Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

During the last two years, our liberal brethren (those who support human institutions from the church treasury, practice church sponsored recreation, and accept the sponsoring church form of organization) have entered dialogue with the conservative Christian Churches on unity. Many liberal brethren seem ready to fellowship those in the Christian Church; indeed, some have already jointly participated in benevolent work. However, a wave of protest from the older, more conservative liberal brethren has appeared in recent months. These brethren recognize the threat which this unity movement is posing and are now sounding the alarm. Articles on instrumental music appear frequently in the journals published by our conservative liberal brethren.

Recently Sam E. Stone, the editor of Christian Standard, wrote the editorial printed on the opposite page. The Christian Standard began in 1866 especially to promote the missionary society and can now be identified as a journal which represents the views of the independent Christian Church. It appears to be a reaction to some of the material circulated by the conservative liberals. Please read that editorial.

Where To From Here?

Our liberal brethren need to give attention to what editor Stone said.

On the other hand, no Christian or congregation should condemn those brethren who may choose to employ musical accompaniment with their singing. We are perfectly willing to forego the use of a musical instrument in worship (and have done so many times), but we are not willing to be bound by a non-Scriptural legalism that forbids its use. Christian liberty, as well as sensitive consciences, must be respected.

This constitutes an announcement that the Christian Church has no intention of giving up the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship.

I knew that was the case all along. Our forefathers made every sincere effort to appeal to those brethren in the love of God and for the sake of unity to give up the instrument in order that we might be one in Christ. They loved their instrument more than they loved their brethren or divine truth. The church was divided and remains divided because these brethren refuse to give up instruments of music in worship (and many other things).

The only other alternative that remains is for those who have opposed using mechanical instruments of music in worship to give up their opposition to them. Are our liberal brethren ready to do that? Obviously some of our liberal brethren are not willing to quit opposing the instrument and some are. It is difficult to know just how many brethren stand where. However, it is obvious that any movement which occurs will have to be made by those who have historically been opposed to using mechanical instruments of music in worship. The Christian Church people have announced that they are not willing to move an inch.

Replying To Editor Stone

Sam Stone made several comments which need to be addressed. I trust that I can do so in a spirit of love and concern for the souls of men. I hold the conviction that he is practicing sin and leading others to participate in sin. Consequently, he must be opposed because his doctrine leads men to introduce items in worship authorized solely on the authority of men rendering their worship vain (Matt. 15:8,9; Col. 2:21-23). What is said is written to prevent others from being led into sin and to lead him out of it. If my wording seems strong, stronger than others might like, please understand that my deep convictions are motivating me. Like Jesus, I cannot remain passive when I see the worship of God being corrupted (Jn. 2).

1. The Christian Church does not insist that everyone must worship with an instrument. Editor Stone wrote, “Certainly no congregation should insist that everyone must worship with an instrument.” This statement appears charitable. What he means is that he will not oppose those Christians who, for conscience sake, must worship in congregations which do not use instruments. What is implied, but unexpressed, however is this: We are bound and determined to have instruments in our worship and, if a person does not believe that they should be used, he will have to go somewhere else to worship. There is no way that a Christian who opposes instruments of music in worship can obey the divine command to worship God in song in a congregation which uses instruments of music! To these people, Stone leaves only two choices: (1) do not worship God in song in our congregations or (2) go somewhere else to worship.

2. Stone opposes the exclusion-by-silence principle. He wrote, “We feel it is impossible to hold the exclusion-by silence principle with consistency.” If Stone opposes “exclusion by silence,” he should tell us on what basis he opposes the following:

Infant baptism

Sprinkling and/or pouring

Burning incense

The papacy

Restructuring the Christian Church

United Christian Missionary Society

Using items other than unleavened bread and fruit of the vine on the Lord’s table

Partaking of the Lord’s supper at some frequency other than the first day of every week

Partaking the Lord’s supper on some day other than the Lord’s day

This list could be extended. However, if Stone opposes ‘exclusion by silence,” let him produce a “thou shalt not” which forbids these things being practiced. Surely, he would not be so inconsistent as to say that “some things are excluded by silence but others are not.”

