First and foremost;

To Kevin and E. Lee, I apologize to you for the insulting comments that I have made. I said them because truly some of your comments have not made sense to me and I find from my point of view that you have either misunderstood what I said or refused to answer the exact questions I have written.

To E. Lee;

Sir, I have been reading your posts. Think about it, you have not or just barely contributed to the issue of hand clapping thread. You have mostly only responded to people who have said things about you. My question to you is, could you start your own thread with your opinions or rebuttals to people about you? If you have something that deals with the issue at hand then lets hear it. If all you will say is to the effect of I am not telling you my opinion unless you agree to the debate, then you are being counter productive to the purpose of this forum. I can understand your desire to debate. But many here wish to discuss without a debate, so unless you want to discuss the issue, don't post.

As to the issue of we, you defend your right to use it. You asked if there was any way to write with impersonal character. Yes there is, do not use a pronoun at all, unless refering to others. Instead of we think. You can say, it is thought.

You said there is not one reason other than personal preference that we should not be used. I asked you not to use we for 1 - a reason of clarity and 2 - a reason of easily understanding to whom we are speaking. Now though point 2 is weak, point one that I make is strong in my own estimation. So I have answered your challenge, here are reasons besides personal preference to ask you to write either in 1st person or without pronouns at all.

So, I ask you, can you be civil in that one, in responding with comments that do not deal with the thread you are in please write them here and two, if you have information to contribute, please do so in the appropriate thread.

Thank you.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Answers

Lee.....this statement by you shocked me....."you pathetic hypocrite."

Lee....have you ever considered the fact, that in the N.T.....Jesus is the only one who ever referred to anyone as a hypocrite???? None of the inspired apostles ever used the word. Only Jesus Himself.

When one does a study of the original meaning of the word "hypocrite".....it becomes clear why only Jesus would consider Himself qualified to use the term.

The word in the Greek....actually has theatrical origins. In N.T. times...(and previous)....most actors had to play two parts...therefore....they would have two masks handily available to be able to switch between parts.

This was a perfect word for Jesus to use against the Pharisees of his day (which by the way were the only one he ever directed that term towards). On the outside they gave the appearance of deeply religious and pious individuals.....but on the inside (when the switched masks)......they were dead as a tomb. But....only Jesus had the ability to look on the inside.

If I were you.....I would really reconsider my use of that term....unless you feel yourself above the apostles....and equal to Jesus in the use of the term.

Another reason you need to reconsider the term....is I'm not going to allow it anymore. I'll allow this one to slide......but I cannot allow you to continue to use that term anymore. Future uses of it....will be deleted.....as well as your entire post.

I expected better from you.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Robin....

Look at the evidence presented....and you make the decision about your personal life.

For me....I'm uncomfortable taking the liberties that it appears only Jesus Himself took. But then....He is ultimately qualified to look into the depths of a man's heart...isn't He??

Like I said...in your personal life...do what you like...But...I'm not going to allow that word to be directed towards somone else on this forum anymore.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Lee....you said..."You have even used the term yourself a few times in this forum over the past two years."

Show us!!!

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Lee Said...."Well, we have already shown that Jesus was not the only one to charge anyone with hypocrisy. So, your argument falls flat on its face, now doesn’t it? "

Far from it......the one verse you quote by Paul clearly shows their lies are hypocritical. But again.....you failed to show where anyone besides Jesus used the term in a direct labeling of an individual. But it appears to be acceptable to you since you claim the right of Jesus.

The only sense in which you have the right to determine whether or not someone is a hypocrite is if you have the gift of discernment...which you certainly do not.

It is valid to use the term when referring to someones arguments. For instance....if an individual would say...."I believe in protecting life"....and yet they take an openly pro-abortion stance.....their position is hyprocritical.

However, they are not hypocrites.....because they are not trying to fool anybody. They have stated both positions....but the positions are hypocritical....i.e., inconsistent.

Again I state.....the ONLY WAY.....you can know a true hyprocrite is to know their heart....which myself....you...or anybody else does not know.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

E. Lee....

Go for it!!

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Darrell....and you may have hit the nail on the head with this statement....

"especially someone we believe to be a brother or sister in Christ who has asked for foregiveness."

It certainly brings in to question his credibility of using these terms in the past. I think it is becoming increasingly obvious....that at no time has he ever considered someone who used an instrument as a brother in Christ. For him....it is a test of salvation.

Because....if he truly considered you or Bill a brother in Christ....he would be obligated to forgive.

Remember the words of Jesus to Peter when Peter asked how many times he needed to forgive his brother....and Jesus indicated....."70 X 7"....a Hebrew idiom for continuously. The only condition given was that the individual would seek the forgiveness and repent. Jesus did not give Peter the right to discern sincerity....nor us.

So...the only thing I can figure...is since we in the Christian Church are heathen, sensual, instrument loving pagans.....he feels this command of Christ is not binding.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Mr. or Mrs. Anonoymous Poster....

Consider this your last warning. All future posts without legitimate names and e-mail addresses will be deleted....and if the content of your post can do nothing less than hurl insults....they will be deleted as well.

It is embarrasing the degree of childesness that I see demonstrated here.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

E. Lee....I lay out the challenge for the second time. You accused me, in your words, of using the word hypocrite in the past two years on the forum. Your exact words were...."You have even used the term yourself a few times in this forum over the past two years."

The challenge again is....show us!!

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Thanks Lee. I would like to assure you of this....had you found a place where I did use the word directed at someone....I would have e- mailed them immediately and apologized.

For me personally....it is a word I am uncomfortable using.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

Lee....it's not an issue that needs clarification with me....as it has never been an issue with me. I never thought for moment that you and Kevin were the same people. Just having you tell me that you are not....is good enough for me....but I didn't even need you to do that.

I'm not sure, to this point, that Bill was making a serious accusation. It appears to me...that he said was in jest. But...that's for Bill to clarify....not me.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

Lee....it's not an issue that needs clarification with me....as it has never been an issue with me. I never thought for moment that you and Kevin were the same people. Just having you tell me that you are not....is good enough for me....but I didn't even need you to do that.

I'm not sure, to this point, that Bill was making a serious accusation. It appears to me...what he said was in jest. But...that's for Bill to clarify....not me.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

D. Lee...you stated...."The word idiot comes to mind do we see Christ even using that word at all?"

First....was the word even in the vernacular of that day??

Second....Connie was an idiot. I did not need the spirit of discernment with the ability to know her heart for that one. Remember....Jesus used the word "hypocrite" because He had the ability to see on the inside. There are some people on this forum who seem to claim the same ability....and when you use the word...you are claiming it for yourself.

Third....if you check the archives...you will see Mark Wisniewski gave a wonderful English lexiconal lesson on the use of the word....and pointed out....my assessment was right on the money.

Equating the words "hyprocrite" and "idiot"....is like equating...."baptism" and "sprinking".....two completely different things.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Gee.....my integrity called into question again?? Yawn!!

Anyway....here is the lesson from Mark. I searched the archives for you....and cut and paste for you.

"Of Course, then.......... Anyone who refused this better Life by refusing to follow the commands of the Gospel (i.e....believe, confess, repent, be Baptized)....would have to be considered as what?

Not unintelligent....because the information was given.

Not a moron (Raca)....the implication of that word in the 1st Century was that of one who was viewed as worthless or sub-human. Not the case here because the Gospel was shared in it's full form.

Foolish?.......YES! Foolish is defined as "1. lacking forethought or caution. 2. resulting from or showing a lack or sense." Only one without any sense would refuse to obey and grasp the "Good News".

Stupid?.......YEP! Stupid is defined as "1. lacking ordinary activity and keenness of mind; 2. characterized by, indicative of, or proceeding from mental dullness; FOOLISH; senseless." Refusing to follow the clear command of Scripture to "be immersed" is clearly a stupid, or senseless, act because it leads them in the way opposite of God's will. As Forrest Gump's Momma says..."Stupid is, as stupid does".

Idiot?.......DEFINITELY! Idiot is defined as "an utterly FOOLISH or SENSELESS person". If the shoe fits....you might as well wear it!"

-- Mark Wisniewski (Markwhiz@aol.com), May 29, 2001

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

D. Lee.....you state..."IT IS SEEING one say one thing then do another, or do a thing while saying another,"

No....that is not being a hypocrite....that is being inconsistent. Why can't you use the word...inconsistent? (And don't say...because it's not in Scripture. I use a lot of words not in Scripture....like "passing gas". Not biblical...but certainly descriptive.) Again...if you WILL TAKE THE TIME to study the word....there is much more to it than just inconsistent actions. It has more to do with deceptive motives....and motives can only be judged by knowing a person's heart. Check E. Lee's post. That which he questioned the most often was....motives. Tough thing to do without discernment.

Again....you are defining a word by 21st century definitions rather than understanding the word in the culture and the context in which it was defined....an error common among many people.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

That one gets my vote Duane!!

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2001

It is so soothing to know that I have a "brother" in Christ....who puts me on the level of "Simon the Sorcerer."

Makes you feel good don't it??

I guess I should go ahead and read the Harry Potter books!!

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

I have the same request as Barry....please do not call me "brother" either.

In fact.....since you make the "non use" of musical instruments a condition of salvation...I have no choice but to refer to you as a "false teacher." You have committed the same error as the Judaisers of old by adding to the Gospel.

Just can't seem to find that in Acts 2:38...."Repent...be immersed...and put away your musical instruments and thou shalt be saved."

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Kevin....you quote the following Scripture.....

The answer to your question is YES, and here is why. The Bible says in Heb 10:26-27, "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Is this admonition to someone who is "IN CHRIST" or "OUT OF CHRIST"?

First Kevin....in answer to your last question....the answer is...."IN CHRIST....for now." What do I mean by that??

This is where your quote of that Scripture is woefully out of context.

Let's first examine the motivation for the author of Hebrews writing his epistle. (BTW....I agree with the early Church father Origen who said..."Only God knows who wrote the book of Hebrews.")

The epistle of Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians, who because of Nero's persecution, were considering forsaking Christianity and going back to Judaism.

In fact....the theme of Hebrews could be summed up this way..."Everything we have is better." The writer clearly demonstrates that everything we have in Christ is superior to Judaism. In fact, everything in Judiasm was just a foreshadow of the fulfillment found in Christ.

Thus...the writer talks about how the ministry of Jesus was better than angels...and better than Moses. He talks about the superiority of the priesthood of Jesus and the blood of Jesus. He talks about the superiority of the tabernacle Jesus entered into (i.e., heaven itself)....as opposed to the earthly tabernacle. And...so forth and so on.

Again....the purpose was to show...the superiority of what we have in Christ to Judaism. If they were to return to that....they would lose all of this...and be lost.

Now....with that purpose understood....let's look at your Scripture again.

Heb 10:26-27, "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries."

The sin he is speaking of there...is the sin of returning to Judaism. If they do this...in fact...there will no longer be a sacrifice for sin...because they will have rejected the only acceptable sacrifce of sin...namely Jesus Christ. If they do that....then truly....they can only look foward to judgment and damnation. The same is true for all who reject the one name under heaven whereby men can be saved (Acts 4:12)

So yes Kevin...they are in Christ. He is urging them to stay there...instead of turning back to Judaism.

Your quoted Scripture....was out of context.

Kevin...might I suggest you read Scripture in order to get your beliefs....instead of using it to support your beliefs??

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

One other suggestion Kevin....in fact...it is a rule of hermeneutics...(i.e., biblical interpretation).

Allow a book...or the author of that book to define his words.

For instance...sin...to the author of Hebrews...was...leaving Christianity to return to Judaism.

The "sin that leads to death" in John's epistles...is the Gnostic heresy of denying that Jesus came in the flesh.

I know...I know....that's news to you. I bet you thought the "sin that leads to death was that 'ole piano!!" (ha)

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Kevin....you stated....

"So, my quoting of Scripture may have been out of context, but did I not prove in such misquoting of Scripture that it is possible to be "IN CHRIST" and be lost?"

No sir....you did not. For the writer of Hebrews makes it abundantly clear....to return to Judaism....is to not be "in Christ"....anymore.

Duane is correct in his assessment. I have never critized you personally.....I criticize your methodology. And...I do feel that if you are going to add to the gospel the requirement of "non- instrumentality"....that makes you a false teacher....or at the last....teaching something that is false.

You position seems to be one Kevin...where one can never know the assurance of their salvation as they always have to be worried about a sin they have failed to confess.

The verse in 1 John 1 that says his blood "cleanses us from all sin"....is a very encouraging one. The Greek word for "cleanses" there is a participle action. It could be literally translated...."His blood continuously washes us clean." It never stops...it keeps on.

Gal. 3:27 states that we are immersed into Christ and Romans 8:1 states there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ.

Our salvation is not based upon the level of perfection we achieve...but upon the grace of God...period. My salvation is based upon my desire to cling to Him and remain in Him.

The perfection I strive for I do...not in order to obtain salvation....but because I am saved. It is with an attitude of a son....not a slave.

What a joy it is to know the salvation of the Lord. As John said..."Perfect love cast out fear."

I trust one day you will come to fully know what it means to have the assurance of your salvation.....as opposed to the attitude of constantly checking over your shoulder to see if God is watching.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Bill,

Apology accepted.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Brother Umstetter:

You have said:

“First and foremost; To Kevin and E. Lee, I apologize to you for the insulting comments that I have made. I said them because truly some of your comments have not made sense to me and I find from my point of view that you have either misunderstood what I said or refused to answer the exact questions I have written.”

Now, we are not sure what Kevin will think of your comments. But we do not accept your hypocritical apology. And we have answered your questions that were directed to us or we have agreed to answer them in a formal debate. Now, we have told you enough times that we will not discuss this issue except in a formal debate. And some questions that you have asked, in fact most of them, are directed to E. Lee Saffold, after he has told you more than once that he will answer you in a formal debate. Now if you are not willing to debate us then do not direct your questions to us. Otherwise we will have to respond to tell you that we are willing to answer your questions in a formal debate. Which you are not willing to engage us in.

Then you say:

“To E. Lee; Sir, I have been reading your posts.”

Good for you. And you can drop the hypocritical “sir” business if you purpose in using is to leave us with the impression that you are being respectful to us. You have not one ounce of respect for us so stop pretending that you do you old hypocrite.

Then you say:

“ Think about it, you have not or just barely contributed to the issue of hand clapping thread.”

The truth is that we avoided the thread entirely for a long time but our name kept being brought up in that thread by people who do not have the courage to debate us, meaning you in particular.

Then you say:

“You have mostly only responded to people who have said things about you.”

Well, if we are not the subjects of that thread then what are they doing saying things about us in it? You think about it if you are capable. When you mention us do not be surprised if we show up to respond. And if you mention us chances are that you have already gotten off subject, isn’t it?

