision were worshipping with symbols and types it was not inappropriate to send up hymns to God with the psalterion and cithara and to do this on Sabbath days... We render our hymn with a living psalterion and a living cithara with spiritual songs. The unison voices of Christians would be more acceptable to God than any musical instrument. Accordingly in all the churches of God, united in soul and attitude, with one mind and in agreement of faith and piety we send up a unison melody in the words of the Psalms." (commentary on Psalms 91:2-3)

Here is a short list of what various scholars have said about the instrumental music question:

ALZOG "St. Ambrose and St. Gregory rendered great service to church music by the introduction of what are known as the Ambrosian and Gregorian chants.... Ecclesiastical chant, departing in some instances from the simple majesty of its original character, became more artistic, and, on this account, less heavenly and more profane; and the Fathers of the Church were not slow to censure this corruption of the old and honored church song. Finally, the organ, which seemed an earthly echo of the angelic choirs in heaven, added its full, rich, and inspiring notes to the beautiful simplicity of the Gregorian chant" (Alzog, Catholic Scholar, Church Historian of the University of Freiburg and champion of instrumental music in worship, was faithful to his scholarship when he wrote, Universal Church History, Vol. 1, pp. 696, 697).

AMERICAN "Pope Vitalian is related to have first introduced organs into some of the churches of Western Europe about 670 but the earliest trustworthy account is that of one sent as a present by the Greek emperor Constantine Copronymus to Pepin, king of Franks in 755" (American Encyclopedia, Volume 12, p. 688).

BARCLAY "If God is spirit a man's gifts to God music gifts of the spirit. Animal sacrifices and all manmade things become inadequate. The only gifts that befit the nature of God are the gifts of the spirit - love, loyalty, obedience, devotion" (W. Barclay, The Gospel of John, Vol. 1, p. 161).

BARNES "Psallo … is used, in the New Testament, only in Rom. 15:9 and 1 Cor. 14:15, where it is translated sing; in James 5:13, where it is rendered sing psalms, and in the place before us. The idea here is that of singing in the heart, or praising God from the heart" (Albert Barnes, a Presbyterian, Notes on The Testament, comment on Eph. 5:19).

BENEDICT "In my earliest intercourse among this people, congregational singing generally prevailed among them. . . . The Introduction Of The Organ Among The Baptist. This instrument, which from time immemorial has been associated with cathedral pomp and prelatical power, and has always been the peculiar favorite of great national churches, at length found its way into Baptist sanctuaries, and the first one ever employed by the denomination in this country, and probably in any other, might have been standing in the singing gallery of the Old Baptist meeting house in Pawtucket, about forty years ago, where I then officiated as pastor (1840) ... Staunch old Baptists in former times would as soon tolerated the Pope of Rome in their pulpits as an organ in their galleries, and yet the instrument has gradually found its way among them.... How far this modern organ fever will extend among our people, and whether it will on the whole work a RE- formation or DE- formation in their singing service, time will more fully develop." (Benedict, Baptist historian, Fifty Years Among Baptist, page 204-207)

BEZA "If the apostle justly prohibits the use of unknown tongues in the church, much less would he have tolerated these artificial musical performances which are addressed to the ear alone, and seldom strike the understanding even of the performers themselves." (Theodore Beza, scholar of Geneva, Girardeau's Instrumental Music, p. 166)

BINGHAM "Music in churches is as ancient as the apostles, but instrumental music not so . . . The use of the instrumental, indeed, is much ancienter, but not in church service. . . In the Western parts, the instrument, as not so much as known till the eighth century; for the first organ that was ever seen in France was one sent as a present to King Pepin by Constantinus Copronymus, the Greek emperor. . . . But, now, it was only, used in princes courts, and not yet brought into churches; nor was it ever received into the Greek churches, there being no mention of an organ in all their liturgies ancient or modern." (Joseph Bingham, Works, London Edition. Vol. 11, p. 482-484)

BINGHAM "Music in churches is as ancient as the apostles, but instrumental music not so." (Joseph Bingham, Church of England, Works, vol. 3, page 137)

BURNEY "After the most diligent inquire concerning the time when instrumental music had admission into the ecclesiastical service, there is reason to conclude, that, before the reign of Constantine, ;is the converts to the Christian religion were subject to frequent persecution and disturbance in their devotion, the rise of instruments could hardly have been allowed: and by all that can be collected from the writings of the primitive Christians, they seem never to have been admitted." (Charles Burney, A general history of Music, 1957, p. 426)