If Stone thinks he might have trouble applying the “excluded by silence” position with consistency, he should begin to look at the inconsistencies which have followed those who believe silence authorizes. Some think the Scriptures do not prohibit restructuring the Christian Church; some think the Scriptures do not prohibit fellowshipping the pious unimmersed; some think the Scriptures do not prohibit speaking in tongues, modern healing, etc.; some think that “rock gospel” should be used in worship. How consistently can Stone apply the “silence gives consent” position?

3. Stone minimizes the instrument by pointing to other divisions among us. He wrote,

Further, solving the instrument question cannot by itself bring about unity. The acapella churches of Christ give ample evidence of this sad truth within their own ranks. While none of their congregations use instrumental music in worship, they remain seriously fragmented over other issues (e.g. Sunday schools, individual Communion cups, orphanages, premillennialism, etc.)

My fellow editor needs to be reminded that accepting the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship will not bring unity among us. The Christian Churches give ample evidence of this sad truth within their own ranks. While all of their congregations use instrumental music in worship, they remain seriously fragmented over other issues (e.g. receiving into fellowship the pious unimmersed, verbal inspiration, use of “rock gospel” music, charismatic movement, ecclesiastical organizations, etc.).

Conclusion

Stone refuses to be bound by a “non-Scriptural legalism.” I join with him in that. I too refuse to be bound by a non-scriptural legalism. Worship that is prescribed and devised by man damns one to hell (Matt. 15:8-9; Col. 2:21-23). I want no part of that and neither does he.

However, we are disagreed over whether or not the mechanical instruments of music can be used in worship with the approval of God. This issue revolves, as it always has and always will, upon a discussion of what God’s word authorizes. If I am correct in teaching that mechanical instruments are not authorized, he and his brethren have sinned by introducing unauthorized innovations into worship and opening the way to many other unauthorized items. If he is correct that instruments of music in worship have divine approval, those of us who have opposed them have sinned by making laws where God has made none (1 Tim. 4:1-3). We are driven back to a study of the Scriptures to find where the truth lies.

I commit myself to an honest investigation of those Scriptures with Stone or anyone else. I am willing to give up anything I teach or practice which cannot be authorized by the word of God. If he will join me in that commitment, I am confident that we can understand what the God of heaven has revealed and join hands in practicing what He has authorized by command, example, or necessary inference.

Unity cannot be attained between us without discussing the issues which have divided us. We are not divided by faithful brethren failing to show love – either in this generation or the one which preceded us. We are divided because some things have been introduced into the worship, work, and organization of the church to which others object. Until these items are removed or shown beyond shadow of reasonable doubt to be authorized of God, so that a man who walks by faith can practice them, division will continue to exist. The only alternative is for a man to compromise his conscience to the point that he will fellowship those who are practicing what he considers to be sin. This I refuse to do. Though I treasure unity of Christians, I have no desire for unity with those who have forsaken the ways of God to practice things for which there is no Bible authority. The Bible not only forbids unity with these people (2 Jn. 9-11), but commands that Christians oppose them (Rom. 16:17-18; Rev. 2:14, 20). I intend to follow what my God has commanded.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 2, pp. 34, 54-55
January 16, 1986

By Lewis Willis

From the Adults! The greatest treasure this world has is its children. Potential that defies the imagination resides in these little ones. That potential will be either for good or evil. It is within the scope of our ability to determine and establish that the potential be good. However, it is a fatal mistake to think that it will be good just because we want it to be. There are forces at work which intend to assure that it is evil. And, these forces will stop at nothing to achieve their purposes. That which is upright, honest, truthful, virtuous, noble, honorable, respectable, just and fair will not so much as be considered in the pursuit of evil. The beauty and innocence of our children will not even stop the rush toward wickedness. In fact, it is becoming increasingly evident that worldly minds are willing to sacrifice even our precious children to establish their goals.

It will shock you to hear this, if you haven’t heard it already, but let me illustrate what I mean. The Akron Beacon Journal (11/8/85), reported that “the Dutch government has proposed lowering the age of sexual consent from 16 to 12 years.” This legislation is to be presented to Parliament in February. If adopted, “it would be legal for adults to have sex with minors as young as 12, pro vided the minor had not been coerced or seduced with gifts or promises,” according to a Justice Ministry spokeswoman. Ans Koning, a spokeswoman for those who back this bill, said “adults who have sexual relations with youths should not be branded as criminals as long as they refrain from coercion. . . . This does not belong in criminal law.”