Then you say:

“ My question to you is, could you start your own thread with your opinions or rebuttals to people about you?” No, we cannot do that. Maybe those who would like to discuss us could start a thread for that purpose. But if you bring us up in a specific thread you if we dhose to respond you WILL deal with it in THAT THREAD and not other. SO, it is simple. If you have something to say about us and you do not want it to distract from the thread you are in then YOU start a thread designed to discuss E. Lee Saffold. That is the way it will be and there is simply nothing you can do to change it.

Then you say:

“ If you have something that deals with the issue at hand then lets hear it.”

WE will be glad to deal with the issue at hand when you decide to do so. But you have made us the issue. And you hypocritically pretend that we have diverted these threads. You could not prove that we have diverted from the subject except in response to people like you who lies. For you lied when you said that Kevin and E. Lee Saffold are the same exact person and that E. Lee Saffold is pretending top be Kevin in order to come out while remaining hidden. Yes, you made that claim, didn’t you? Have you apologized for telling that deliberate lie? No you haven’t now have you? But now, you pretend to believe that E. Lee and Kevin are two different people. So, make up you mind! Do you believe that E. Lee Saffold is masquerading as Kevin Walker as you accused him of doing or NOT? You hypocrite. You say things that you cannot prove to be true and then come in here to pretend to be apologizing. You should be ashamed but you have to have enough intelligence to see what you have done! WE doubt if you have the ability to be ashamed.

Then you say:

“ If all you will say is to the effect of I am not telling you my opinion unless you agree to the debate, then you are being counter productive to the purpose of this forum.”

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. But we are convinced that a formal debate is the only way for anyone to see a fair and reasonable discussion of this subject. And we are also convinced that you avoid it because you cannot stand in such a debate.

Then you say:

“ I can understand your desire to debate.”

WE do doubt this completely. You have no idea of why we insist upon a debate. You have never taken upon yourself to discuss things in a forum wherein the majority are opposed to you before you even begin. We doubt if you would even have the courage to contemplate doing such a thing.

Then you say:

“ But many here wish to discuss without a debate, so unless you want to discuss the issue, don't post.”

They are welcome to do this. And they have tried to do it a few times. But they cannot do so without mentioning E. Lee Saffold. Now, if you want to discuss it without a formal debate and you wish for me to remain away from the thread then simply leave my name out of your discussions and do not misrepresent me in such a thread and we may stay clear. On one occasion we were asked by Brother Robin, it was in the “dancing thread” to stay back and we did so until brethren begin to refer to us and to misrepresent us. And even then we kept our promise to stay clear until even Brother Robin saw that it was not fair to hold me to a promise that placed us in a position that kept us from being able to respond to constant references to us and misrepresentations of our position.

Then you say:

“As to the issue of we, you defend your right to use it.”

And you are wasting your breath to even think we will cease from using it.

Then you say:

“ You asked if there was any way to write with impersonal character.”

WE asked no such thing.

Then you say:

“ Yes there is, do not use a pronoun at all, unless refering to others.”

And you can also, according to the dictionary use the word “we” to accomplish the same purpose. We have proven this and we have argued about it to the point that you must be insane to even bring it up again. Are you just plain stupid?

Then you say:

“ Instead of we think. You can say, it is thought.”

Yes, and instead of “it is thought” we can say, “we think” and accomplish the same purpose. And, Brother it is our choice of how we will do it and we chose the latter. And it is none of your business which one we choose, now is it? You do not have to like it, and we could care less if you do or not. But we have chosen our way and we have n0t heard from you or anyone else any god reason why we should do otherwise. So, you are not going to win this battle, Brother. For it is within our power what we will chose to do about this matter. You can whine about it all you want but we have made our decision about it. If you had not made such a big deal of it the whole matter would have easily resolved itself. But we will use the word we as often as possible now just to assert our right to do so.

Then you say:

“You said there is not one reason other than personal preference that we should not be used.”

And we were right about it.

Then you say:

“I asked you not to use we for 1 - a reason of clarity”

WE are quite clear when we use it and only a complete idiot would have trouble understanding us, especially after we have explained ourselves so many times.

Then you say:

“and 2 - a reason of easily understanding to whom we are speaking. Now though point 2 is weak, point one that I make is strong in my own estimation.”

But you see it is not your estimation that counts, now is it? It is our decision what we will choose to do. So, if you are going to convince us you must give us reasons that are strong in OUR estimation. For this is really none of your business, now is it? And all of those reasons are based upon your own preferences. You prefer it because you think it is less than clear. But we do not agree with your preference. You prefer it because in your estimation it would help make it easier for you to understand us. That is your personal opinion and preference. There is no proof that anyone has actually misunderstood a single thing we have said because of our use of this word, including you.

Then you say:

“ So I have answered your challenge, here are reasons besides personal preference to ask you to write either in 1st person or without pronouns at all.”

We did not “challenge you about this matter. We simply asked you to give us good reasons other than personal preference. You have failed miserably to do that, now haven’t you? You can try again if you like but we are going to use this word as often as we like in the future.

Then you say:

“So, I ask you, can you be civil in that one, in responding with comments that do not deal with the thread you are in please write them here”

Brother we are always as civil as you are for we are responding to the things you say. And your pretense to civility is sickening. Hypocrisy is always sickening. And if you have something to say about us you bring it to us in this thread and we will respond in this thread. But if you direct any comments to us in any other thread we will respond to you in that thread whether you like it or not. And that is being civil.

Then you say:

“ and two, if you have information to contribute, please do so in the appropriate thread.”

We have always contributed appropriately in every thread that we have contributed to you feeble opinion notwithstanding. We will write what we want, when we want in any thread that we want until there are some guidelines upon which we all agree to follow. And we know that you are against any formal debate because you like to falsely accuse us of things. But if you would agree to a formal debate, and keep your agreement, we could have a decent constructive discussion. But you would not be allowed to do the stupid things you have been doing in other threads. Like the one where you claimed that Kevin Walker was the same person as E. Lee Saffold. And that E. Lee Saffold was only pretending to be Kevin Walker so that he could argue with you on the one hand while pretending to be someone he was not and insisting upon a debate on the other hand. Now you knew that was not the truth, Brother. It was a deliberate lie. And then you hypocritically come and write a thread asking us to place our comments here and stay out of those places where you deliberately misrepresent us, and lie about us. You old hypocrite you should repent but you will not because you care nothing about righteousness. But God in heaven is watching you and he will judge you for your evil deeds. You should be ashamed but you will wipe your mouth and say, “I have done no wrong”. But God is the one who will judge you. So, take you lies which you will not repent of telling and put them with you deceptive and false apology and keep it with you and show it to God at the Judgement. And you will find on that day that all will be open before him with whom we have to do. And this lie you have told and refused to repent of having told will still be there. It is not going to go away until you sincerely repent. And we will not accept you pathetically hypocritical apology so as to leave you with the impression that you sins have been forgiven while you continue to commit them. No, this is not acceptable to us in the least bit.

And if you want us to stay out of a thread all you need do is two things. At the beginning of the thread ask to not be involved in the discussion. And two do not refer to us in any way whatsoever while writing in that thread. For if you do not do those two things we will come in any time we like to say whatever we like in what ever way we like. And there is just nothing you can do about it, you pathetic hypocrite.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

Thank you.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

There you go Bill. It's useless.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

We can't see that the Lord won't forgive us because we won't forgive others. We can't also see that Jesus would call us a hypocrite because we make mention of the speck in our brothers eye and ignore the log in our own. We cannot see that we are not very Christian in our treatment of others that may have a different point of view to our own. We can't see that our pride is offensive to the Lord can we?

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

I am shocked!! How can one call a person a "pathetic hypocrite" and a "Brother in Christ" all at the same time? That was appalling!!!! Those kind of comments should be kept to oneself. If you need to lambast someone, for goodness sake, e-mail that individual! Maybe we should consider Jesus' words in Matthew 5:22 Perhaps we can behave like we are filled with Gods love!! Correcion is one thing, but I do not believe that when we are told to correct a brother, that we should do it in such a harsh, unkind way. No, I believe we are told to be gentle with one another! When one makes such harsh, cruel sounding statements, one should take into consideration that many others are reading, not just the intended target.

There! I've said my piece, not that it matters. But now I feel better! Let's keep it clean.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Danny,

Are you saying that we should NEVER use the word 'hypocrite' about a person? Is it a taboo word?

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Brother Danny:

You have said:

“Lee.....this statement by you shocked me....."you pathetic hypocrite."”

WE cannot imagine why this would shock you Brother Danny. You have even used the term yourself a few times in this forum over the past two years.

Then you asked:

“Lee....have you ever considered the fact, that in the N.T.....Jesus is the only one who ever referred to anyone as a hypocrite???? None of the inspired apostles ever used the word. Only Jesus Himself.”

No, I have not considered that and now that you mention it I find it to be a useless argument. For Jesus spoke the truth and so did I. Brother Umstetter was being very hypocritical and we have called him a hypocrite for doing so. Jesus himself being our example that we should follow.

And we have, while considering your words found that you are not exactly correct in what you say. For the apostle Paul also called some people hypocrites as follows:

“Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;” (1 Tim. 4:2). Now how could Paul say that in the latter times men would speak lies in hypocrisy without calling them hypocrites? And he was referring to just such men as Brother Umstetter who lied about us when he falsely accused E. Lee Saffold of pretending to be Kevin Walker. And we asked you to do something about it since you were a moderator in this forum and you did NOTHING. And then he came in playing the hypocrite by pretending to be apologetic and respectful when in truth he was quite the opposite. For he had not apologized specifically for what he had done. Now, we justly called this man a hypocrite and maintain still that he is in fact just that.

But the word of God has much condemnation of hypocrites and not all of it comes from Jesus Christ alone.

“Upright [men] shall be astonied at this, and the innocent shall stir up himself against the hypocrite.” (Job 17:18).

“That the triumphing of the wicked [is] short, and the joy of the hypocrite [but] for a moment?” (Job 20:5).

“For what [is] the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul?” (Job 27:8).

“That the hypocrite reign not, lest the people be ensnared.” (Job 34:40).

“An hypocrite with [his] mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.” (Ps. 11:9).

“Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one [is] an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand [is] stretched out still.” (Isa. 9:17).

“Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.” (Matt. 7:5).

“Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.” (Luke 6:42)

“The Lord then answered him, and said, [Thou] hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or [his] ass from the stall, and lead [him] away to watering?” (Luke 13:15).

And Peter said:

“For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:” (1 Peter 2:21).

Then you say:

“When one does a study of the original meaning of the word "hypocrite".....it becomes clear why only Jesus would consider Himself qualified to use the term.”

Well, we have already shown that Jesus was not the only one to charge anyone with hypocrisy. So, your argument falls flat on its face, now doesn’t it?

Then you say:

“The word in the Greek....actually has theatrical origins. In N.T. times...(and previous)....most actors had to play two parts...therefore....they would have two masks handily available to be able to switch between parts. This was a perfect word for Jesus to use against the Pharisees of his day (which by the way were the only one he ever directed that term towards). On the outside they gave the appearance of deeply religious and pious individuals.....but on the inside (when the switched masks)......they were dead as a tomb. But....only Jesus had the ability to look on the inside.”

And this is exactly what Brother Umstetter has done and since this is true then even Jesus Christ would call him a hypocrite, wouldn’t he?

Then you say:

“If I were you.....I would really reconsider my use of that term....unless you feel yourself above the apostles....and equal to Jesus in the use of the term.”

You are not E. Lee Saffold, now are you? And we have reconsidered our use of the term in reference to Brother Umstetter and have determined that I have correctly called him a hypocrite but not because I believe that I am above the apostles or equal to Christ rather because it is a simple fact. It happens to be the truth whether you like hearing it or not. And one is not necessarily attempting to be equal with Christ or above the apostles in using this word because Christ and the apostles are not the only one’s who used this word in the word of God. And even if they were following their example is exactly what we should do. And following their example does not make us “equal to them” nor above them. It means that we are following their lead. This is what we are doing. It is right and we will not refrain from doing that which is right.

Then you say:

“Another reason you need to reconsider the term....is I'm not going to allow it anymore.”

Well, since you are a moderator in this forum you have the power to do just that and you are welcome to do whatever you think you must in the discharging of your duties. But you will be busy deleting our words because we will use them anytime that we so deem them to be true and right. But, we remind you also that there are no rules in this forum, which forbids us from using the term hypocrite. And we would expect that you would be consistent and delete any messages written by anyone who uses this term. But it sounds as if you are applying this rule only to E. Lee Saffold and no one else. But you can do whatever you like about it. You have this power. But we will keep you very busy deleting our post for we will not refrain from the use of this term just because you do not like it. So, stay alert Brother Danny. The next time someone is a hypocritical as Brother Umstetter has shown himself to be in this forum we will call him a hypocrite and you will have to delete our post. But we will exercise our right to freedom of speech and you exercise you power to delete our speech. That is the way it will be, like it or not.

Then you say:

“I'll allow this one to slide......but I cannot allow you to continue to use that term anymore.”

You cannot stop us from using it, now can you. All you can do is delete our post when we use it. And we say get you hand on the delete button and get busy. For we did not fight in all of the wars we have fought in to come home and have anyone limit our freedom of speech or dictate to us what we shall say and when we shall say it. But we are aware that you have the right to delete our post. And you will have that job to do because we have the right to choose our own words and we will chose them and speak them and you can censor them as you so desire.

Then you say:

“ Future uses of it....will be deleted.....as well as your entire post.”

Well, get busy deleting, for you will assuredly have some deleting to do. And we have little concern that our post will be deleted. WE will probably just post it again so you can delete it again and we will post it again so you can delete it again and again and again. So, enjoy yourself for we shall keep you very busy deleting our post. WE are sure that you would take great pleasure in doing so. But we will chose our words. WE will not allow you or anyone else to dictate ONLY to us what words we can and cannot use especially when there are no rules or guidelines in this forum which restrict all who post in this forum from using any specific words. So, far we are the only one’s that anyone wants to restrict what words we use. In fact, we cannot even use the simple word “we” without others trying to take away our freedom and right to say it. So, get busy and delete all you want but you will have some massive deleting to do, we will see to that.

Then you say:

“I expected better from you.”

WE have no concern about your “expectations” of us. We are speaking the truth and care only about God’s expectation of us and we are following the example of his Son Jesus Christ who called hypocrites when they were being hypocritical. And we will do the same whether such disappoints any of your personal “expectations of us or not. That is the way it will be and deleting our threads will just be what you must do. Neither of us can do anything about what the other is doing now can we?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Danny -- you might have hit it right on the head with:

"The only sense in which you have the right to determine whether or not someone is a hypocrite is if you have the gift of discernment...which you certainly do not."