CALVIN "Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists therefore, have foolishly borrowed, this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints, only in a known tongue (I Cor. 14:16) What shall we then say of chanting, which fills the ears with nothing but an empty sound?" (John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms 33)

CATHOLIC "Although Josephus tells of the wonderful effects produced in the Temple by the use of instruments, the first Christians were of too spiritual a fibre to substitute lifeless instruments for or to use them to accompany the human voice. Clement of Alexandria severely condemns the use of instruments even at Christian banquets. St. Chrysostum sharply contrasts the customs of the Christians when they had full freedom with those of the Jews of the Old Testament." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, pg. 648-652.)

More available upon request.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Brother Ben Watts says:

“I am not a member of either of your groups, but am guessing that the reluctance of you piano boys to debate the nons is because of the tactics they are using in this forum. I have enough material here that you have provided me in your posts... I'd be glad to debate these guys.”

Well, if you would like to debate us Brother Watts we are here and would be more than happy to have you accommodate us on this matter.

Then he says:

“ But first, they would have to answer the following questions which you have already asked in this thread:”

He wants to debate before he agrees to affirm a specific proposition and guidelines for the debate. We will agree answer any questions that he brings into the debate and if he wants answers to these questions all he needs to do is agree to debate and bring them into it and he will get answers.

But, so far, even Brother Watts has left himself a way “out” of debating us and he does this because it is quite likely that he will need to use it to escape debating us. Well, if this is what he chooses to do it is his business. But his bold statement above that has enough material that he would be willing to debate us has not led him to step up an agree to a debate, now has it?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Brethren:

Notice that Brother Duane says:

“They were questions which Benjamin asked to have answered... regardless of who originally posed them... and they are legitimate questions which should be answered.”

WE have agreed that they were legitimate questions and we have also agreed to answer all of them with anyone who has the courage to bring them into a formal debate. Indeed they should be answered and they will be answered if anyone will bring them into a debate and agree to answer our questions as well. So, just because we are reserving the answer for a debate does mean they will not be answered nor does it mean that we are avoiding answering them. The reason that they are being asked informally in the first place is because these men are avoiding a formal debate. For if they really wanted to have them dealt with they would have agreed to debate us and then asked their questions. But they wanted instead to avoid a formal debate. But they cannot do this without at least attempting to discuss the matter in some way. So, if you really think that these questions deserve to be answered then just step up here and agree to debate us and ask those questions in that debate and we will answer every one of them. But we will also have some questions for you that also deserve an answer that we will ask in a debate wherein you have agreed to answer them. Now, do you really believe they deserve and answer, or not? So, Brother Duane, why don’t you debate us and ask these questions in that debate? Are you prepared to answer the questions that we ask in a debate? Why not Brother? What is wrong with a formal debate? Your pretend that you want to discuss the matter but you are not willing to engage in a debate wherein we will be able to expect you to reply to our arguments instead of ignoring them.

Then he says:

“ I think Ben is saying, "why bother trying to debate formally when they avoid direct questions in an informal forum?" Correct me if I am on the money, Ben.”

We doubt if Brother Ben is saying that but if he were saying that he would be saying something that is plain stupid. For if we told you that we will r your questions if you will agree to a format that requires you to answer our questions. And he really wanted us to answer his questions then he would agree to a debate and get his answers. But they are all doing this nonsense because they have no willingness to engage in a formal debate ONE ON ONE. They like this situation where we are required to answer ten people and all they must do is answer one. Our readers are able to see that those who believe that instrumental music is authorized in the worship of the church of Christ do not have the will to debate the matter in a fair, equitable and honorable debate. For they know that their arguments cannot bear the test of such a debate. And we have said more than once that we will give you an answer to your questions when you agree to a fo0rmal debate that requires that you also respond to our questions. Now that is fair, it is right and the only reason these brethren, including Brother Duane, do not accept that offer is because they really do not want an answer to their questions. They prefer instead to make it appear that we refuse entirely to answer their questions, which is nothing short of a deliberate lie. They will not bring those questions into formal debate with us because they know that we will answer them and they will be standing there face with the obligation of answering our questions which they suspect they may not be able to answer.