Thus, the Dutch government will have to decide whether a child of 12 is capable of deciding if he will become sexually active or not. I think a better thing for Parliament to consider is whether or not those who introduce such a ridiculous proposal have the mental capacity to be a part of a ruling body for a nation. Those who would introduce such an absurd law either do not know the mental capacity of 12-year old children, do not care what happens to them, or they are so committed to the cause of evil that the stop at nothing to achieve their purposes. In any case, they must be stopped! Child abuse must be stopped, whether is comes from some beastly, alcoholic, drugusing parent, or from legislators who would turn rapists loose on innocent, unsuspecting children. If adults are going to be turned loose on 12-yearolds, why not on those who are 10 or 8? Are people so stupid that they think a 12-year-old can evaluate all the consequences of the sex act? If so, the world is in worse shape than we thought.

On one occasion Jesus called a little child unto Him and, setting the child before His disciples, taught them some lessons they need to learn – lessons illustrated by the innocency and humility of the child. This is what He said about those who harm and abuse children: “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him -that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt. 18:6). It is better for a man to be killed than for him to deliberately cause harm and injury to an innocent child – to cause that child to go astray so that it is in jeopardy in God’s sight. It is hard to imagine the depravity of mind in one who would cause, or permit to be caused, such a thing to happen.

Children are presented to parents who are expected by God to love and cherish them, bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). Providing all of their needs – mentally, socially, morally, economically and spiritually – is the burden of their parents. No parent is what God wants him to be who neglects this responsibility (I Tim. 5:8). As a matter of fact, that passage says that one is worse than an infidel if he fails to make those provisions. Too many parents are A.W.O.L. where their children are concerned. One of the saddest commentaries on our times is that parents not only fail to protect their children from harm and need, but, frequently, they are the source of that harm.

I was just thinkin’, that many of us would be in censed if one of our Senators or Congressman introduced such a bill in Washington. We would be appalled that trusted representatives would at tempt to foist such evil upon our children – and rightfully so. However, I wonder how many of us, as parents, are working diligently in teaching, training and in disciplining our children in that which is good. Do we find the time to read God’s word to and with them? Do we pray with them regularly? Do we try with all our might to see that they are in Bible classes and have their lessons and pay attention to the study of God’s Word? Or, are we careless and indifferent toward their needs? If some politician should succeed in passing legislation such as that discussed herein, would your child know enough to see evil in such an idea? If not, we should all be praying, “Lord, protect our children from us and from all who would do them harm!”

Guardian of Truth XXX: 2, p. 38
January 16, 1986

By Cherrill Schmid

Although the name of John Calvin may be less of a household name than that of Martin Luther or John Wesley, yet he is second to none in influence among Protestant orders.

While studying law in Paris, Calvin experienced what he called a “conversion” which placed him in the class of a heretic when Francis I began his persecutions. Calvin then fled to Switzerland where he had the liberty to follow and develop his religious beliefs. Here he set forth a system that is considered a masterpiece of logical reasoning. This work The Institutes of the Christian Religion which was first published in 1536, is considered one of the greatest books on systematic theology ever written.

Calvin’s form of church government is Presbyterian. His doctrine of salvation has man being born into this world a “totally depraved” sinner that has been predestined (or elected), either to eternal life or to eternal damnation, that Christ died only for those predestined to eternal life, who in turn will find the Holy Spirit, as the irresistible grace of God, acting directly upon him assuring him of salvation which cannot be revoked. The influence of this doctrine and Calvin’s power over the Protestant world can hardly be over-estimated.

Protestant refugees came to ‘Geneva from all parts of Europe and were indoctrinated with the teachings of Calvin. In many cases these disciples would return to their homelands, often at the risk of their lives, to spread Calvin’s doctrine. Schaff observed that “Calvin’s moral power “tended over all the Reformed Churches and over several nationalities – Swiss, French, German, Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian, Dutch, English, Scotch and American. His religious influence upon the Anglo-Saxon race in both continents is greater than that of any native Englishman and continues to this day.”(1)

However, the day for casting off this power was to come to some. The journey out of error is often a slow and arduous one and so it was for the pioneer restorers. It demanded change, and change man tends to resist. But change did come and perhaps as can be expected, the greatest opposition came from within the ranks of the heavily Calvinistic Baptist and Presbyterian churches.

