Donnie, when you make the following assertation, I cringe. You said...."You know, it was totally unnecessary [in fact, un-Christlike] to make that assertion against me or Ken or anyone for that matter. Is that your way of carrying on a conversation with a family member, a friend, an enemy?"
Now you want to sound contrite? How convenient, and it doesn't surprise me. Here, with a public audience you try to work your evil magic.....again. You have tried time and time again, with me, to "act out" the part of a CONCERNED Christian. Donnie, with the way you have handled most everything here, including dealing with anyone that disagrees with you, and even more importantly the manner in which you have violated even the congregation that you attend, I would consider you more of an enemy of the Lord, and not merely me. I get really nauseated, Donnie, when you want to call me down for "carrying on a conversation with a family member."
YOU can say that and have time and time again, rebuked elders at Madison, by name, on a public forum such as this?
You can't talk about family Donnie in such a way. You don't have the right. You are on the OUTSIDE looking in. If you want to be INSIDE the family once more, you have to make a public repentance for a public sin.
Again, I will not dignify this discussion with a rebuttal, only to let you know that you DID indeed lie....again.
Number 1.....you said...."(1) The statements I made were not direct quotations from you. They did not begin and end with quotation marks. So, they are not lies."
They ARE indeed lies. You did NOT say that I quoted them, which is even worse. You took it on your own to attribute this ("I am thinking specifically of Dave who has constantly endorsed and defended the use of musical devices in the assembly of saints."), to me. As I said...you accused me of something that you cannot prove. You took what I have been saying all along and twisted (and more like WARPED) my words so it became what you wanted your public audience here to hear. You deliberately turned around my thoughts about what I have said here all along. It is a lie, not a play on words, but a lie.
Donnie, you also said..."(2) Since they were not direct quotations from you, it was my understanding of what you've said countless times."
It is NOT your understanding of what I said, and you very well know that. What you do understand is that you didn't like what you heard from me so you attributed something false to me so you could continue your charades here at this wicked website.
Again, prove what you ATTRIBUTED, or what you WANTED me to say. If you believe I endorsed such a belief, then prove it. I will not, in all cases, stand by idly while another man, such as you, takes liberty with his interpretation of the Word of God. Ken Sublett is ever worse than you. He claims, of course, it isn't interpretation though. I guess that is what happens when you believe that you are better than even the KJV translators. You said that I have "strongly defended the use of musical devices in the gathering."
From what I have said, prove it!
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Dave,
You've become an expert in evasion, avoidance and deviation from simple subject matters of discussion. The main point I initially brought up was concerning the "use" or "no use" of the musical machinery when the saints gather/assemble to teach and admonish one another in ... songs.
This major point is all associated with the suggestion from the progressive and liberal members of the church [and that includes David Fie---, Fred Whaley, et al] that the "none use" of IM in the church of Christ is only a TRADITION. Either (1) a tradition is "apostolic" [biblical] or (2) it is human [man-made]. The liberal-minded folks are so busy promoting their agenda of feel-good praise music and are so fixated on instrumental accompaniment. To them "none use" of musical devices, therefore, is a man-made tradition.
I know that references to musical instruments as musical devices and objects--and inanimate, lifeless, unnecessary, divisive at that--make your blood boil. But don't let that get to you because the descriptions are accurate.
The historical fact is that the use of musical instruments in "worship" in the "Christian" era was originated by the Roman Catholic Church; that the Protestant Churches [whose many of their founders were opposed to such use] imitated the RCC and propagated the RCC's man-made practice or tradition in/about the 1800s.
Dave, you have deviated from the subject matter. Instead, you have exposed your anger and hostility and personal attacks by redirecting our focus to extraneous matters such as: "you ALSO have lied"; "you want to sound contrite"; and numerous other holier-than-thou comments [just re-read Dave's posts].
What does all that have to do with the price of eggs in China?
I have a solution for you, Dave, to make your life and mine easier. I do have several questions, but here are a few for a start. I have them numbered so that we can easily identify your response to the specific question. You've referenced these in your responses, so they shouldn't be surprising to you:[/color]
<ol>[*]Do you believe that elders can or sometimes do commit mistakes and make wrong decisions?
</li>[*]Do you believe that since elders are worthy of double honor, you would just sit back, be silent and allow them to teach doctrines that YOU know are unscriptural and contrary to God's will?
</li>[*]Are you in favor of the elders who've made a decision to implement a practice that is unnecessary, unbiblical, controversial and divisive?
</li>[*]What do you think is the responsibility of the elders or the eldership that caused the division in the congregation?
</li>[*]I would not call you a liar just because you disagree with me. But why do you persist or insist on calling someone else a liar just because he disagrees with you?
</li>[*]Since the church of Christ does not use or is opposed to the use of instrumental music in the assembly, is this a human (man-made) tradition in the church?
</li>[*]Do you believe that the worship of the "Virgin Mary, Mother of God" is a man-made tradition in the Roman Catholic Church?
</li>[*]Do you believe that according to the history of the Christian era, the Roman Catholic Christ was the first to introduce instrumental music in "the[ir] church"?
</li>[*]Do you believe that instrumental music in the Catholic and many Protestant Churches is a man-made tradition? If not, please explain.
</li>[*]You have labeled ConcernedMembers as an "evil site" or a "den of liars," do you believe in abstaining "from ALL appearance of evil" (I Thess. 5:22)?
</li>[*]Do you believe, think or feel that not only that you have not abstained "from the appearance of all evil," but also that you have actually participated in the "evil" works of this site?
</li>[*]Do you NOW believe the fact that churches of Christ do not practice mechanical music in their assemblies?
</li>[*]The change agents are promoting the idea that the church, the body of Christ, should be denomination-friendly to the extent that we compromise the truth and accept some of their teachings and beliefs? Do you agree with the change agents?
</li>[*]Even though churches of Christ do not use musical machinery in their assemblies, the change agents have been somewhat successful in transforming a few congregations into Community Church-ism by implementing the IM practice. They are subtle in their efforts. They use the incremental approach as their methodology to transform these churches. They are going against the grain. And so are you. Do you agree with this assessment? If not, please explain.
</li>[/list][color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Sorry, it's so late ... must end this for now.
Fred, I'll respond to your questions later.[/color]