Now those are the facts. These men are simply avoiding a formal debate because their position cannot bear up under conditions of fairness and objective search for truth that a fair debate requires. And they know it.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

They may be legitimate questions Duane, but if you can’t see the “why” of E. Lee not answering questions related to this issue by now, you won’t. Even Bill mentioned in the other thread that the threads were getting way out of hand.

I don’t see Kevin avoiding direct questions at all in an “informal forum”. He has been doing his best to keep up with all the questions posed to him from ALL who are posing them. Now how you think this is avoiding direct questions I do not understand.

As for E. Lee’s reasons…he has mentioned them many times. Just as others have mentioned why they will NOT debate formally.

As for your: "why bother trying to debate formally when they avoid direct questions in an informal forum?" Correct me if I am on the money, Ben.”

How about: “Why bother trying to answer questions in an informal forum when they avoid direct questions?” Correct me if I am not on the money, E. Lee.

At least a formal debate would take care of that problem.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

D. Lee Muse,

AMEN!!

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Ben,

If you've perused these posts it should be obvious to you by now that E. Lee would be a formidable opponent if he were facing off with a three year old. Don't waste your time or breath on this cultist.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Benjamin,

I have tried to email you privately a couple of times this afternoon, but am receiving the following message back from Yahoo:

“Message from yahoo.com. Unable to deliver message to the following address(es).

: 64.157.4.81 failed after I sent the message. Remote host said: 554 delivery error: dd Sorry your message to benwatts@yahoo.com cannot be delivered. This account has been disabled or discontinued.”

Could you please check this address to make sure that it is current, as I would like to email you privately. Please correct me if benwatts@yahoo.com is not your email address, or if I have typed it incorrectly.

Thank you,

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Thank you Danny. We need to study history, but your info helps me to know where to look and how to look at it. My email address is benwatts35@yahoo.com . Sorry I entered it wrong before. Duane is correct in re-phrasing what I said. As I read this dialogue, I find plenty of "debating" going on. I am able to filter out the personal remarks and follow the progression of thought. I found questions asked (those I pasted) which were not answered. Period. I merely repeated them to bring them back to the forefront, because they deserve to be addressed. Kevin is to be commended for answering many of the questions, but not the ones in particular which I mentioned.

As I start to make some sense of Kevin's responses, my train of thought is always interrupted by a post from E.Lee whining about how he got his feelings hurt. I scroll down past his paragraphs and pick up again on Kevin's posts, or others.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Brother Watts:

You have said:

“As I start to make some sense of Kevin's responses, my train of thought is always interrupted by a post from E.Lee whining about how he got his feelings hurt.”

We said nothing to you or anyone else about “how we got our feelings hurt” and you cannot quote a single word from us wherein we have complained to you about having gotten our feelings hurt. Do you normally just make up things as you go along or are you really that incapable of reading what we wrote?

And we did not “interrupt” your “train of thought”. We responded to what you said because you directed those words TO US. If you do not want us to respond to you then do not mention us in your post. But when you refer to us in your post you should have enough sense to know that such a post just might enlist a response from us. And if you are incapable of realizing this simple fact it may be that you are simply incapable of forming a train of thought in the first place. And it would be impossible to derail a “train” that is not on track in the first place, now wouldn’t it?

And we have, however, recommended more than once that we engage in a formal debate of this matter to prevent the very “interruptions of which you complain. For in a formal debate you would be allowed to completely express your entire case before the other person has the opportunity to respond. And you would have opportunity for rebuttals etc. It would provide order in a discussion that should you be able to form a particular “train of thought” or course of argument it would not have any chance of being derailed until we responded to it. And even then you would have an opportunity to put it back up on the tracks if it were not too severely damaged in the initial derailment. But, you and all of the others are unwilling to have a formal debate on this subject and the consequence of your choice is the total disorder that is seen in the type of discussion currently in progress. SO, your complain is absurd if you are unwilling to accept a formal debate with guidelines, propositions and moderators which provide order and discipline which would ensure that both sides have equal opportunity to fully express their arguments without interruption.

But when you finished your post and signed it with your name you left the impression that you had completed your thought. And we did not interrupt you while making it, now did we?

Then you say:

“ I scroll down past his paragraphs and pick up again on Kevin's posts, or others.”