The lives of the restorers often followed similar patterns. First came their own personal struggles for their salvation dealing with the basic teachings that affected them as individuals. Then, after throwing off this yoke, they would often continue to retain some form of the “Calvinian” type of church government only to finally conclude that it, too, was of human origin.

Barton W. Stone

Barton W. Stone, as a young man, found himself vacillating in religion between the Baptist and the Methodist. The result almost killed his religious interest so that religion became distasteful to him. By 1790, he had his plans for the future mapped in the direction of the legal profession. In order to follow this route he entered the academy at Guilford, North Carolina, which was conducted by the able David Caldwell, an ordained Presbyterian minister. While there, a friend persuaded him to hear James McGready, a well known Presbyterian preacher. McGready was able to convince Stone of sin, but, as is the case of Calvinism, not one word of encouragement was offered. For the next year, young Stone prayed and labored trying to obtain saving faith but fearing he would never receive it. Finally, a discourse on “God Is Love,” by William Hodge helped to bring to him the long sought peace of mind. But this was short-lived.

Stone applied for and eventually was ordained a minister in the Presbyterian church. However, he had difficulty in accepting all of the Westminster Confession, the creed of the church. When asked, “Do you receive and adopt the Confession of faith, as containing the system of doctrine as taught in the Bible?” He replied, “I do, as far as I see it consistent with the Word of God.” In speaking of the turmoil that he went through, he said, “I at that time believed and taught that mankind were so totally depraved that they could do nothing acceptable to God till his Spirit, by physical, almighty and mysterious power, had quickened, enlightened and regenerated the heart, and thus prepared the sinner to believe in Jesus for salvation. . . . Often when I was addressing the listening multitudes on the doctrine of total depravity, on their inability to believe and on the physical power of God to produce faith, and then persuading the helpless to repent and believe the gospel, my zeal in a moment would be chilled by the contradiction. How can they believe? How can they repent? How can they do the impossibilities? How can they be guilty in not doing them? Such thoughts would almost stifle utterance, and were as mountains pressing me down to the shades of death. I tried to rest in the common salvo of that day – i.e., the distinction between natural and moral ability and inability. The pulpits were continually ringing with this doctrine; but to my mind it ceased to be a relief. . .”(2) Such mental turmoil was not uncommon of those who had honest, enquiring hearts. By making the Bible his constant companion, Stone found that those things written were written that “ye may believe” so that “whosoever will may come.”

As expected, this change in Stone would not go unchallenged. Stone had five strong co-laborers in John Dunlavy, Robert Marshall, Richard McNemar, David Purviance, and John Thompson. The Washington Presbytery (Calvinistic organization), charged McNemar with heresy when he taught contrary to the Confession. The charges were then sent to the Kentucky Synod, which in turn sustained them. Realizing that McNemar’s fate was a prelude to what was to follow for the rest of them, the six met and submitted objections to the treatment of McNemar, reporting that the Confession of Faith was an impediment to revival.

As of this time Stone had not completely left Calvinism, for he and his five cohorts established the Springfield Presbytery (Calvinistic oversight). Things seemed to go well with them, for in less than a year fifteen churches were established, seven in Ohio and eight in Kentucky, but within the year also finds the composition of the “Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery. ” This document recognizes this Calvinistic form of church government for what it is human in origin, and a hinderance to the gospel.

In the meanwhile, Stone reported his changes to the Presbyterian churches with whom he had been working, relieving them of their financial commitment to him. He continued his work among them laboring on his own farm to support himself. This change not only cost Stone a large salary but also the friendship of two large congregations. But, no longer would Calvinism be a millstone about his neck – he was free!

Thomas Campbell

Thomas Campbell, a preacher for the Anti-Burgher Seceder branch of the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), came to America in 1807. His preaching circuit of Washington, Pennsylvania suffered much the same bitter divisions that had existed among his brethren that he had left in Scotland. His efforts to bring peace among them caused him to be marked as a heretic by the Presbyterians, within six months of his arrival in America. Thomas Anderson, in the February meeting of the Chartiers Presbytery, accused Thomas Campbell of teaching that there was only human authority for confessions of faith and creeds of men. The Presbytery in turn took away his preaching appointments and the Synod of the Associated Churches upheld the action, which finally led to Thomas Campbell denouncing the authority of the Presbytery, the Synod, and their courts. He now was an independent preacher with no denominational ties to human creeds.