My question, and it is an honest one, is if Lee believes he has some sort of gift along the line of discernment. On numerous occasions he has shown this "ability" by knowing more about what a person posted than they said in their original post. Knowing I (and maybe others) were cussing when we weren't ... knowing that I and Bill (and maybe others) are hypocrites when we apologized to him about past posts when in fact we were being truthful in our apology ... it goes on and on.

I don't believe Lee thinks he has any supernatural gifts ... it APPEARS from his past posts that he doesn't believe the Holy Spirit works in that way today. (IN fact, he MIGHT NOT even believe that the Holy Spirit indwells believers in our day and time ... hence one of the reasons the charge was leveled that he may be cultic). But he DOES seem to be able to know more about a person than he possibly could. I know that is the case with his many diatribes againt me.

As Steven correctly posted above, it is very hard to expect forgivenes from Christ when we won't forgive one another ... especially someone we believe to be a brother or sister in Christ who has asked for foregiveness.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

It was funny.... come up with a valid email address so the rest of the forum is not denied your wit.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

The reason it is impossible to have a meaningful dialogue with E. Lee is vividly demonstrated by his response to Danny's request to no longer call people "hypocrites".

E. Lee's response:

Well, get busy deleting, for you will assuredly have some deleting to do. And we have little concern that our post will be deleted. WE will probably just post it again so you can delete it again and we will post it again so you can delete it again and again and again. So, enjoy yourself for we shall keep you very busy deleting our post. WE are sure that you would take great pleasure in doing so. But we will chose our words. WE will not allow you or anyone else to dictate ONLY to us what words we can and cannot use especially when there are no rules or guidelines in this forum which restrict all who post in this forum from using any specific words. So, far we are the only one’s that anyone wants to restrict what words we use. In fact, we cannot even use the simple word “we” without others trying to take away our freedom and right to say it. So, get busy and delete all you want but you will have some massive deleting to do, we will see to that.

I am more than willing to dialogue with those of different views and do frequently. But how can we possibly take someone seriously who takes this childish attitude? While I disagree with Kevin strongly on the instrument issue, he is a much closer representative to those who hold the "anti" view than is E. Lee.

E. Lee, would you consider, for even a moment, that you could have an unChristlike attitude when it comes to dealing with those who differ with you? I will admit that I have been childish in some of my posts to you and apologize for it. Can you do the same to Bill, Danny, etc....? If you would just admit your sin I'm sure that all here would be more than willing to forgive you.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

The post could be translated ... nanny, nanny, boo boo! Yes, it was childish, but what is to be expected?

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Danny,

The word 'hypocrite' is defined as: "A person given to hypocrisy".

Hypocrisy is: "The feigning of beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; insincerity"

Your example is as follows: "It is valid to use the term when referring to someones arguments. For instance....if an individual would say...."I believe in protecting life"....and yet they take an openly pro-abortion stance.....their position is hyprocritical.

However, they are not hypocrites.....because they are not trying to fool anybody. They have stated both positions....but the positions are hypocritical....i.e., inconsistent.

Again I state.....the ONLY WAY.....you can know a true hyprocrite is to know their heart....which myself....you...or anybody else does not know. "

They are hypocrites... by definition. They are people "given to hypocrisy". They are "feigning a belief" that they do not hold... as shown by their actions.

You CAN KNOW a hypocrite... if they are "given to hypocrisy".

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Brother Danny:

You have rightly demanded that we prove our assertion that you had used the term “hypocrite” in the past in this forum as follows:

“E. Lee....I lay out the challenge for the second time. You accused me, in your words, of using the word hypocrite in the past two years on the forum. Your exact words were...."You have even used the term yourself a few times in this forum over the past two years." The challenge again is....show us!!”

Brother Danny we apologize to you. You are right. We thought that we had read such from you in the past but after searching the archives for a while we were unable to find where you have ever said any such thing. Please forgive our error for we were indeed mistaken.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

Brother Danny:

"Thanks Lee. I would like to assure you of this....had you found a place where I did use the word directed at someone....I would have e- mailed them immediately and apologized. For me personally....it is a word I am uncomfortable using."

You are welcome. We were wrong to leave the impression that you use this word based upon a vague and cloudy memory before checking the facts in the archieves first. ANd we appreciate your accepting our sincere apology.

We also are convinced after knowing you for so long in this forum that you most certainly would have apologized to anyone if you had used the word in reference to them.

ANd we know that you are uncomfortable with the use of this word. ANd we are not uncomfortable with using it. And though we understand your reasons for objecting to it we do not agree with them. ANd we do not believe that we are under any requirement to refrain from somthing simply because you are personally uncomfortable with it. The truth however is that we do have not often called anyone a hypocrite. FOr we would not do so unless we could show evidence of the hypocrisy that would, in our judgement, justify calling them such. But, we are still convinced that we were justified in refering to Brother Umstetter in this way and will not, because we are convinced that we were right to do it, withdraw the accusation or apologise for it.

WE know that you would prefer otherwise and we understand your reasons. But we must be true to what we believe is right about this matter. ANd we are sincerely convinced that we have the right and that we were in fact right to call him a hypocrite for what we are convinced is a clear case of hypocrisy on his part.

WE hope that though you do not agree with us on this matter that you will at least understand why we are not retracting anything other than our incorrect assertion that you had used this word in the past. We were surely wrong about that and we sincerely apologize for saying that which was not true about you. WE thought that it was true when we said it. But we should have checked the facts to substantiate it first before saying it. We did not do that and therefore rightly owe you the apology.

Now, Brother Umstetter has falsely accused us of having pretended to be kevin Walker and that the two of us are in reallity the same person. He has not apologized for that delieberate deception. You know, as well as everyone else that such is not the truth. We have asked you as a moderator in this forum to correct that situation by clarifying for us that we are in fact two seperate individuals and that Brother Umstetter was flat worng about that accusation and that it was in fact false.

But you have shown no desire to cloarify this matter for our readers and were surprized that we should consider him a hypocrite for pretending to be apologetic to us while failing to admit for his part that he is worng in his false accuations in this regard and clearing up the matter himself. Now we know that you are uncomfortable with the use of the word hypocrite. ANd we also know that you are uncomfortable with false accusations. SO, why do you come out against one while saying nothing of the other?

WE hope that someone who is a moderator will make some effort to correct this false accusation and call upon Brother Umstetter to apologize for it.

Until he apologizes for this false accusation we will continue to consider him to be hypocritical in his apologies that do not specify exactly what he did that was wrong for which he pretends to seek forgiveness.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

The e-mail is real....have you gotten any bounced that says my addy is undeliverable? I thought not.

I have over 350 posts to this forum in my "inbox" to prove it....I was signed up without my knowledge to be notified instantly of all posts to this forum.....at first I was urrked, then I realized that I was getting the full picture, every post.....I now have a chance to see what is deleted and just how arbitrary the policie is on what stays and what goes.....

It makes interesting reading.

The reason for not using my real name on the internet has already been discussed....ID theft is not something you want to go thru.

Call me Joe if you must.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

Alright....who turned off my notification without my permission.....has your censorship policy gone so far as to try and keep others from even reading your silly forum?

Wow.....

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

E. Lee;

you said "ANd we appreciate your accepting our sincere apology."

Are you aware that you seem to be showing yourself to to be what Danny described, wearing two faces. Is it ok for YOU to apologize but not for me and darrell to apologize? So are you saying that your heart is the only one pure enough to give an apology? Are you saying if anybody insults you, in jest, half in jest or totally serious, you are unable or unwilling to be the Christian that God calls you to make peace and receive it?

I have seen in you only the desire to make war or perpetuate war. What I mean is that you have rarely if only once, in the past 3 months tried to make peace, and in no way have you tried to be conciliatory with darrell or me and we did apologize to you.

You have a right as an individual to your own opinions but you have a responsibility as a Christian to submit to others - Eph 5:21. No where in your writings have you even attempted to submit. No where have you tried to make things right. You have totally insisted on your way. I thought it interesting when Danny asserted that he had never called another person a hypocrite. You even admitted you could not take him at his word, by admitting to research to prove him wrong. How ungodly!

You also said: "ANd we do not believe that we are under any requirement to refrain from somthing simply because you are personally uncomfortable with it."

I view this as one of your standard and favorite replies. It says I dont care what anybody thinks, I will do what I want. IT shows no decorum or class. A Christian is concerned about those around him or her, and will not purposely use statements that will make others feel uncomfortable. We are supposed to be part of the family of God. Or do you regularly put your family at odds, making them feel uncomfortable and cow tow to you? Think about it Lee, where is Christ evident in your writings and in your character when you are stubborn and steadfast about your opinions such as quoted above.

You also state:

"WE know that you would prefer otherwise and we understand your reasons. But we must be true to what we believe is right about this matter. ANd we are sincerely convinced that we have the right and that we were in fact right to call him a hypocrite for what we are convinced is a clear case of hypocrisy on his part."

I got angry and ridiculed you. I apologized. You got angry and put me down, and put me down and put me down. There is no apology forthcoming from you. I have never called you a hypocrite. So I question you again about your character and if Christ is truly in your heart. And Lee, you have much to apologize to me about besides calling me a hypocrite if you have any christ like character about you.

You also said: "He has not apologized for that delieberate deception."

For the record again. Mr. Saffold are you listening????

I acknowledge that in anger, I sarcastically refered to you as Kevin as one person. I was wrong. I apologize. IT was not christlike character and for this I have repented. I thank God for his grace to have forgiven me and as the psalmist wrote, he has taken my sin as far as the east is from the west.

Mr. Saffold, I cannot make a more serious attempt to make a bridge to you. I again appeal to you as a Christian compare what you write, to what Christ would have you write. ASk yourself when you put somebody down or when you refuse to go along with a brother's request, are you being stubborn or antagonistic or is your behavior consistent with Christ and submiting to your brothers or sisters?

Bill Umstetter

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

Joe, the email alert snafu was neither intentional nor selective. It happened to all. Sorry for the confusion. If you want to use another name that's fine, and as you already know, you can set up a separate email address for Forum alerts, as long as it is valid. By the way, how were you signed up without your knowledge?

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

Lee -- I once again ask for your forgiveness. Maybe I jest too much, maybe not. But when I asked everyone to forgive me for past posts, you were certainly included.

Danny made an interesting observation that if you truly consider me your brother in Christ, then why won't you forgive me when asked to be forgiven?

I hope we can all move on from all of this. Will you help, please?

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

E. Lee,

I believe Bill’s apology was given in all sincerity, and I do not think that he was being a hypocrite in the giving of it. I also think you were too harsh with him, and you KNOW that I usually do not have objections in certain circumstances to using harsh language. And now he has asked specifically for forgiveness for what he said.

Having said that I do not believe that hypocrite is a word that we should not use. I had a discussion recently on this matter, and am not convinced by Danny’s arguments, also mentioned that we are to emulate Christ. I am trying to think of any other “word” Christ uses that we shouldn’t use.

Danny,

The word idiot comes to mind do we see Christ even using that word at all? Yet you have used it against Connie.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

Barry,

You say: “I am more than willing to dialogue with those of different views and do frequently. But how can we possibly take someone seriously who takes this childish attitude?”

How can we possibly take someone seriously who takes this childish attitude? Have you looked into the mirror lately?? Or have you read any of your posts lately? I believe it was you that went way overboard concerning the E. Wee, D. Wee stuff. Talk about childishness, yet for the very thing you do - you accuse another of doing and say you can’t take them seriously because of it. Get a grip and think about it!!

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

Barry,

It is my turn to apologize.

I overlooked these following words of yours that you had said earlier…

“I will admit that I have been childish in some of my posts to you and apologize for it.”

I am glad to see that you realized you were being childish.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

D. Lee doesn't pull any punches! Go Henry!

For the record, here is what Bill said about Kevin and E. Lee "possibly" being the same: "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."

There you have it. He said either/or.

Where is Kevin lately anyway?

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

Benjamin, I am still here. Just back to my lurking mode that's all. :)

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

Bill,

You said to E. Lee: “I thought it interesting when Danny asserted that he had never called another person a hypocrite. You even admitted you could not take him at his word, by admitting to research to prove him wrong. How ungodly!”

I don’t think it was “ungodly” at all and for this reason…Danny challenged E. Lee twice to “show us” his “using the word hypocrite in the past two years on the forum.”

Here is Danny’s post concerning the matter…

“E. Lee....I lay out the challenge for the second time. You accused me, in your words, of using the word hypocrite in the past two years on the forum. Your exact words were...."You have even used the term yourself a few times in this forum over the past two years." The challenge again is....show us!!”

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), December 11, 2001.

E. Lee thought Danny had called another a hypocrite, Danny challenged him to prove he had. E. Lee went back in to the archives to try to substantiate the claim he had made. E. Lee found out that he was wrong and came back in to apologize to Danny.

You quote E. Lee as saying: "ANd we do not believe that we are under any requirement to refrain from somthing simply because you are personally uncomfortable with it."

I agree with E. Lee here. There are times when we should not refrain from something simply because someone else is personally uncomfortable with it. Use of the word hypocrite I do not believe is wrong.

I DO BELIEVE that E. Lee was wrong in his estimation of your apology. Big brother, I do not believe you were being a hypocrite about it at all. I don’t believe that you would offer an apology that was not sincere, and I thank you for it.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

Benjamin,

You said: “D. Lee doesn't pull any punches! Go Henry!”

May I ask where you got the name Henry?

Thanks,

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

Benjamin,

You also said: “D. Lee doesn't pull any punches!”

Is that a good thing??

I am taking it as a compliment.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

Brethren:

Brother Bill Umstetter has apologized for things he has said to us and for leaving the false impression that E. Lee Saffold was masquerading as Kevin Walker. WE accept that his apology is sincere this time and therefore we accept his apology and forgive him for this sin against us. And we are sure that God has already forgiven him but we pray nonetheless that such will indeed be the case.

Also, Brother Darrel has offered and apology to us and we accept it as well and pray for him that God will forgive him for what he has done toward us.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Not to worry Lee ... I asked God to forgive me of all that when I made the original post asking for your forgiveness ... and it was taken care of then! God forgives us when we ask, and that, my friend, is a great thing.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Darrell, how many people did you offend? How many people accepted your apology in the last post? How many people did you just respond to?

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Thought I remember seeing "Henry Muse" somewhere... sorry... and yes, it was a compliment...pull no punches!

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

"Darrell, how many people did you offend?" I don't know.

"How many people accepted your apology in the last post?" Two, as I recall ... Scott and Kevin.

"How many people did you just respond to?" One, I believe.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Darrell:

You have said:

“Not to worry Lee ... I asked God to forgive me of all that when I made the original post asking for your forgiveness ... and it was taken care of then!”