And that was not very hard to do, now was it? And how that “interrupted your train of thought” we cannot imagine and we doubt very seriously if you could explain it either. Your thought was not interrupted and you know it. You just did not like what we had to say and you allowed your dislike of our words to distract you thoughts. That is your problem and not ours. If you are not willing to engage in a formal debate then you will just have to accept the lack of order and discipline that comes as a result. But you cannot blame us for it. Because we have urged order in the forma of a formal debate for some time now and no one is willing to engage in a debate that requires order and fairness, not even you.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Danny,

You are right, I did pull historical quotes out of the air, and I did take them off of a web site, please forgive me for doing that, I know better, but did it anyway. I am truly sorry.

Is it possible for someone to read just a plain English Bible if there were no lexicons, greek words, study Bibles, etc. available and come to his own conclusion that the only way to praise God in worship is through vocal singing only?

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Ben -- You decided to "read into" many of the posts E Lee has made, and through that you saw him whining about things. He came back to say, nowhere can you point out a direct "whine" from him, and that MAY be true. What you did is what he does many times, that is, tried to read into what a person posts.

You were questioned about making things up or of being incapable of reading what he wrote. Not to worry, I (and I'm fairly sure most of the others on this forum) understood exactly what you were saying.

We may, or may not agree with what you believe you read "between the lines" in E Lees posts. One thing for sure, he (E Lee) has done the same thing to many other people ... deciding they meant one thing when they said another ... ALMOST like he could read what is in a persons heart.

As I have stated before, amazing.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Brethren:

Notice that Brother Davis, who is admittedly unwilling to debate us on this issue has said the following:

“If you've perused these posts it should be obvious to you by now that E. Lee would be a formidable opponent if he were facing off with a three year old.”

Brother Davis will not debate us though he is convinced that we would be "a formidable opponent" if we were “facing off with a three year old”.

We agree that we might be pretty formidable against a three-year- old. In fact, almost any one would be even Brother Davis. And we suspect that some of our brethren here would be very formidable against us in a formal debate. But we are not trying to either be formidable or not. We want to get at the truth of this subject and if any of these brethren in this forum thought that they could do better than a three year old in debating us on this subject they would enter a formal debate with us post haste. But the truth is that brother Davis does not feel that he could be as competent in debating us as a three year old and for that reason he does not agree to debate us. For he admits that we would be pretty formidable against a three year old. We can only imagine that his reason for not debating us is that he considers us too formidable an opponent for him since he knows he can do no better than a three year old in debating us.

But, even if we were three years old Brother Davis would not debate us on this subject because even a three-year-old would be able to decimate his pathetic arguments.

Then he says:

“Don't waste your time or breath on this cultist.”

Now, many do not want to “waste any time or breath” on us. Which is a strong indication that they care nothing about our understanding what they are convinced is the truth on this important matter. And this is now about the third time that Brother Davis has called us a “cultist” and on neither occasion has he ever offered one ounce of evidence to support his pathetic assertion, now has he? The reason he offers no evidence to prove that we are in any way cultic is because he cannot prove this any more than he can prove that instrumental music is authorized in the New Testament. So, Brother Davis, do tell us what proof you have that we are cultic? Or is this just another attempt to insult us just because you cannot debate us? Do not worry, brethren, our “feelings are not hurt”. But we do wonder, and we have been watching to see, just how long it would take some of you who have been calling us your brothers now for two years to correct Brother Davis on calling us cultist. And we have not heard a word from any of you. Is this because we are opposed to instrumental music and you must not be seen as being fair and equitable and just in dealing with us?

Brother Davis cannot prove we are cultists. In fact, he is just like that other false teacher we debated in this forum about Baptism, isn’t he? For when he could not answer us he too began to merely call us names and cultist was one of his favorites, wasn’t it? Do you all agree with Brother Davis that those of us who opposed instrumental music in the worship are “cultist” and if so can you prove it any better than Brother Davis. For he has offered not one shred of evidence that would cause any thinking person to actually conclude that we are cultist, now has he? He merely expects everyone to believe because he says it and repeats it often, doesn’t he? But this is the best Brother Davis can do and we should not expect much more out of him. But, we will even debate him if he will agree to a formal debate of any of these issues. But, we suppose he will not debate us until he is confident that he can do better than a three year old because he is certain that we are a formidable opponent to anyone who cannot do better than a three year old, isn’t he? So, we will just have to wait until he grows up and is convinced that he could do better than a three-year-old in a debate with us, now won’t we?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Kevin,

You said: Is it possible for someone to read just a plain English Bible if there were no lexicons, greek words, study Bibles, etc. available and come to his own conclusion that the only way to praise God in worship is through vocal singing only?