It was at the home of Abraham Alters eleven months later that Campbell coined the phrase, “Where the scriptures speak, we speak, and where the scriptures are silent, we are silent.”(3)Andrew Munro responded, “Mr. Campbell, if we adopt that as a basis, then there is an end of infant baptism. . . . ” Campbell replied, “Of course, if infant baptism be not found in the scripture, we can have nothing to do with it.”(4)

Alexander Campbell

Alexander Campbell was reared under the strong Calvinistic influence of his father’s Presbyterian faith. It might be noted that the Calvinistic influence came also from the strong faith of his mother Jane who was of French Huguenot extraction. As the Presbyterians, so the French Huguenots also received their creed and form of church government from Calvin.

About four years after the aforementioned exchange between Alters, Thomas Campbell, and Munro, the Campbells were forced into an application of this bold position. Thomas Campbell’s family is now in America with him. Alexander, who subscribes to the same positions as his father, has become a father himself. Now, should the new baby Jane be a recipient of infant baptism or not? Studying everything available to him, Alexander eventually concluded that not only should she not be baptized (sprinkled), but that sprinkling was not even baptism, in which case he had never been baptized himself. This conclusion was hard to accept for sprinkling and infant baptism had been the practice of the Seceder church for generations. However, within three months of the birth of Jane (March 13, 1812), Thomas Campbell and his wife Jane, Alexander and his wife Margaret, Alexander’s sister and Mr. and Mrs. James Hanen were immersed in Buffalo Creek.

In the fall of 1813, the Brush Run church, which had been established by the Campbells May 4, 1811, applied for and was accepted in the Redstone Baptist Association. This short, shaky relationship was doomed from the beginning for some of the basic beliefs of the Association were not only Calvinistic, but held by the Brush Run church as being completely without scriptural authority.

The Baptists subscribed to the Philadelphia Confession of Faith which is a Calvinistic document; the Campbells did not. It, however, was not until Alexander’s famous sermon on “The Law” before a meeting of the Association, that efforts were made to try him as a heretic. Before this could be done, the Brush Run church withdrew from the Redstone Association and joined the less radical Mahoning Association. By 1830, the Mahoning Association was dissolved as being without Bible authority. During his life, Alexander participated in five debates, three of which dealt with Calvinism.

“Racoon” John Smith

“Racoon ” John Smith was reared in a Baptist home under the guidance of the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. As a young man he began thinking about his own salvation, knowing by Calvinistic faith that he must receive a sign from God showing him that he was among the elect. He tried to convince himself that he was totally depraved which created turmoil within him. He waited anxiously for the revelation, suffering much intense emotion. After one such battle he began to relax and a calm came over him. Maybe this was the sign. At least the church accepted it as such and he was voted into the Baptist church and baptized.

John went through the same type of struggle in seeking a sign that he should preach. This sign seemed as elusive as did the sign of salvation. Finally, in a life and death struggle with an ox, he vowed that if God would spare him he would give his life in preaching the gospel. Smith was spared and he accepted this as a divine call to preach. And preach he did. He became one of the ablest preachers the Baptists had – able to defend the doctrine of Calvin.

Smith, however, had a chink in his armor in the form of a keen wit, an honest heart and an inquiring mind, for he recognized the inconsistencies of the Calvinistic faith. Questions like, “What if the elect do not believe, will they still be saved? What if the non-elect believe, will they be lost?” kept coming back to haunt him. This happened in Spencer’s Creek while John was urging the sinners to repent and believe the gospel. These questions so badgered him that he said, “Brethren, something is wrong — I am in the dark, — we are all in the dark, but how to lead you to the light, or to find the way myself, before God, I know not.” “Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened to you,” and this is what John did. With the help of Campbell and his Christian Baptist periodical, Smith came to know the truth and stood firmly against Calvinism.