That is good and we are not sure that you could prove that he forgave you then. But if he did that is good and we are pleased to know it. But, if you were satisfied with his forgiveness why did you say the following:

“Lee -- I once again ask for your forgiveness. Maybe I jest too much, maybe not. But when I asked everyone to forgive me for past posts, you were certainly included. Danny made an interesting observation that if you truly consider me your brother in Christ, then why won't you forgive me when asked to be forgiven? I hope we can all move on from all of this. Will you help, please?”

Then after I accept your apology you return to say that you in essence did not need our apology in the first place. This is a strong indication that you were not sincere in seeking our forgiveness. If you do not need or want my forgiveness then it is evident that you were merely being pretentious in the first place about it. Therefore I have no recourse but to retract my acceptance of your apology.

But we thought you were sincere and it appears that you were doing nothing more than setting us up so that you could criticize our acceptance of your apology. SO, we hereby reject your insincere apology and there is no need to ask for us to accept any apologies from you in the future until you can learn to repent sincerely and apologize sincerely instead of using your apologies as a ploy in a discussion thread.

Then you say:

“God forgives us when we ask, and that, my friend, is a great thing.”

No, my friend, God forgives us when we REPENT and then ask him to forgive us. He does not forgive us simply because we ask him. It is the repentance part that you have left out of the equation. And those who do that will not be forgiven until they repent. You have not repented and therefore we doubt very seriously if you can depend upon your own imagination that you have been forgiven by God.

So, your apology is now no longer acceptable to us because you have shown that you were not in the least bit sincere in offering it.

Such stupidity in the name of Christ is a shame and we will not play these games with you.

You apology is worthless not only to us but to God as well. WE recommend that you learn how to repent and apology for it is evident that you know nothing of either.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Lee -- "Then after I accept your apology you return to say that you in essence did not need our apology in the first place." Never said such a thing ... never meant such a thing ... and I am sorry that you read it that way.

"If you do not need or want my forgiveness then it is evident that you were merely being pretentious in the first place about it. Therefore I have no recourse but to retract my acceptance of your apology." How you can read into what I was saying in this way is beyond me. I asked for your forgiveness with a sincere heart before God. I asked for it because I needed your forgiveness as a brother in Christ. I only mentioned that God had already forgiven me becuase you prayed that God would also forgive me ... which I only stated that He had done because I asked him too. Yes, it was with repentance that I asked Him ... even if I didn't mention that in my post. I certainly udnerstand that repentance is needed, and I assumed you or anyone else would know that I would repent before I asked God to forgive me. I'm sorry for making such an assumption.

"You have not repented and therefore we doubt very seriously if you can depend upon your own imagination that you have been forgiven by God." Again I ask, how can you possibly know if I have repented or not? Your ability to know more about me than I apparently know about myself borders on the miraculous.

"You [sic] apology is worthless not only to us but to God as well ..." So now you speak for God?

"Your Brother in Christ ..." Lee, please refrain from calling me a brother in Christ. Since you refuse to accept my apology (who is really playing the games here?) then you must not accept me as your brother. As Danny so aptly mentioned before, that is biblical.

Folks ... maybe there are others who don't mind reading these posts by Lee, and maybe you can see some possible reason for continuing to post back and forth with him, but I no longer do. It is useless, and I will no longer respond to his posts.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Mark W.,

Danny has written, "Third....if you check the archives...you will see Mark Wisniewski gave a wonderful English lexiconal lesson on the use of the word....and pointed out....my assessment was right on the money. " Since I would have no idea of where to look in the archive (or was it just recent and I missed it?), can you possibly post this "wonderful English lexiconal lesson" here? As you can probably tell from reading above, I agree with D. Lee Muse on this one... I think you can tell a hypocrite when their actions show that their stated beliefs or feelings are insincere.

Thanks!

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

E. Lee;

You have said: So, your apology is now no longer acceptable to us because you have shown that you were not in the least bit sincere in offering it.

Such stupidity in the name of Christ is a shame and we will not play these games with you.

I say:

This why I, and so many others, have trouble with you. Everything is on your terms. Darrell was saying he apologized but was acknowledging God's superior forgiveness and you insinuate that he is playing a game and you retract your acceptance.

It is you who needs to apologize. In the past three months, you have been the center of most all the controversy. (Notice I said center and not that you are all of the controversy.) You are unwilling to apologize, it takes out side email to influnce you to accept the apologies posted. Where is proof (since you like that term) of your Christ like spirit. I call you to give a demonstration of the love of christ. IF you can not demonstrate a true demonstration with the many words you love to write, then it can be said Christ does not dwell in you.

And like Darrell it makes me ill to see you call me your brother in Christ, when I have seen no demonstration of it. Where is the brotherly love?

Again, I call you to apologize and show fruits that you are indeed indwelt with the love of Christ. (And please do not equate the judgement of Christ with the love of Christ.) Show us you can make peace in the name of the prince of peace and not pieces.

Bill Umstetter

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Danny,

Were you referring to my post when you wrote, "Gee.....my integrity called into question again?? Yawn!! "??? If so, you surely misread what I wrote (although I don't see how)!!! I never doubted that the "wonderful English lexiconal lesson" as you referred to it was there... I just wasn't sure where to look and asked for help in finding Mark's input. Relax!! Now, I'll go read it and see what I can learn....

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Danny,

From the original context, I thought you meant that Mark had written a "wonderful English lexiconal lesson" on the work 'hypocrite'... I see now that you were referring to the word 'idiot'.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Benjamin,

You said: “Thought I remember seeing "Henry Muse" somewhere... sorry... and yes, it was a compliment...pull no punches!”

You may have, but I think that I have only mentioned it once on this forum in a military related thread, and it has not been on another forum (unless it is another Henry Muse).

Henry is my husband but he does not go to online forums to post, which is why I asked where you saw the name.

Thanks,

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Danny,

You say: “First....was the word even in the vernacular of that day??

No but hypocrite was.

Then: “Second....Connie was an idiot. I did not need the spirit of discernment with the ability to know her heart for that one. Remember....Jesus used the word "hypocrite" because He had the ability to see on the inside. There are some people on this forum who seem to claim the same ability....and when you use the word...you are claiming it for yourself.”

Yes, Jesus had the ability to see on the inside, but calling one a hypocrite does not mean people are claiming the ability to see on the inside. IT IS SEEING one say one thing then do another, or do a thing while saying another, this does not take seeing precisely into a persons heart. And no I am not claiming for myself the ability to do that when I use the word hypocrite.

Then: “Third....if you check the archives...you will see Mark Wisniewski gave a wonderful English lexiconal lesson on the use of the word....and pointed out....my assessment was right on the money.”

I agree with what Mark said, I was wondering why you would choose to use an unscriptural word yet have so much objection to one that is in the word.

You say: “Equating the words "hyprocrite" and "idiot"....is like equating...."baptism" and "sprinking".....two completely different things.”

I say, absolutely NOT in fact not even close, but could you please explain a little further so I can make sure I am understanding you correctly?

Thanks,

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

That is not me, it is still you Robin can you stop them?

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

By the way, how were you signed up without your knowledge?

Apparently, you just type an e-mail address in the little box or click the "re-enable" link.

Someone turned my notice off again...Phil should make a password system for notifications.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

Brother Darrel:

You have said:

“Lee, please refrain from calling me a brother in Christ.”

Well, now why would I do something like that? The truth is that you are my brother in Christ because you are in Christ Jesus. You are a part of his precious family. And until you leave the body of Christ and become something other than a Christian you will be my brother in Christ. My refusal to accept an insincere apology from you is no good reason for me to disown you as a brother in Christ as you ask me to do. I admit that there is a time to not have fellowship with those who are not faithful. But this is not for persons like such as you who are merely misguided and making foolish mistakes. I stand ready at all times to accept your sincere apologies and to forgive you as my brother in Christ. But as a brother in Christ I cannot accept an apology that was not in the least bit sincere. And forgiveness comes after genuine repentance and not before it. SO, if you sincerely wish to be reconciled with your brothers then sincerely seek it and you will readily find it.

Then you say:

“ Since you refuse to accept my apology (who is really playing the games here?) Then you must not accept me as your brother.”

Now I do refuse to accept your insincere apology and I am not playing any game about it. I am very seriously refusing to accept an insincere apology from you as I would from any person that offered such to me. But the idea that my refusal to accept your apology makes you automatically no longer my brother in Christ while you remain in Christ is just plain ignorant, isn’t it? You argument is stated this way:

Major premise: Any person who has his apologies rejected by a brother in Christ has become immediately ejected from the body of Christ is no longer a member of the family of God and cannot be a brother or sister to those who are Christians.

Minor Premise: E. Lee Saffold did not accept Darrel Comb’s apology

Conclusion: Therefore Darrel Combs is an outcast from the body of Christ and is no longer a member of the family of God hence he is no longer a brother in Christ.

Now I do not accept your major premise as being in the least bit true. You minor premise is true but because you major premise is false you conclusion is erroneous. Therefore we will not cease for any reason, other than your complete apostasy from the “faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), calling you our Brother in Christ. Because we firmly believe that even though you have not sincerely apologized to us and we have not accepted your apology that you are still our Brother in Christ and we stand ready to forgive when you sincerely repent and apologize.

Then you say:

“ As Danny so aptly mentioned before, that is biblical.”

Danny never said it was “biblical” that one is not lo0nger your brother when he offends you and does not apologize to you sincerely. Neither did he ever say that one is not your brother if you do not accept his insincere apologies. And if he did say such a thing he would be pathetically wrong. And it has been our experience in this forum with Brother Danny that he is rarely wrong.

Then you say:

“Folks ... maybe there are others who don't mind reading these posts by Lee, and maybe you can see some possible reason for continuing to post back and forth with him, but I no longer do. It is useless, and I will no longer respond to his posts.”

Well, you have said this so many times now that we are just about to think the same of them as we do of your apologies. You have often said you will not respond to us any more but you keep responding. Just as you often say you are sorry to us but you keep doing the same things that you apologize for having done. You just cannot seem to keep your word, now can you?

Now, it is your right to not ever respond to us again or even read what we write. And it is within your right to never give a sincere apology and repent of the things you have done against us. But do not pretend that you are apologizing and do not pretend that you are ignoring us while your actions show that you are not doing either. This is proof, not of mere inconsistency but rather simply hypocrisy. For this pretense is a lie. And lying is not a right thing for any Christian to do.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2001

E. Lee, you have said to Darrell: "you are in Christ Jesus. You are a part of his precious family. And until you leave the body of Christ and become something other than a Christian you will be my brother in Christ."

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that if a person is in Christ and his physical life is suddenly taken, he will go to heaven?

If so, and if you believe that Darrell is indeed in Christ (and therefore, correctly, your Christian brother), then do you not conclude that Darrell's use of instruments in worship is not going to prevent his entrance (should he suddenly croak this instant) into heaven?

And if you do agree with that, could it also be that when Darrell gets to heaven, and gets to have direct access to Jesus, and he asks Jesus "who was right" about the authorization issue, that Jesus might say "E. Lee was right, Darrell, I did not authorize it, etc...but your faith in Me and your faith in the power of My blood which was shed has covered you on that..."

Or might it even be that Jesus might say to Darrell, "You were right Darrell, I did not specifically prohibit everything that was not generally authorized" and E. Lee was in error. But E. Lee's faith in Me and his faith in the power of My blood which was shed has covered him on that..."

Could it be?

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2001

Duane,

You said: "Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that if a person is in Christ and his physical life is suddenly taken, he will go to heaven?

If so, and if you believe that Darrell is indeed in Christ (and therefore, correctly, your Christian brother), then do you not conclude that Darrell's use of instruments in worship is not going to prevent his entrance (should he suddenly croak this instant) into heaven?"

Well now, haven't we been over this ground in another thread BROTHER Duane haven't we? This is the same type of question you tried (unsuccessfully I might add) to get me to say that you or Darrell couldn't be my brother in Christ now wasn't it? Is your motto, if at first you don't succeed, try again in another thread?

How many times is this same issue going to come up?

I don't know how many times you have to be told, just because a (your) brother in Christ sins, doesn't mean that he is NOT your brother in Christ.

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

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2001

Thank you for your answer, Kevin, but you will notice that I asked it of E. Lee. So your responses in the past to my question have no bearing whatsoever on the question I posed to E. Lee. E. Lee does not claim to speak for you, and I don't think he needs you to speak for him.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2001

Kevin, if Simon the Sorcerer "fell away from Christ" then he was not "in Christ"... and therefore not a proper example... Is it possible that you and E. Lee do not agree on every issue (which is fine) and that E. Lee is closer to me in agreement on this one? Either way, I would like to know his response too.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Duane,

You said: "Thank you for your answer, Kevin, but you will notice that I asked it of E. Lee. So your responses in the past to my question have no bearing whatsoever on the question I posed to E. Lee. E. Lee does not claim to speak for you, and I don't think he needs you to speak for him."

Funny how his original post wasn't even posted to you now was it? It was posted to Darrell, and I suppose I could say the same to you that Darrell does not claim to speak for you, and I don't think Darrell needs you to speak for him now either does he?

Then you said: "Kevin, if Simon the Sorcerer "fell away from Christ" then he was not "in Christ"... and therefore not a proper example...

I say: WRONG!!! Please show me where Simon was not a brother in Christ even though he sinned? Book, Chapter and Verse please.

Then you said: "Is it possible that you and E. Lee do not agree on every issue (which is fine) and that E. Lee is closer to me in agreement on this one? Either way, I would like to know his response too."

That is fine, but don't tell me where I can or can't speak. I am not speaking for E. Lee, and don't pretend too. I am sure that you will have his response, but don't tell me that I can't respond to your question. If you put this restriction on me, then you had better have the same restriction on you or anyone else in this forum.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Kevin, you wrote: "...don't tell me that I can't respond to your question. If you put this restriction on me..." Please show me where I told you that you cannot respond. Please tell me where I put any restrictions upon you. You were the one that said Simon "fell away" from Christ. I was just suggesting that if one "falls away" from Christ, it would seem to follow that he is not "in" Christ. But I am open to other opinions, including yours.

You also pointed out that it was "Darrell" who E. Lee originally addressed. Yes, I know. In fact, my post began with this: "E. Lee, you have said to Darrell: "you are in Christ Jesus".

My only point was that I asked E. Lee a question, and you came along to say, in effect, "Hey, I already covered this... "

Maybe so, but my point is just because YOU have already addressed an issue does not mean that it can not be brought up again, or that I cannot ask someone else what their opinion is...

But I am also interested in your reply... I will re-post it, and would invite ALL the readers to tell me AT WHAT POINT they feel the syllogism breaks down:

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that if a person is in Christ and his physical life is suddenly taken, he will go to heaven?

If so, and if you believe that Darrell is indeed in Christ (and therefore, correctly, your Christian brother), then do you not conclude that Darrell's use of instruments in worship is not going to prevent his entrance (should he suddenly croak this instant) into heaven?