Answer: Not, it is not possible because it is not in the Bible. You are adding to the Word of God! No one will come to this conclusion on their own. It is error that must be taught by false "anti" teachers.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

E.Lee,

I distinguish easily between you and Kevin. I don't think when you say "we" you are referring to yourself and Kevin. So, as I read elsewhere, why don't you drop the silly "we" business.

Barry, you're not doing much better, trying to egg him on with taunts.

Duane, you're creating a monster with this forum. Why don't you have thread with Danny and Kevin only continuing the discussion, and another where people can post running commentaries. And finally another where Barry and E.Lee can taunt each other and the rest of us can ignore.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Another great question, Kevin.

"Is it possible for someone to read just a plain English Bible if there were no lexicons, greek words, study Bibles, etc. available and come to his own conclusion that the only way to praise God in worship is through vocal singing only? "

It reminds me of Daniel Defoe's Robinson Caruso, who was stranded on an island with one native, Friday. He taught him to read, and after reading the New Testament, Friday came to the conclusion that he could be a "Christian Only" much like the ideal we proclaim. I don't think Friday would have come to the conclusion that an instrument was forbidden based on a totally uncolored reading of God's Word. And that is as it should be, I think.

Kevin, I would re-phrase your question to ask, "is it possible for someone to read just a plain English Bible... if there were no "accapella" church of christ influence available (be it parental upbringing or recent contact) and come to his own conclusion that the only way to praise God in worship is through vocal singing only?

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Benjamin,

What's eating you, homeboy?

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

gastrointestinitus

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

E. Lee asks: So, Brother Davis, do tell us what proof you have that we are cultic?

Response: You deny the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. You add to the Word of God by making rules and regulations that cannot be found there (i.e. instrumental music forbidden by E. Lee but their use is commanded by God). In effect, you deny the very works and Words of Almighty God.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Kevin, If (and I do mean if) you were to engage in a formal debate on the authorization issue, what would your affirmation statement be?

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

E. Lee, you can use the we all you want... I am just letting you know that its not working for you.

1. First of all, it is not warding off personal attacks, since you still are getting them.

2. Secondly, I can assure you, as an "outsider" looking in, it doesn't "work" in convincing readers to sympathize with your position; instead it draws attention to an idiosyncratic quirk.

3. Finally, it distracts readers from pursuing the discussion at hand, just as much as those who taunt you about it.

If you want to keep it up, that's obviously your perogative. I appreciate Kevin's forthright discussion; he writes normally (first person), doesnt get distracted by squabbles, and if he were not such a nice guy, would probably tell you to lay off the WE stuff; because I can already see there are areas where he would not handle things as you do, and would not like to be associated with this WE you refer to. I mean, if it is such a great idea, why isnt he invoking WEspeak as well?

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Danny,

I am not inferring anything of the sort. It appears that I have worded the question wrong. I didn't necessarily mean English Bible, it could be in any language. Let me attempt to rephrase my question: If the ONLY thing available was just a regular Bible, would someone be able to come to the conclusion that God only requires singing in the worship assembly?

Duane, Brother E. Lee has already said he was ready and willing to debate the authorization issue. If you wish to know what his affirmation statement would be, you can ask him.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

"is it possible for someone to read just a plain English Bible... if there were no "accapella" church of christ influence available (be it parental upbringing or recent contact) and come to his own conclusion that the only way to praise God in worship is through vocal singing only?"

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Kevin, I asked you.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Duane,

I know you asked me. You have my answer, even though it is one that you don't want to hear.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

It was a response... but not an answer to my question...which was a simple one... how would you word an affirmation IF you were to engage in a formal debate?

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

How about these?

The authority for church music is general.

If the scriptures do not have a "thus saith the Lord" on a subject, then...we must not do it.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

A regular Bible? (Trembling) I hope we're not going to bring "King James Only" into this ...

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Danny,

Answering for Kevin.

I think he means by "regular Bible" NIV, KJV, NKJV, NAS (& updated), RS, NRS...etc.

Most people would not consider "a regular Bible" to be "a copy of the Hebrew O.T. and the Greek N.T."