Perhaps the impact of Calvinism on the “Christian” world can be stated no better than Barton Stone did himself. “Let me here speak when I shall be lying under the clods of the grave. Calvinism is among the heaviest clogs on Christianity in the world. It is a dark mountain between heaven and earth, and is amongst the most discouraging hindrances to sinners from seeking the kingdom of God, and engenders bondage and gloominess in the saints. Its influence is felt throughout the Christian world, even where it is least suspected. Its first link is total depravity.”(5)

The restorers herein mentioned are by no means all of them but these do typify the general situations that were brought on by Calvinism. Calvinism has perhaps put on a new coat now, but it still rides the same horse.

Endnotes

1. Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, Vol. VIII, p. 806.

2. Richardson, Robert, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, Vol. 11, pp. 190-191.

3. Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 237.

4. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 238.

5. Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 192.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 1, pp. 22-24
January 2, 1986

By Sam E. Stone

Over the past year we have published several essays and news reports growing out of current efforts to develop a sense of unity with our brethren in the non-instrumental churches of Christ. These articles have brought mixed reactions from our readers.

A brother wrote from Northern Ireland:

I first came into contact with the brotherhood’s musical instrument problem when a loving Christian couple in the U.S.A. lent me Murch’s Christians Only. I have since been reading the articles which have appeared in the Standard. When I first read about the problem the answer to it was so obvious to me that I wondered why it still existed. I still think the same.

It is obvious to all that it is the instrument itself which is the reason for the disunity, bitterness, and hatred shown by both sides. There is no reason whatever why a congregation should not worship without an instrument. All are agreed on that point. The obvious answer then is, “Give up the instrument!” Would that be too big a sacrifice to make for the sake of the one who sacrificed everything for His church? Surely not!

We share our brother’s grief at the division that exists among those committed to the restoration of New Testament Christianity. We are not so sure that following his suggestion would solve the problem, however.

Certainly no congregation should insist that everyone must worship with an instrument. On the other hand, no Christian or congregation should condemn those brethren who may choose to employ musical accompaniment with their singing. We are perfectly willing to forego the use of a musical instrument in worship (and have done so many times), but we are not willing to be bound by a non-Scriptural legalism that forbids its use. Christian liberty, as well as sensitive consciences, must be respected.

Further, solving the instrument question cannot by itself bring about unity. The acappella, churches of Christ give ample evidence of this sad truth within their own ranks. While none of their congregations use instrumental music in worship, they remain seriously fragmented over other issues (e.g. Sunday schools, individual Communion cups, orphanages, pre-millennialism, etc.).

This problem was addressed by Leroy Garrett in a letter to H.A. (Buster) Dobbs, editor of Firm Foundation. Brother Garrett wrote:

Your editorial in the 11 June Firm Foundation about instrumental music, particularly in reference to claims recently made by some of our brothers in the Christian Church, reminds me of how long we have discussed that issue without resolving it. . . . It is the same with other issues of a similar nature, and we all seem to be on both the pro and anti side, depending on the issue. Our good brother… G.B. Shelburne, would make the same argument from the silence of the Scriptures in reference to the Sunday School that you make on instrumental music. As you said in your recent editorial, “We do not use mechanical means of making music in the worship of the church because the Bible is silent with reference to the practice!” He would say the same thing, inserting “the Sunday School” where you have “instrumental music.” That makes you the pro or liberal and he the anti.

But then brother Shelbourne becomes the liberal when it comes to a plurality of cups for Communion, for the anti-cups brethren will take your same proposition and argue that since the Bible is silent about cups they do not use them. On and on it goes. . . . (Restoration Review, September, 1985, p. 131).

Brother Garrett has put his finger on the sensitive center f the problem. The solution will not be found by simply removing all of the pianos from a of the Christian churches. The difficulty of a questionable hermeneutic remains. We feel it is impossible to hold the exclusion-by-silence principle with consistency.

While we oppose anyone’s legislating where the Lord has not, we strongly encourage consideration for the feelings of our non-instrument brethren. Believers who choose to worship with the accompaniment of a musical instrument must not insist that all others follow their preference.

We agree with Leroy Garrett: “That the Scriptures are silent on any given subject means only that the Scriptures are silent on that subject, and no other conclusion can be drawn. Silence neither proves nor disproves anything. . . . Do we not have to conclude that since no law can be imposed when the Bible is silent, we must leave it to each one or to each church to decide what disposition to make on such matters?”

Guardian of Truth XXX: 2, pp. 35-36
January 16, 1986