And if you do agree with that, could it also be that when Darrell gets to heaven, and gets to have direct access to Jesus, and he asks Jesus "who was right" about the authorization issue, that Jesus might say "E. Lee was right, Darrell, I did not authorize it, etc...but your faith in Me and your faith in the power of My blood which was shed has covered you on that..."

Or might it even be that Jesus might say to Darrell, "You were right Darrell, I did not specifically prohibit everything that was not generally authorized" and E. Lee was in error. But E. Lee's faith in Me and his faith in the power of My blood which was shed has covered him on that..."

Could it be?

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Duane,

You stated in another thread: "It appears Kevin is saying that you are a "sinning brother" who needs to be corrected, and therefore, it would seem reasonable for him to be concerned, since it must follow that unless you repent, you risk dying with unforgiven, willful sin. It would also then follow that his efforts to convince you of your error might contribute to saving you from the fire. Do I have that correctly, Kevin?"

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

Once again, The Bible says in Romans 6:23; "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Jesus says in Rev 3:19; "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.

So, ANY unrepented sin will cause us to be lost.

Now, Please show me where Simon was not a brother in Christ even though he sinned? Book, Chapter and Verse please.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Kevin, thank you for your response... I now await the responses of others... Again, I did not say Simon the Sorcerer was NOT a brother in Christ.... I only quoted you saying he had "fallen away" from Christ and asked if it were possible to "fall away" from Christ and still be a brother in Christ (No direct answer from you) I also asked you and others to tell me WHERE my syllogism breaks down (no direct answer from you)

You did cut and paste something you wrote in another thread, which I thank you for... and you did ask me a direct question, and it was:

"Please show me where Simon was not a brother in Christ even though he sinned?"

and I will directly answer you: I cannot show you, but I did not say that Simon was not a brother even though he sinned. I only asked you that since he had "fallen away" (as you suggested) could he still be "in Christ?" So you see, I ASKED a question (no direct answer from you)

Meanwhile, I lovingly and longingly ask ANYBODY to tell me where my syllogism breaks down:

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that if a person is in Christ and his physical life is suddenly taken, he will go to heaven?

If so, and if you believe that Darrell is indeed in Christ (and therefore, correctly, your Christian brother), then do you not conclude that Darrell's use of instruments in worship is not going to prevent his entrance (should he suddenly croak this instant) into heaven?

And if you do agree with that, could it also be that when Darrell gets to heaven, and gets to have direct access to Jesus, and he asks Jesus "who was right" about the authorization issue, that Jesus might say "E. Lee was right, Darrell, I did not authorize it, etc...but your faith in Me and your faith in the power of My blood which was shed has covered you on that..."

Or might it even be that Jesus might say to Darrell, "You were right Darrell, I did not specifically prohibit everything that was not generally authorized" and E. Lee was in error. But E. Lee's faith in Me and his faith in the power of My blood which was shed has covered him on that..."

Could it be?

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Duane,

You said: "I only quoted you saying he had "fallen away" from Christ and asked if it were possible to "fall away" from Christ and still be a brother in Christ (No direct answer from you)"

Does this make more sense to you? ANY unrepented sin will cause us to be lost.

Then you said: "I also asked you and others to tell me WHERE my syllogism breaks down (no direct answer from you)"

I can't even pronounce "syllogism" much less tell you what it means. This is the first time I have even heard this word! So, I can't give you a direct answer to that question that you asked.

Then you asked again: "Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that if a person is in Christ and his physical life is suddenly taken, he will go to heaven?"

The Bible says: "…Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life." (Rev 2:10)

If he is "faithful" then Jesus "will give him the crown of life."

If he isn't faithful, The Bible also says: "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries." (Heb 10:26-27)

Then you asked again: "If so, and if you believe that Darrell is indeed in Christ (and therefore, correctly, your Christian brother), then do you not conclude that Darrell's use of instruments in worship is not going to prevent his entrance (should he suddenly croak this instant) into heaven?"

So, if your Christian brother sins, is he still in Christ? If not, then why the warning "Do not rebuke an older man, but exhort him as a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger as sisters, with all purity" (1 Tim. 5:1-2). Or why this admonition in Jude 23? "but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh."

Here is another one for you: "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother." (Matt 18:15)

Now I know this continues with: "But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that 'by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector." (Matt 18:16-17)

But, even though he is to be treated as a heathen and a tax collector, is he still your brother? Of course he is…!!!

Then you asked: "And if you do agree with that, could it also be that when Darrell gets to heaven, and gets to have direct access to Jesus, and he asks Jesus "who was right" about the authorization issue, that Jesus might say "E. Lee was right, Darrell, I did not authorize it, etc...but your faith in Me and your faith in the power of My blood which was shed has covered you on that...Or might it even be that Jesus might say to Darrell, "You were right Darrell, I did not specifically prohibit everything that was not generally authorized" and E. Lee was in error. But E. Lee's faith in Me and his faith in the power of My blood which was shed has covered him on that... Could it be?"

These are hypothetical situations, and hypothetical situations prove nothing.

But, since you insist, once again, ANY unrepented sin will cause us to be lost.

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

I asked you to answer this question DIRECTLY: "Please show me where Simon was not a brother in Christ even though he sinned?"

To which you didn't answer, even though you said "and I will directly answer you: I cannot show you, but I did not say that Simon was not a brother even though he sinned."

You still did NOT answer the question, and you certainly didn't provide Book, Chapter and Verse in your Reply now did you?

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Kevin wrote: That "second law of pardon" is taught clearly in 1 John 1:7—2:2.

I must have missed that one. Here is the text below from the NIV. Please point out to me where a "second law of pardon" can be derived from these verses:

(1 John 1:7-2:2) But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. {8} If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. {9} If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. {10} If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

{1}My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. {2} He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Barry,

What does this mean: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

Sounds to me like we have another opportunity (2nd chance) to have our sins forgiven doesn't it? That is, If we confess...

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Kevin,

If you mean while we are still alive, yes, not only a second chance, but a third, fourth.........

But if you mean after we die, NO! There is no second chance.

Please clarify what you mean.

Thanks

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Barry,

I agree more than a 2nd chance and so on...and ONLY while we are still ALIVE (as a mortal) on this earth.

What makes you think that I would even suggest that there was another way to be saved after we die?

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Kevin,

That is what I thought you were implying in your answers to the questions concerning how we could be called your "brother" while we use musical instruments. I misunderstood you to be saying that we would have a chance to repent of this after death. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

So now I would appreciate it if you could clarify your position further? Are you saying that those of us that use instruments must repent of our use of them in worship before we die or we will be lost? If you could just answer yes or no, rather than referring to other posts that would be preferable.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Barry,

Yes.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

In other words, if we use instruments we are in sin, whether we recognize the Bible as saying this or not, and if we continue to use instruments in our worship and praise of our Lord till the day we die, we will end up in Hell. Is that what you are saying? Again, yes or no will suffice.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Kevin,

Then please quit calling me "brother". I not only will not repent of using instrumental music in worship, I believe it is commanded of us and will continue to use them, as God has asked me to, until the day I die!

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Is it possible, Kevin, to be "IN CHRIST" and lost?

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

If I am wrong, then please show me.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Is it possible, Kevin, to be "IN CHRIST" and lost? Yes____ No____

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Duane,

I have said NUMEROUS times that I believe that using instruments in worship to God is a SIN. How many times do I have to repeat myself. I have also pointed out NUMEROUS times that the Bible says that ANY unrepentant sin will cause someone to be LOST. So, this being the case, while you are still ALIVE, there is a chance for you to REPENT, and THEREFORE, YOU are ALL STILL MY BROTHER's IN CHRIST (whether YOU see it that way or NOT). I don't know how many times I have to spell this out to ALL OF YOU here. And regardless of what Danny says, I am not ADDING to the GOSPEL by saying that ANY unrepentant SIN will cause someone to be LOST now am I? For Danny to say that I am a false teacher is just plain ludicrous. Once again, If I am wrong, then please show me FROM THE BIBLE, where I do err.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Duane,

When you answer this question: "Please show me where Simon was not a brother in Christ even though he sinned?"

Answer this question by giving Book, Chapter and Verse FROM THE BIBLE.

Then, I will answer your question: "Is it possible, Kevin, to be "IN CHRIST" and lost? Yes____ No____"

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Danny,

I never said that the use of musical instruments was necessary for salvation.

Two things are very telling about your post:

1) You make Acts 2:38 THE standard and leave out the rest of the Bible.

2) You defend cultic groups like the Anti-Instrumental COC and refuse to state their error. Why don't you join them if they're such a biblical group?

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Kevin,

Simon repented (see Acts 8:24). Simon also had something to repent of. What I am saying, and I believe Duane is also, is that we have nothing to repent of when it comes to using musical instruments. You, on the other hand, have rejected something God has commanded for worship. If anyone needs to repent, it is you.

Of course, your whole line of reasoning is bogus. We are covered in Christ for our sins. There is no way you can repent of every sin you have ever committed by name -- do you really remember and recognize them all? Have you ever heard of grace? Where does that come in? Is it only for sins previous to salvation?

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Danny,

Please forgive my error! I was confused (happens to me a lot!) over your post and thought you were referring to me, not Kevin. My foot is firmly planted in my mouth.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Kevin wrote:

"Please show me where Simon was not a brother in Christ even though he sinned?"

I thought I gave you my answer. Here it is again.

I cannot show you from Scripture that Simon the Sorcerer was not a brother in Christ.

Nor did I say that Simon the Sorcerer was not a brother in Christ.

"Is it possible, Kevin, to be "IN CHRIST" and lost? Yes____ No____"

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Duane wrote:

"I cannot show you from Scripture that Simon the Sorcerer was not a brother in Christ."

Since you cannot show me from Scripture, then neither will I answer your question.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Well, that makes a lot of sense. Here's one for you Kevin. The next time you ask me any kind of question, I will say: "Please show me from Scripture the date of the Gadarene demoniac's birthday" If you cannot, then I will not answer any of your questions!

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Duane said: "Well, that makes a lot of sense. Here's one for you Kevin. The next time you ask me any kind of question, I will say: "Please show me from Scripture the date of the Gadarene demoniac's birthday" If you cannot, then I will not answer any of your questions!"

Nice try Duane, I asked you a SCRIPTURAL Question that you could not answer from the SCRIPTURES. You can't just pick any topic out of thin air and expect an answer from Scripture. If this were the case, then the Scriptures would be able to answer EVERY single question that came along now wouldn't it?

You asked: "Is it possible, Kevin, to be "IN CHRIST" and lost? Yes____ No____"

But, to satisfy you, I will answer your question, since this can be answered from the Scriptures.

The answer to your question is YES, and here is why. The Bible says in Heb 10:26-27, "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries."

Is this admonition to someone who is "IN CHRIST" or "OUT OF CHRIST"?

This along with Simon in Acts 8:20-24, proves that it is possible for someone "IN CHRIST" to be lost.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Danny,

You said: "This is where your quote of that Scripture is woefully out of context."

I never said that I was a scholar, this being the case, my question to you is:

Why must you criticize instead of teach?

If I did quote Scripture out of context, then I will be the first to apologize. So, I apologize, and I am still learning, plus I don't hold the corner market on the truth, and have never claimed such.

So, my quoting of Scripture may have been out of context, but did I not prove in such misquoting of Scripture that it is possible to be "IN CHRIST" and be lost?

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

No... because it was not proven that Simon was necessarily IN Christ at the time he was condemned...

There is nothing inherently wrong in criticism, if it is constructive and done in a Christian spirit. Danny was criticizing your method, not you personally. And it was definitely a teachable moment for me. Some of my best lessons learned come from criticism.

Here is my take on the verse you quoted: "For IF we (People IN Christ) sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice (We are now OUT of Christ) for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries."

It sounds to me like if you are IN Christ, and you continue in willful sin, you are separating from Him, thus no longer IN Christ.

Otherwise you would be painting yourself into quite a corner, for what does it mean to be IN Christ if not to be in a saving relationship? That would mean that there are some folks who are IN Christ, yet not saved. He is the vine and we(people IN Christ) are the branches. And we are told to remain IN Him.

That being said, if someone professes to be a Christian, I will give them the benefit of the doubt, unless their words or actions show otherwise. But only God knows the heart, and whether or not that individual is really IN Christ at any given moment. It is not necessarily an insult to say someone is not my brother in Christ, if indeed I believe they are not. I have a great friend and buddy whom I consider my brother in some ways... (brotherhood of mankind, friendship) but he knows I don't consider him my brother IN Christ because he chooses not to obey Christ.

It is harder for me to call an unimmersed believer (I know, a contradiction!) a brother in Christ, because they would be offended, and consider me to be a spiritual snob. But, from my understanding of Scripture, I cannot call them a brother in Christ, because they have not been immmersed INTO Him.

Now, if a person willfully refuses to obey that which I feel is a necessary and direct command of Scripture, I cannot honestly consider them a Christian brother. If I believed in the "anti-instument" view, and I believed that Darrell was in a lost state because of his refusal to worship accapella, I could not consistently or honestly call him my brother in Christ.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Duane,

Now I think I understand what your view is. You said: "If I believed in the "anti-instument" view, and I believed that Darrell was in a lost state because of his refusal to worship accapella, I could not consistently or honestly call him my brother in Christ."

This must be why you continue to bring this issue up, because You "could not consistently or honestly call him my brother in Christ." My view is just the opposite, I believe that if one is an "erring" or rather "sinning" "brother in Christ" that he is still my "brother in Christ" even though he is in error.

This being said, I hope and pray that I am wrong, and this whole instrument issue is not a sin that leads to death! If God chooses to overlook this instrument issue at judgment, then who am I to argue with him?

You said in another thread (In a question posed to E. Lee) "He seems to think that I am trying to get you to say that Darrell is not your brother, and that is not my intention."

It did seem that way to me, and that is why I answered you the way that I did. If that was not your intention, then all you had to do was say so, and it would have ended right there. One smart aleck remark, is all that it takes to get a heated dialogue going. :-)

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Here we have seen the clear distinction between a "non- instrumentalist" and an "anti-instrumentalist". A "non" prefers to not use an instrument, might even believe there is some biblical justification for not doing so, but in no way believes it is a salvation issue. An "anti" believes that using the instrument itself cause one to forfeit salvation.

I can tell you within ten seconds whether an acappela COC person is "non" or "anti". Tell them that you use the instrument in worship, that you think there is nothing wrong with it, and that you would never consider repenting for using it. Then ask, "Am I saved?" If they instantly say "yes" they are a "non". If they stumble with the answer, they are "anti".

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

Brother Duane:

You have correctly quoted my words as follows:

“E. Lee, you have said to Darrell: "you are in Christ Jesus. You are a part of his precious family. And until you leave the body of Christ and become something other than a Christian you will be my brother in Christ."