Correct me if I am wrong Kevin.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Duane:

You have deleted eery post that we have written in thiws thread. Not a single one by E. Lee Saffold has been left in it. We request that you place them back into this thread if you are sincere in what you said in the "debate challenge" thread. THis kind of behavior is extremely wrong, unfair, unreasonable and ignorant. How can anyone believe that you will allow a fair debate in YOUR forum when you simply delete threads from those who oppose your favorite point of view with no real justification for it at all.

You have deleted so many of our post in several threads that we are not even certain that is possible for you to put them all back.

THis was wrong of you to do and we sincerely think that at the very least you should not only acknowledge that you have done it but you should apologize for it as well.

WE cannot have confidence that you will be fair or that you can be trusted to keep your word.

We have no choice, since this is YOUR forum but to depend upon you to keep your word and to be fair and equitable with those whom you asked to participate in YOUR forum. But we are not at this time, because of your behavior in deleting our post unjustly and without good cause, have any confidence in your integrity in the least. ANd the integrity of the forum as a whole has been place into severe jeapordy by this behavior.

Your Brother In CHrist,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

Brother Duane:

I apologize. I posted the above in the wrong thread. You have deleted several of our post in this thread though not ALL of them. THis was intended for another thread wherein you delete all of our post.

But you have deleted several of them that were in this thread and we are asking that you put them back in and that you do so in all threads wherein you have deliberately deleted our words.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

Brother Duane:

One post in particular that you have deleted from this thread was our response to the following post from Brother Watts:

"E. Lee, you can use the we all you want... I am just letting you know that its not working for you.

1. First of all, it is not warding off personal attacks, since you still are getting them.

2. Secondly, I can assure you, as an "outsider" looking in, it doesn't "work" in convincing readers to sympathize with your position; instead it draws attention to an idiosyncratic quirk.

3. Finally, it distracts readers from pursuing the discussion at hand, just as much as those who taunt you about it.

If you want to keep it up, that's obviously your perogative. I appreciate Kevin's forthright discussion; he writes normally (first person), doesnt get distracted by squabbles, and if he were not such a nice guy, would probably tell you to lay off the WE stuff; because I can already see there are areas where he would not handle things as you do, and would not like to be associated with this WE you refer to. I mean, if it is such a great idea, why isnt he invoking WEspeak as well?"

WE ask respectfully that you either place our post back where it was so that our readers can see our response to Brother Watts in the context of Brother Watts words. If it was your intent to move our post to another thread wherein you wish to discuss the issue of our use of the word "we" then we would expect you to remove Brother Watt's post to the same place so that his post and our response to it can be fairly viewed TOGETHER as they were originally.

THere is not doubt that you have made quite a MESS of things with this arbitrary and nonsensical deleting of post that you do not personally like.

You are pretending to be fair, honest and equitable but in truth you are everything but that. You are showing yourself to be so biased that yopu cannot allow any strong opposition to your positions. Now our readers can see this hypocrisy and we have correctly made an note of it.

You arfe right about this being YOUR forum. ANd if you are biased and unfair and hypocritical about it then your forum will take upon it the same character. If it does then you will end up making it appear that the Christian Church is of the same character because you have called this forum publicly "The CHristian Church Forum" when in truth it is "Duane's Forum" only.

SO, either correct these things or stop the pretense of fair play and admit that you have no intentions whatsoever of being fair and objective in any discussion that opposes your personal preferences and views.

Now, since this is your forum you may have no inclination to do anythng about this matter. But you will have much difficulty in hiding your hypocrisy if you do not correct it.

And we know that our brethren in the Christian Church are not so hypocritical. And if you continue this deleting threads that disagree with you you will make every one think that the entire CHristian church supports such wrong behavior because of the false impression that this forum belongs to the Christian Church when in fact it belongs solely to Duane.

Your BROther in CHrist,

E. Lee Saffold

Yopur Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

Is the Amplified Bible a "regular" Bible? If you are to read the Amplified New Testament, you would find that the word "Psamos" is often translated "sing with musical instruments." If I read it, I see that musical instruments are authorized.

If someone insists that we may not use lexicons and Greek dicitionaries to prove a point from the scripture, I consider that there is a lack of intellectual integrity in that person.

I once argued with a Baptist that "once saved always saved" was a false docrine. I then quoted scriptures from Hebrews. His response was "You can't use Hebrews, you can't use Hebrews." To which I responded "Because Hebrews proves you are wrong?"

If the Greek proves you are wrong, then change. It will be better for you to change now than to be intellectually dishonest.