Then you ask me the following question:

“Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that if a person is in Christ and his physical life is suddenly taken, he will go to heaven?”

I can only tell you what I know. We are told from the scriptures, “it is appointed unto man once to die and after this cometh the judgement”. (Heb. 9:27). Now from this passage we learn that after a man dies he will be judged and this includes any “person who is in Christ” as you have asked.

And we are told, “For the time [is come] that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if [it] first [begin] at us, what shall the end [be] of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls [to him] in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.” (1 Peter 4:17,18).

Now from this passage we are told that the “judgement will begin AT THE HOUSE OF GOD” which means it will begin among those who are “in Christ”. For those in Christ make up the “house of God” since we are told, “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3:15). SO, the judgement will begin with the church of the living God, which is the “house of God”. Then we are told this terrifying truth, “and if the righteous are scarcely saved”. The righteous is scarcely saved! Think of this. Judgement will begin at the house of God and among those righteous souls in the house of God it is entirely possible that only scarcely shall they be saved! And therefore it is reasonable to conclude that if a person is in Christ and is thus a member of the house of God his being such does not guarantee his salvation if he is not obedient to Christ. (Heb. 5:8,9; Matt. 7:21- 23). And if this is true of those in the house of God what hope is there for those who are not in the house of God? Now, this passage makes it very difficult for us to speak with absolute certainty that anyone we know who is in Christ and is therefore a member of the house of God will be among those who will be saved. For we cannot know the answer to that unless we can know for certain that he has in fact been faithful to Christ in all things, now doesn’t it? (Rev. 2:10).

And that is the issue before us, isn’t it? Does the use of instrumental music in the worship constitute a transgression of the will of God and is therefore sinful? If it is such then one who practices such a thing is practicing sin, isn’t he? You tell us Brother whether you believe that those who are in Christ that are deliberately practicing that which they know to be sinful will be among those in the house of God who are “scarcely saved”?

Then we are told, “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.” (Acts 17:29,30).

Now we know who is going to be the judge, don’t we? The judge is Christ. And Christ has told us who will be saved in that day. He made it quite clear, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matt. 7:21-23).

And that is the issue before us isn’t it? For are we not seeking to determine in our debate whether or not the use of instrumental music is according to the will of God or a violation of it? So, why do you not want to learn the truth about that matter first and then you will be able to answer the questions you have asked for yourself, won’t you?

SO, the question after death and at the judgement is going to be “did you do the will of the father, which is in heaven, isn’t it? And those who work iniquity, whether they are in the house of God or out of it will be cast away won’t they? Now look at this word “iniquity”. It is from the Greek term “anomia {an-om-ee'-ah} meaning 1) the condition of being without law or lawlessness. It is contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness and it also means to act without authorization or to follow one’s own way with no regard to law. Now a person who is living this way will be told by Christ “depart from me for I never knew you”. He will not be told, you disobeyed me and worked iniquity but my blood covered you and you are saved even though you refused to obey me. And if you believe such a thing you need to show a passage of scripture that teaches it. But you will not find one that teaches such nonsense. And you have not yet referred to a single one that would even imply it, now have you? And we would like for you to show from the scriptures that one who “does not do the will of the father” is going to heaven. For the moment you show us that passage you will have shown us a passage that is in direct contradiction to what Christ said in the above quoted passage, won’t you?

And again we are told, “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;” (Heb. 5:8,9). Now Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. And what does that say of those who do not obey him? SO, if a person dies tonight the most important question he will face at the judgement will be whether he was obedient to Christ our LORD who is the head of the church (Col. 1:18; Heb. 5:8,9; Matt. 28:19,20; Matt. 7:21-23). And this issue before us in the upcoming debate is whether or not Christ authorizes instrumental music and if Christians are obedient to him in the use of them. So, why are you asking these questions before the debate occurs? Are you trying to prevent as many as possible from listening to the facts because you have been able to stir their anger in advance because they think that if E. Lee Saffold turns out to be telling the truth many of their beloved relatives will be lost? Do you not realize that this is the exact same tactic that has been used by false teachers for centuries to prevent people from giving a fair hearing to the truth? If you do then you should be able to see that you may be working for the wrong master. For Christ said, “ If ye continue in my word THEN are ye my disciples indeed. And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8: 31,32). Let us learn the truth first and then answer draw our conclusions about what we should do in the worship and service of God from the truth we derive from GOD HIMSELF in his holy and divine word! Let us not follow our imaginations about hypothetical situations without any guidance from God on the matter. For we can tell you certainly that it does not matter one whit what E. Lee Saffold thinks or says about your question. But it does matter a great deal what God says in His word about your question, doesn’t it? So, let us reason from God’s word together in our debate and then let Brother Duane and Brother Darrel both draw their own conclusions based upon what Christ has taught us in the doctrine of Christ. I believe that this is the best suggestion for those such as Darrel and Duane who are in such doubt about their eternal salvation if they were to suddenly die, don’t you? Now if they are not in doubt about their salvation why are they asking E. Lee Saffold to tell them what he thinks about their eternal destiny? God’s word tells them all that they need to know about that matter. But that is not good enough. They want E. Lee Saffold to confirm or deny it to them, don’t they? Well, tune into the debate. And when we are finished we will have an open forum thread wherein E. Lee Saffold and his moderator will entertain questions from all of our readers. We will answer all questions, one by one in the order, in which they are received, until the subject, the audience or both are exhausted. And if you cannot determine what the truth is after all of that then we cannot do anything more to help for we will have done all that we are able to do. It is our prayer that it will actually be helpful to someone if not all that read it.

It would be better for you to allow God’s word to tell who is going to heaven when they die and who is not. For God knows the answer to that question far better than anyone, doesn’t he? For I cannot know in every case whether a person has been obedient to Christ or not or if he has been disobedient whether he repented before his death and been forgiven. But, being in Christ does not allow us the privilege of sin without consequences for those sins as you intimate. One cannot come to Christ until he first dies to sin. (Luke 14:27-33; Romans 6:3-6; 16-18). And he cannot remain in Christ while persisting in sin. “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” (Rev. 3:16). And again, “Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam [the son] of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet. These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. For when they speak great swelling [words] of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, [through much] wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.” (2 Peter 2:15-22). This passage was written of some of my bothers in Christ in the first century. If they had died suddenly in their condition that was described by Peter would Christ just say to them, “You guys disobeyed me and deliberately rebelled against me. Therefore you sinned against me but because of my precious blood you are saved anyway? Not according to Peter. And remember to not be lead away with error for it is dangerous. “Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.” (2 Peter 3:17). James told us, “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.” (James 5:19,20). Now if brother Darrel has fallen into error and we convert him would we not according to this passage “save a soul from DEATH”? Therefore if he has gone into error and we fail to convert him what would be the case?

You see, the problem is that all of these questions that you asked have nothing to do with the issue we are trying to resolve. The issue is whether or not one is in error concerning these matters or not. You are trying to say that it does not matter if we are in error or not. Well, the word of God does not say that it does not matter if we are in error, does it?

You are doing the same foolish thing that the sectarians have always done. They do not want anyone of their friends or loved ones to find out what truth is about baptism. They want to prejudge the matter by asking if one will go to hell for not knowing the truth about it. When it would be better to find out the truth about a subject first and then consider whether God has revealed anything about the fate of those who do not follow the truth and therefore disobey him.

Then you say:

“If so, and if you believe that Darrell is indeed in Christ (and therefore, correctly, your Christian brother), then do you not conclude that Darrell's use of instruments in worship is not going to prevent his entrance (should he suddenly croak this instant) into heaven?”

Now, what we are going to be trying to determine in the debate is whether or not the use of instruments of music in the worship is sinful, aren’t we? And if you believe that the “wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23) then what would be the consequences of anything that is in fact sinful? If Brother Darrel committed sin and refused to repent of it and died before he ever repented of it would he be in danger of losing his soul? So, I do not conclude anything before the facts are decided. If we are able to decide that the use of instruments of music is sinful then we would not conclude that Brother Darrel can hope to go to heaven when he refuses to repent of what he would then know to be a deliberate sin. And if you were honest neither would you.

Then you say:

“And if you do agree with that, could it also be that when Darrell gets to heaven, and gets to have direct access to Jesus, and he asks Jesus "who was right" about the authorization issue, that Jesus might say "E. Lee was right, Darrell, I did not authorize it, etc..but your faith in Me and your faith in the power of My blood which was shed has covered you on that..."”

We do not have any word from God that would indicate that Brother Darrel would even have the type of access to Jesus Christ that you imagine. But if he did and he was in heaven it would not matter in the least bit what answer he received from Jesus, now would it? But, let me bring you back from your wishful thinking to the stark reality that Brother Darrel is not yet in heaven. And the only access he has to the will of God in this life is found in the WORD OF GOD. And nothing in the word of God tell us that Brother Darrel will make it to heaven while in deliberate defiance and rebellion against the will of God. And the issue is whether the use of instrumental music constitutes such defiance of the will of God, isn’t it? So, stay tuned for the debate where that matter will be discussed. But we caution all to not avoid the debate out of fear that you might learn that you have been in rebellion against God without knowing it. For if you are in rebellion against God you had better learn it now instead of waiting to find out when you DIE. SO, let us hope that if E. Lee Saffold is right in what he is teaching that every one will learn it as soon as possible so that they can repent of their rebellion while they live. But, Brother Duane does not care whether you are in rebellion against God or not. For he thinks that Christ is just going to forgive it all by his blood even though a rebellious person is living in disobedience to Christ. If you buy into that nonsense you will be in danger of losing your soul. (Heb. 5:8,9).

Then you say:

“Or might it even be that Jesus might say to Darrell, "You were right Darrell, I did not specifically prohibit everything that was not generally authorized" and E. Lee was in error. But E. Lee's faith in Me and his faith in the power of My blood which was shed has covered him on that..."”

Well, E. Lee would not be in the least bit in danger by his practice because he is doing what God commanded him to do. He is singing. And if he failed to realize that God did not mind the use of instruments at all he would still not be in danger because he did what God specifically commanded him to do. (Col 3:16; Eph. 5:19). Or are you telling us that our souls are in danger because we do what God specifically commanded us to do? So, E. Lee Saffold, practicing what God commanded him to practice is not in the least bit in danger concerning this matter. For even you admit that God has commanded us to sing in the worship, don’t you? So, if anyone is not sure concerning this matter the way that is right and CANNOT BE WRONG is to do exactly as God commands you to do so that you do not have to sit here like Brother Duane and WONDER what anyone’s fate will be. You can rest in the assurance of having done exactly what God commanded without adding to it or taking from it. And in that assurance you can know that you have been guided by God instead of the opinions and doctrines of men to do that which you KNOW is his will to do. We are commanded to “understand the will of God” (Eph. 5:18) aren’t we? So, do what God says and you will not be in any danger. Do what you imagine that he might like but you are not sure about it and you will be like Brother Duane. You will be wondering about your fate and the fate of your Brothers like Brother Darrel and your final salvation. You will not be able to be sure of it because you just do not know if God is pleased with your worship and service or not because you do not know what God wants because you are not willing to do exactly as God says! You are simply living on the human assumption that God will definitely like anything that you like just because you like it. But you will never be sure about it since God has not told you anything about your practice in his word, now will you?

Then you ask:

“Could it be?”

No Brother Duane it "could not be" and you have not given a single word from God that would cause any thinking person to believe that such “could be” now have you?

Maybe now you will at least agree to let us debate the subject of authorization and instrumental music to find out from GOD’S word what the will of God is concerning the matter. Then, if we will do God’s will in the matter. Then we shall have no fear concerning what will happen to us when we die. For Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him” (Heb. 5:8,9). SO, let us make sure in all things that we are in fact being obedient to him and your fears will fade away. For by this means you will be able to know that you are being faithful to God and have the hope of eternal life. But if you never seek to know God’s will and determine in all things to do only as he commands then you will never be certain of your salvation and will always wonder if God will accept you at the judgement. The scriptures are our only rule of faith and practice because they are the only means of our knowing what pleases God. WE must not add to them or take from them and we must exactly obey Him in every thing. “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed do ALL in the name of the Lord Jesus…” (Col. 3:17).

So, there are four matters that should be considered in logical order of consequence. 1.) Must we have authorization from God for all that we do in the worship and Service of God? If so then anything that we do without God’s authorization would be a sin (1 John 3:4). 2.). If we must have authorization for all that we do then we must determine if instrumental music is authorized by God for worship of him in the church of Christ. 3.) Then we must learn if all sins of which we are not willing to repent will cause us to be damned? 4.) Then, and not before then can we decide whether one will be lost eternally if he deliberately practices any sin without turning from it. (Heb. 10:25,26). So, my suggestion to all is that we allow these matters to be taken up in their proper order. First let us decide if God’s word teaches that we must have authority for all that we do in the worship and service of Christ our Lord. Then let us determine if anything that we do is authorized or not and this includes instrumental music, sprinkling for baptism, infant baptism, and a host of other things. Then let us determine from the word of God whether those who continue to deliberately practice that which they know to be sinful will be lost. Then let us answer the question whether any particular person is in danger of losing his precious soul over these matters. But to try to answer this question before determining all of the others is an exercise in futility not to mention foolishness, isn’t it? But this is the kind of foolishness that Brother Duane wants us to engage in by asking us if Brother Darrel would go to hell if he died tonight.

He is using the old sectarian practice of forcing us to give the conclusions before anyone is allowed to hear the arguments that support them one way or the other. For by this means he will be able prevent many from giving a fair unbiased HEARING of the facts, now can’t he? We understand his having done this. For having failed to prevent a formal debate by constantly enticing us to engage in one that is informal and supporting those that resisted any formal debate of this matter. And insisting that we engage in nothing short of an unorganized “free for all” wherein he felt safe because he knows that no one will be able to see the facts for all of the confusion and misrepresentations, which make up such a “free for all". And then having failed to hinder us by harassing us with issues not in the least bit “germane” to the issue at hand such as his pathetic efforts to stop us from using the word “we”. Which he really would not care about in the least except for the fact that it is another good side issue that could not only help distract our readers from the facts but possibly prejudice them against us in advance of the debate. He pursued this even to the point of deliberately deleting our post so that others would not read them. Greater evidence of intent to hide what we have to say could not be given, could it?

By all of these means he and others have sought to prevent a fair and just hearing of all the facts about this matter. And now, he seeks to yet again hinder anyone from ever receiving a fair hearing of the matter by trying to force us into saying that “Brother Darrel is going to hell” if he were to die this very night. For he knows that this would be the worst thing in the world, in the minds of many persons, for us to say even if it were TRUE, and it just might be true. We shall have to hear all of the facts from God’s word first now won’t we?

And we are not here to declare that one man is lost. WE are here to determine the truth of God’s word so that anyone, whoever they might be, can examine the scriptures for themselves and reach conclusions based upon having ALL of the facts from God’s word before them. Then anyone that find themselves in a lost condition can do something to turn away from sins that will cause them to be lost. And this includes us. For if we are wrong about this matter and are troubling the church over it we would be sinning against God ourselves wouldn’t we? SO, why does Duane and others so terribly fear allowing us to examine all of the facts first before drawing conclusions? The reason is obvious. Their minds are so made up on the matter that they cannot image that there is even the slightest possibility that they just might be wrong about it. And therefore they feel no reason to hear all of the facts from the word of God presented in a reasoned debate without confusion and misrepresentation.

We are having our debate to seek to understand what the word of God teaches about the matter. It is only reasonable that Brother Duane and those who use instruments would think that no one is in danger doing it because he does not believe it is a sinful thing to do. And it is equally reasonable to any thinking person that those who believe it to be sinful would believe that everyone who is deliberately disobedient to God in the matter to be in danger. And if Brother Duane believed it was a sin he just might believe that those who stubbornly persist in doing that which they know to be a sin against God are in danger of the judgement.

So, we do see in these questions the grave importance of our study together of this important subject. For it is very possible that many persons in this forum could be in grave danger. And believe me if such is not the case none will be more relieved than E. Lee Saffold and Kevin Walker. But suppose for a moment that we are able to convince you that such a practice, as instrumental music in the worship of God is contrary to the will of God. Hence is a sinful practice. Then would not every Christian in this forum see that deliberately practicing such sin once you know it to be a sin could jeopardize your soul’s salvation? So, we highly recommend that everyone pay attention during the debate. And take out your Bibles and study along with us because your soul could be at stake. And we care very much about your soul. And for that very reason we have fought hard for a reasoned discussion of this matter and Satan has fought very hard to prevent it. He is losing that battle isn’t he?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2001

E. Lee, you have said:

So, E. Lee Saffold, practicing what God commanded him to practice is not in the least bit in danger concerning this matter.

But then you say:

. For if we are wrong about this matter and are troubling the church over it we would be sinning against God ourselves wouldn’t we?

Also you have said:

The truth is that you are my brother in Christ because you are in Christ Jesus. You are a part of his precious family. And until you leave the body of Christ and become something other than a Christian you will be my brother in Christ.

But then you say:

One cannot come to Christ until he first dies to sin. (Luke 14:27-33; Romans 6:3-6; 16-18). And he cannot remain in Christ while persisting in sin.

One must conclude, if your assumptions are correct, that Darrell is persisting in sin, cannot be in Christ, nor a brother IN Christ.

And that is okay. It is honorable to live with the conclusions of your theory, regardless of what others may think. The guilt by association theory that "this is what the sectarians did with our baptism stance" will not hold water. The sectarians were right. If immersion is required, and one is not immersed, then one is not saved. Certainly we should season this truth with salt, but the truth must be acknowledged. If continued willful sin (instrumental worship) places one outside of Christ, and one must be in Christ to be saved, then you should shout it from the rooftops, rather than call non-brothers "brothers in Christ"

But I am not sure you really believe that instumental worship will condemn one to hell? Why? Because you said:

If we are able to decide that the use of instruments of music is sinful then we would not conclude that Brother Darrel can hope to go to heaven when he refuses to repent of what he would then know to be a deliberate sin.

And you said:

Then let us determine from the word of God whether those who continue to deliberately practice that which they know to be sinful will be lost.

Oh, so now instrumental worship is only sin if you KNOW it to be sinful?

You are right. Let's get on with the debate!

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2001

Brother Duane:

You have accurately quoted my words as follows:

“E. Lee, you have said:

So, E. Lee Saffold, practicing what God commanded him to practice is not in the least bit in danger concerning this matter.”

And again you accurately quoted my words as follows:

“But then you say:

. “For if we are wrong about this matter and are troubling the church over it we would be sinning against God ourselves wouldn’t we?”

And both of these statements are in perfect harmony with each other. Because we would in fact be safe in our practice of what God commanded us but if God did not actually mind that others did not obey his command then we would be sinning against God for causing trouble in the church over a matter of no consequence. SO, those who worship as God specifically commanded him would be in no danger at all. But those of us who went around and troubled the church over matters that did not trouble God in the least would be doing the wrong thing, now wouldn’t we? For this reason we are warned, “be not many of you teachers” are we not? But we would not be in danger over our practice of singing as God commanded. For there is no danger in obeying God, is there?

Then you quote my words accurately as follows:

“Also you have said:

The truth is that you are my brother in Christ because you are in Christ Jesus. You are a part of his precious family. And until you leave the body of Christ and become something other than a Christian you will be my brother in Christ.”

And again you quote my words accurately as follows:

“But then you say:

One cannot come to Christ until he first dies to sin. (Luke 14:27-33; Romans 6:3-6; 16-18). And he cannot remain in Christ while persisting in sin.”

TO which you reply as follows:

“One must conclude, if your assumptions are correct, that Darrell is persisting in sin, cannot be in Christ, nor a brother IN Christ.”

These are not my assumptions but rather they are the teaching of God’s word in the passages, which I cited that you ignored in your reply. And one must not necessarily conclude that when one who is a Christian sins that he is automatically cast out of Christ. But rather when one persists in sin and refuses to repent when he knows the truth he has left Christ of his own free will. And we just do not yet know that Brother Darrel has had the opportunity to learn the truth about this matter nor are we able to tell if he is deliberately persisting in sin and defiantly refusing to repent of that which he knows is sinful. Now if you can show us that this is the case with Brother Darrel it is quite likely that we just might not want to emphasis his being a brother in Christ in addressing him. For he will most assuredly in that case be “fallen from grace” and Christ would “be of no effect” to him”. But we would as long as he had breath in his body admonish him as a brother to repent and return to Christ that his soul might be saved from sin.

But whether a person in Christ can sin so as to be in danger of perishing and still be a brother and remain in Christ it is instructive to say the least to take a close look at Simon of Acts 8:12-24. So, let us take the example of Simon the sorcerer in Acts 8:14-24 and examine it just a little bit.

We are told that Simon “believed and was baptized”. “Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.” (Acts 8:12) So there is no question that he became a Christian just as much as did anyone else in Samaria. The scriptures tell us plainly that he believed and was baptized and Christ said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:” (Mark 16:16). And we are taught that we are baptized into Christ. “For as many of you as have been BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:27). So, not only was Simon saved he was saved because he believed and was baptized. (Mark 16:16). And he was also clearly IN CHRIST JESUS. (Gal.3:27). And if he is in Christ he is a new creature (1 Cor. 5:17) and he has obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine and was then made free from sin (Romans 6:3-6;16-18). So, if any man ever became a Christian Simon did. For he did all that our Lord commanded him to obtain the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and salvation (Mark 16:16).

Then we are told that Simon sinned after believing and being baptized into Christ as follows:

“And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and [in] the bond of iniquity.” (Acts 8:18-23).

Now from this we learn that even though Simon was saved. Even though he was IN CHRIST he was still able to sin against Christ. It is possible that he really did not think of himself, as having done anything that was sinful. But he was not long in finding out just how sinful he had been for Peter told him immediately and in a strong and forthright manner. “THY MONEY PERISH WITH THEE”! Now these words were said to a man who had just obeyed the gospel of Christ only a few days earlier. Now he was in danger of PERISHING. And why was he in such danger? Because his “heart was not right in the sight of God”. Now notice just here that it is God’s eyesight we are talking about. And because Peter was speaking as the Holy Spirit moved him he could state how things were in GOD’S sight. Which is something that those of us who are not so inspired cannot do. But, in the sight of God his heart was not right and then Peter spoke of what he perceived by his inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He said Thou art in the GALL OF BITTERNESS and the BOND OF INIQUITY”. Now one could not be in a worse condition, could he? He was in the bond of iniquity. In other words he was following his own way with little regard for God’s will in the matter. SO, he was in Christ. He was saved. He then sinned so as to put himself in danger of PERISHING because he was in the “gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity”. He was surely on the verge of perishing and something needed to be done about it or he would perish because of his sin. Which would mean that he would be severed from Christ for this is the only way a Christian can be lost. He can only be lost if he is severed from Christ. And Paul warned the Galatians of the fact (even though they had been baptized into Christ Gal. 3:26,27) of those who were in Christ but had attempted to go back under the Law of Moses. That Christ had become of NO EFFECT to them” Notice what he said, “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” (Gal. 5:4). The word translated “fallen” in this passage is ekpipto {ek-pip'-to} Which means, “to fall out of, to fall down from, to fall off 2) metaph. to fall from a thing, to lose it to perish, to fall , to fall from a place from which one cannot keep, fall from a position to fall powerless, to fall to the ground, be without effect of the divine promise of salvation. So, Simon was in the same condition for different reasons. He was in danger of making Christ of no effect. In other words even though he had obeyed the gospel and was in Christ Jesus his sin had already placed him in a condition of perishing. And unless something was done about the matter he would perish. But Peter also told him how to change that condition. He said these words, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness and pray God if PERHAPS the thought of thine heart MAY be forgiven thee.” Now notice that this verse says repent “therefore”. The word “therefore means “for this reason”. He was to repent for the reason that he had sinned and the fact that he was perishing because of his sin. And notice he was told to do two things to correct this situation. First REPENT and second PRAY God. And notice that there was no guarantee of forgiveness. He was told if perhaps the “thought of thine heart MAY be forgiven thee”. Now Brother Duane and others might have said “We know that you did not understand what you were doing when you sought to buy the gift of God with money. And that he need not worry because Christ blood cleans us all the time even though we might on occasion do wrong whether we ever repent of those sins or not.” It would never have occurred him to insist that Simon repent for the thoughts of his heart or perish. Now clearly Peter told this Christian man to repent or perish. And no doubt that Simon so understood him that he said:

“Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.”

Simon obviously had a change of heart or repented otherwise he would not have asked the apostles to pray for him that none of the things they had spoken (Perishing) would come upon him. So, to summarize, Simon was saved and in Christ and while in Christ he sinned so as to threaten his salvation and place himself in danger of perishing. He was informed of his sin and told to repent and pray for forgiveness without promising that he would be forgiven in doing so but only that he might obtain forgiveness from God. And he wisely asked the apostles to pray for him that he might not perish. Now, if this is not a clear example of one being in Christ and in danger of perishing because of sins not repented of we cannot imagine what we are to actually learn from this account.

So, if a person is in Christ and he sins against God then he will be in danger of perishing and will not get out of such danger without repentance and praying to God for forgiveness. And this means ALL persons who are in Christ. And Christ does continually “clean us of all unrighteousness but there is nothing in the word of God that says he ‘AUTOMATICALLY’ does so. But when we turn from our sins and ask that God forgive us he will forgive us. (1 John 1:7-9;2:1,2). But without repentance and prayer we will perish because of sins of which we deliberately refuse to acknowledge and repent. (Acts 8:22,23).

And this subject is not as simple as some might think for there are other passages to be considered of which we do not have much time to comment but we will quote them as follows:

“But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.” (GAL. 2:17).

“Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.” (James 4:17).

“But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.” (James 2:9).

“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” (1John 3:4)

“Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;” (1 Peter 4:1).

“If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.” ( 1 John 5:16,17).

Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.” (James 5:19,20).

“And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23).

“But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.” (1 Cor. 8:12).

“Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak [this] to your shame.” (1 Cor. 15:34).

“But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.” (Heb. 3:13).

“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,” (Heb. 10:26).

“Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset [us], and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,” (Heb. 12:1).

“Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected [us], and we gave [them] reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened [us] after their own pleasure; but he for [our] profit, that [we] might be partakers of his holiness.” (Heb. 12:4- 10).

“Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble [you], and thereby many be defiled; Lest there [be] any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.” (Heb. 12:17).

Now this and a host of other passages relate to this matter and to attempt a short sixty-second sound bite to in some feeble way approach this subject is not a good way to come to understand these things. But suffice it for the moment to say that you can lose your “birth right”. So that you may end up like Esau who would have “inherited the blessing” but he was rejected “FOR HE FOUND NO PLACE OF REPENTANCE” (that is in his father) though he sought it carefully with tears. Brethren do not go there because some brethren would have you to foolishly believe that you need not worry about sin because if you are in Christ there is no way for you to sin so as to be finally lost because that doctrine is false to its very core. Now, let us avoid all sin and let us seek to know God’s will so that we do not sin ignorantly and if we sin let us repent as quickly as did Simon and pray to God if perhaps the thought of our hearts may be forgiven us. For if we have any other attitude than this toward sin we can perish. And if we learn that instrumental music is sinful let us immediately repent of it and turn from it and pray for forgiveness.

Then you say:

“And that is okay. It is honorable to live with the conclusions of your theory, regardless of what others may think.”

First of all we have shown that this is what is written in the word of God and we have said nothing about it being our “theory” at all. Second, it is indeed honorable to “live with” the conclusions that the word of God makes clear to us regardless of what others may think. And if anyone has read our writing in this forum very often we are convinced that they will be assured that we care little of what others might thing of it, now won’t they? But, we have shown that what you claim to be a “necessary conclusion” is not as necessary as you claim it to be. If you think that we have any aversion to saying that Brother Darrel is going to hell, if such were in fact the truth, you are very wrong about it. When and if we determine on any matter that such is the case we will without any hesitation whatsoever give him such a warning. For such is a warning, which we would not hesitate to give to anyone and everyone who would be in that, condition according to the word of God. But we were right to say that whether he is going to heaven or hell has no bearing on the question or the issue we are trying to discuss. For if the scriptures teach that we sin when we use instruments of music in the worship then it teaches such whether Darrell is Hell bound or not. And we are saying why must we speak only of Brother Darrel? For what might be said of him could and would be said of all our Brothers who use instruments of music in the worship. But you are deliberately focusing upon him to prevent others from hearing the truth. You want to make it appear as if we have selected brother Darrel over all others to condemnation. The truth is that YOU, Brother Duane, are the one who has so selected him. We apply it to ALL those who sin against God in this matter.

Then you say:

“ The guilt by association theory that "this is what the sectarians did with our baptism stance" will not hold water.”

Yes it does “hold water”. It is air tight as it can be! For you are in fact doing the exact same thing they always do.

Then you say:

“The sectarians were right. If immersion is required, and one is not immersed, then one is not saved.”

Indeed they are right but there effort to show the “right” conclusion before anyone is allowed to hear the evidence that supports that conclusion so as to prevent them from BELIEVING that which is right is WRONG, isn’t it? For they know that if they can get the conclusion out there first before the evidence is presented. That such would cause some that are already opposed to that truth to ignore all of the evidence presented to support it. And thus they can so anger the audience that they will not hear the evidence and will reject the truth out of hand because the conclusion is one that they do not want to accept. Now this is what Brother Duane is trying to accomplish though his efforts are meeting, we are happy to say, with much failure, aren’t they?