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2001

Brother Spurgeon:

You have said:

“Is the Amplified Bible a "regular" Bible?”

Well, I am not sure what you mean by this question. But, if you were asking if it is an accurate translation of the word of God I would say no.

Then you say:

“ If you are to read the Amplified New Testament, you would find that the word "Psamos" is often translated "sing with musical instruments." If I read it, I see that musical instruments are authorized.”

And this is proof of my point. Anyone who would translate the word “psallmos” as sing with an instrument simply does not know what the word meant in the New Testament period. And I am sure we will cover this matter in the debate. You are invited to read that debate and hopefully you will see that there is much more to this word than the mere assertion that the instrument was inherent and included in the meaning of the word during the New Testament Period.

Then you say:

“If someone insists that we may not use lexicons and Greek dictionaries to prove a point from the scripture, I consider that there is a lack of intellectual integrity in that person.”

I expect that all should use lexicons and dictionaries just as they do other “helps” to learn the truth. But, they must with all of them beware of human “bias” which would lead them away from the truth. They must have some knowledge of how to use these Lexicons if they are going to prove something from them. And a very good beginning point for using a lexicon of any language is to learn to read and or speak the language. In the case of the scriptures it is important only to be able to read the language. And there is therefore often a lack of “integrity” among those “smatters in Greek” who deliberately take only part of what the lexicons say about a word. Especially when they usually take the part that supports their position while ignoring the “rest of the story” given by the lexicographer in order to “prove their point. And it seems to me that Brother Kevin was saying that it is possible for one to learn the truth of God’s word from a good English translation as well as from reading the original language. And I am convinced that he is indeed right about that matter. For no one whose native tongue is English, even those who know and understand the Greek and Hebrew Languages, can avoid reading an “English translation of the scriptures. For when they read these languages they most often translate the words into English in their heads as they read. So, they still have an English translation. And those who are Smatters in Greek can not possibly avoid an English translation of the scriptures. Since they either accept the translations that we have, and there are now many of them. Or they, without even knowing the language make a far inferior translation when they go to the lexicons to find just what they always wanted to hear while ignoring anything that the lexicon says which might reprove their current understanding. But the arrogance among the Educated Elite that says those depend upon English translations cannot learn the truth while pretending that they get along without such translation is sheer nonsense. And the pretense itself is purely hypocritical. Brother Kevin was not, it seems to me, saying that we cannot consult good dictionaries and lexicons but rather that we can learn the truth without knowing the Greek Language ourselves from a good and generally accepted English translation.

Then you say:

“I once argued with a Baptist that "once saved always saved" was a false docrine. I then quoted scriptures from Hebrews. His response was "You can't use Hebrews, you can't use Hebrews." To which I responded "Because Hebrews proves you are wrong?"”

You did a good job in your debate. I commend you for it. But it is hardly a fair comparison to what Brother Kevin had said and certainly does not compare to the arguments made by those who do not use instruments of music in the worship. Anyone who has read much written about this matter over the last hundred years or so will find a great deal of discussion of the Greek words related to the matter. And only one who is terribly ignorant of the arguments would even remotely imply that those who oppose instrumental music ignore the Greek word Psallmos or its related terms in their discussions of the issue.

Then you say:

“If the Greek proves you are wrong, then change. It will be better for you to change now than to be intellectually dishonest.”

You have not made your case for “intellectual dishonesty” in the least bit, now have you? And if the meaning of the original Greek words found in the text of the word of God is other than how they were translated by the majority of the English Translations who translate them for us. Then certainly we would be proven wrong to hold to any erroneous translation of a word. And if one were to believe that the Greek word Psallmos includes a mechanical instrument of music during the New Testament period then he would have to reject the majority of the English translations in existence. But, I would caution anyone that before they reject those translations that they examine the reasons that they do not translate it so as to include a mechanical instrument of music. Ask yourself why all of these knowledgeable and scholarly translators, most of whom used instruments of music in their worship did not see fit to translate the word as our Brother Spurgeon would like to have seen it translated. I say this only to make you think. There has to be a reason, and prejudice is not likely the reason in this case that very few English translations so translate the word. And we will show, during the debate, that there is a very good lexical reason that such is the case.

So, the assumption that those of us who do not use instruments of music in the worship are intellectually dishonest before hearing our arguments from the Greek Lexicons and Greek Scholars who comment upon the meaning of this word is just plain dishonest in itself, isn’t it?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 23, 2001