And you are in fact behaving in exactly the same way as the sectarians. You are right to draw the conclusion that if instrumental music is sinful and a person who knows that it is sinful persists in doing it he will be lost. And you do not want anyone to hear the evidence first that would cause them to believe it and turn away from your perversions of God’s commands for worship. You want them to know that such is what we are trying to show to be the truth and that they should not listen to us. For this is your purpose. So, are you are doing the same thing the sectarians have always done. And you are not “guilty by association” but rather you are guilty by your exact same sinful behavior whether you are associated with them or not.

Then you say:

“ Certainly we should season this truth with salt, but the truth must be acknowledged.”

Oh, do not worry, we will always acknowledge the truth AFTER we have presented evidence which sustains the truth that we acknowledge. We are not like many that merely assert what they think to be the truth and never even attempt to prove it. We prefer instead to assert and prove in the same place and time.

Then you say:

“ If continued willful sin (instrumental worship) places one outside of Christ”

Any continual willful sin will cause one to fall away from Grace (Gal. 5:4) and cause one to perish (Acts 8:22,23). And this may include instrumental music if we are able to show that it is a disobedience to God and if it is such it is sinful. That is the reason for the debate. But this is true of ALL sin.

Then you say:

“and one must be in Christ to be saved”

Indeed one must be in Christ to be saved (Acts 4:12).

Then you say:

“ then you should shout it from the rooftops, rather than call non- brothers "brothers in Christ"”

WE do shout it from the rooftops. And we do not call “non-brothers brothers in Christ”. For you see we have shown you more than once that Simon was a brother in Christ even when he was in danger of being lost if he did not repent. Now, until he learned of his sin and was offered the chance to repent of it he remained in Christ and fortunately he repented. But if he had refused deliberately to repent he would have perished. But, so long as he is in Christ he is my brother in Christ.

Now, our erring brothers who are sinning against God with the use of instrumental music must first be taught the truth about this matter, which we know they have not yet learned. Then they must be given an opportunity to repent of this sin. And then if they refuse to repent they will perish for their sins. But, until they have the opportunity to know the truth they cannot be expected to repent of sins of which they are ignorant.

“But I am not sure you really believe that instumental worship will condemn one to hell?”

You need not doubt it. All sin will condemn the impenitent to hell. And the scriptures teach that instrumental music is disobedience to God and is therefore sinful. And those who do not repent of this sin but defiantly refuse to obey God’s specific command to “sing and admonish one another in psalms hymns and spiritual songs singing and making melody in their hearts to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19). It is a command stated clearly again in these words, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” (Col. 3:16). The singing with grace in your hearts is another way of saying “sing and make melody in your hearts”. These two passages are very much saying the same thing about the same subject. And we will in our debate show how that anything other than what God has commanded us to do is the opposite of what he commanded us to do. And when we do the opposite of what God commanded we disobey him. And persons in Christ will lose their souls for such disobedience of God’s commands concerning how he wants us to worship and sever him. All of this we will prove in the debate if all of you will simply allow the debate to progress instead of insisting upon our answering so many questions before the debate.

WE believe that sin will condemn one to hell if it is deliberate and one refuses to repent of it. And this would count instrumental music if it is in fact disobedience to God. And that is why we are having the debate, isn’t it? We are trying to show our sincere brethren who do not believe it is sinful that such is the case. For sin will bring death and ignorance has nothing to do with it except for those in Christ they will have some protection but the deed that they are committing is still a sin no matter how ignorant they might be of its sinfulness. And those who love Christ have turned from sin and do not want to sin even in ignorance. Some of them may already be danger because of this sin since they really know down deep inside of themselves from reading the word of God that it is a sin but they have stubbornly refused to repent of it. Brother Darrel may be one of them, we do not know since we cannot tell in an Internet forum who those are, now can we? If he is one of them he had best repent or he does not want to die until he has repented of this evil.

Then you say:

“ Why? Because you said:

If we are able to decide that the use of instruments of music is sinful then we would not conclude that Brother Darrel can hope to go to heaven when he refuses to repent of what he would then know to be a deliberate sin.”

We did say that:

And then you quote me again as having said:

“Then let us determine from the word of God whether those who continue to deliberately practice that which they know to be sinful will be lost.”

And we did say that as well.

TO which you use to draw the following conclusion:

“Oh, so now instrumental worship is only sin if you KNOW it to be sinful?”

Now no person with a brain would draw that conclusion from what I said. It is sinful whether you know it or not but what God will do to a person who is in Christ Jesus who dies in such ignorance is another matter all together isn’t it?

Thus that is quite a leap which you make and we have not by anything we have said justified your “giant leap forward” to an absurd conclusion as this. It is sinful whether one is ignorant of it sinfulness or not. And what we suggested is that we need to “determine” whether a Christian who knows that he is sinning against God and refuses to repent of it will be lost. WE are convinced that he will be lost. While we are not convinced that a Christian who is ignorant (not wilfully ignorant) of God’s will and the truth on the subject would be so lost.

WE did not mean by this statement that one who sins and is ignorant of it would be saved because of his ignorance. But only that God is more patient with those who are ignorant and grants them time and opportunity to learn of their sin so that they can repent of it. And we are convinced that those who have obeyed the Gospel have Christ to advocate their case and if they died ignorantly sinning against God despite their best efforts to know the will of God they will have a good case and a good advocate to stand up for them. But the deliberately sinful person will be without a case or an advocate of his case. The one who will not repent will perish for sure.

So ignorance is no excuse (Acts 17:30) but it is the type of Chase that our advocate likes to place upon the MERCY of the court because of his blood. Thus the grace of Christ, we believe, would cover such a one for we do have an “advocate with the father” (1 John 2:1,2) who is the propitiation of our sins. Thus we are convinced that the blood of Christ applies to persons who are in Christ to redeem them from unknown sins. But they are nevertheless sins and the fact that they are committed in ignorance does not change the fact that they are sins. And they are not any less sinful because the one doing them is ignorant of his disobedience to God. But we do not believe that such is necessarily the case with all of our brethren. And Brother Darrel is our brother in any case for we are told:

“But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count [him] not as an enemy, but admonish [him] as a brother.” (2 Thess. 3:13-15).

Now what Paul said of this epistle would apply with equal force to all of his inspired epistles including the epistle to the Colossians and Ephesians where God’s command for us to use vocal music in the worship is clearly stated. And whatever is done toward such persons they must not be treated as enemies but “ADMONISHED AS BROTHERS”. So, the use of instrumental music in the worship if sinful would be something that we would have to discipline the brothers who refused to repent of such things if they were members of our local congregation. For we have no authority to act outside of that Local congregation in matters such as this but that is another subject.

So, once every one has been taught the truth about this subject. Then they deliberately and defiantly reject the teaching of the doctrine of Christ concerning it. Then that person will be marked in the local congregation and we shall have no company with him but we shall not treat such a one as an enemy but shall entreat him as a brother. For this we have been commanded to do. But none of us can know exactly when this person would be “severed from Christ” or fallen away from Grace so that Christ has become of no effect to him”. (Gal. 5:4). But we know that this will happen to him if he does not repent. SO, your question to us was what if Darrel died tonight. We cannot answer that question for you because we know that he may not even be aware that he is sinning by using instrumental music and therefore he has not had any opportunity to repent of his sin. But it is sinful whether he is ignorant of it or not, isn’t it? And even once he has learned the truth and defiantly refuses to repent we do not know how long or how much time God will give him to repent before he will perish, now do we? But one thing we know for certain. IF he does not repent he will perish (Luke 13:3,5; Act 8:14- 24). And just which night he might be in that condition we do not know. But God knows and that is the reason that he is the judge. And we have been commanded to teach the truth and contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. We are obeying God in this matter. WE hope that you, Brother Darrel, and all of our brethren who are ignorantly sinning against God by using instruments of music in the worship of the church of Christ will learn the truth through our efforts in this debate. And once you learn that truth that you will have the courage to repent of that sin. If you stubbornly refuse to repent of it then you will be as was Simon in the “gall of bitterness and the bo9nd of iniquity” and if you do not repent of it you will most assuredly because of it. But all the while you are still our brothers in Christ.

And we remind you just here that you ignored the majority of what we said in our post to which you responded and you will do the same with this one most likely. In particular you had NOTHING whatsoever to say about the following verse, which we shall now remind you of what it says and urge you to not forget it.

“For the time [is come] that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if [it] first [begin] at us, what shall the end [be] of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” (1 Peter 4:17,18).

Let us now speak in the language of God’s word so that we can learn the truth and not be mislead by all of the tricks designed to keep us from giving an honest a fair hearing of the facts concerning both the matter of authorization and instrumental music. The deliberate though feeble attempts to twist our words. As well as the many deliberate misrepresentations of our position is all designed to prejudice everyone before the debate even begins. Even though the conclusions of our readers concerning all of these matters will be affected by what they learn in that debate about the issues which we have agreed to discuss.

“{If any man speak, [let him speak] as the oracles of God; if any man minister, [let him do it] as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” (1 Peter 4:11).

Then you say:

“You are right. Let's get on with the debate!”

Yes, Brother Duane we are right about that now aren’t we? Both you and I agree that it is right to now get on with the debate and leave these other matters to the question and answer forum which will happen AFTER the debate is conducted. This way I will have the opportunity to present all of the facts and arguments that show instrumental music to be sinful because it violates the command of God, which specifies and sanctifies vocal music for worship in the church of Christ. (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19).

After that is finished we can take up all of these foolish speculations which you have been using to prejudice our readers in advance of the debate and prevent them from giving anything we say a fair hearing.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2001

Thanks for a well thought out reply. I will study the Scriptures you listed.

"Darrell" is just used as an example, I think it is understood that we are not referring to him exclusively. Please do not keep accusing me of not wanting anyone to hear the evidence first, or prejudicing the case, and I will strive to do likewise. It is not my intention to deny any readers a full hearing of this matter. Your response merits consideration, but the parts which impugn my motives detract from the good points you have made.

Your brother in Christ,

Duane

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2001

Brother Duane:

You have said:

“Please do not keep accusing me of not wanting anyone to hear the evidence first, or prejudicing the case, and I will strive to do likewise. It is not my intention to deny any readers a full hearing of this matter. Your response merits consideration, but the parts which impugn my motives detract from the good points you have made.”

I apologize to you for impugning your motives. I cannot know what your motives actually are but I can notice what the results of your words tend toward achieving. So, my complaint should not have been directed toward your yet unknown motives. I do hope, however, that you can agree with me that the tendency of discussing the effect this issue may have on any person’s eternal destiny would be to prejudice them before a fair hearing of the facts. For these facts are calculated to demonstrate that the practice of the use of instrumental music in the worship of the church of Christ is sinful. Trying to determine what the results of this would be before deciding whether or not such a practice is sinful would have no bearing upon the answer to that question. For if it is true that such a practice is indeed sinful then it would naturally and logically follow that such a practice would place the souls of those who disobey God into danger. And just what would be the decision of the judge at the judgement must ever be left to the judge and all else would be pure speculation unless God has revealed exactly what his decision will be in all cases before him.

My sincere suggestion remains that we reserve all such questions, speculative or otherwise, for the open forum that would follow the debate wherein our readers can ask all of the questions that they have concerning this matter in any order in which they wish. For at least this way all of the facts will be before them in an organized forum which could, at the very least, eliminate many questions and misunderstandings which often arise in such forums as this in advance of a clear presentation of the facts by both sides.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2001

Dittos, E. Lee. Nix the cart until we get a horse. I would add that in addition to a Q&A thread following the debate, there may be side discussions running along side of the debate, but the debate participants will not be expected to respond to anything said there.

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2001

Brother Duane:

You have said:

“Dittos, E. Lee. Nix the cart until we get a horse.”

“I am convinced that the cart would work better and be more useful if we have a horse to pull it and put the horse ahead of the cart instead of the other way around.”

Then you say:

“ I would add that in addition to a Q&A thread following the debate, there may be side discussions running along side of the debate, but the debate participants will not be expected to respond to anything said there.”

I have no objection to such a thread provided that Brother Scott Jewell has no objections to it. It seems to me that we cannot expect everyone to focus solely upon the debate without having an outlet for his or her immediate emotions, comments and even sensible arguments that occur to them as they read the debate. However, as you can imagine it must be made clear that neither of the participants in the debate will respond to anything written in that thread but will instead focus their attention and efforts solely one the debate. For if one responds to something in that thread the other may feel compelled to respond also. And I would not want the thread to be used by either participant in the debate as a means of introducing new arguments that he could not introduce according to the rules of the debate. For there will be such rules governing specific responsibilities of the affirmative and the negative in discussing each proposition which will control the unfair introduction of new material and arguments in such a way as to prevent the affirmative from responding to that material. For it would be unfair to introduce such in a rebuttal speech that the affirmative or the negative would not have any chance to respond, etc. For there will be some guidelines concerning responding to all arguments made by the affirmative by the negative without introducing new arguments not made by the affirmative. For this reason each debater will be required to follow the affirmations of the affirmative and the arguments made by him till the discussion of his proposition is complete. And then the other participant would affirm his proposition and the participants would switch roles and follow the same rules.

But if we have a thread such as this without restricting it only to those who are not participants in the debate. Then one party to the debate could lead the other away from the debate into a “free for all” by introducing new arguments in that thread during the debate. For such would cause the other to feel the need to respond in that thread and then the very idea of a formal debate could be undermined. This we would object to very strenuously to such a development and therefore want to have rules in place to prevent it.

Therefore I agree to have such a thread provided that all debate participants, including moderators, are not allowed to respond to anything in such a thread but instead they are required to focus solely and strictly on the debate itself. This way we can do our work. And all will be able to say whatever they want about the debate but they will not expect the debaters to respond to anything that they say because they are forbidden by the rules to participate in that thread so as to concentrate their efforts upon the debate. Then in the Q&A thread our readers can talk directly with the participants and direct their questions to them and they can respond as much as they like.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2001

E. Lee, you wrote:

I am convinced that the cart would work better and be more useful if we have a horse to pull it and put the horse ahead of the cart instead of the other way around.”

Yes, that's what I meant... but didnt say too well.

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2001

Brother Duane:

You correctly quoted my words as follows:

“E. Lee, you wrote:

I am convinced that the cart would work better and be more useful if we have a horse to pull it and put the horse ahead of the cart instead of the other way around.”

TO which you reply:

“Yes, that's what I meant... but didnt say too well.”

I suspected that it was what you meant and thought that you said it quite well. I was only trying to match what you said with equal clarity and conciseness but I am convinced that, as usual, you said it better with fewer words. What else could one expect from one with so little talent for writing, as E. Lee Saffold apparently possesses?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2001