Why I'm thankful God convicted about Rock'nRoll

No of course I can't! No one can! Not as long as we are in this body. Christ was the fulfillment of all the law because He was the love required to fulfill it. </font>[/QUOTE]You are absolutely right. No one can. Then why do you emphasize:

...the possibility that we can? You seem to indicate one must love God with all his heart, soul, and mind in order to please God or be saved. And yet at the same time, you freely admit that it is impossible for man to do so.</font>[/QUOTE]Absolutely correct. We are called to love God with all our heart soul and mind. Perfect love is the fulfillment of all God's commandments and only Christ is perfect love, therefore we rely on the imputation of His righteousness through the works of His earthly ministry to His death and resurrection.

Pefect love is the dividing line between strict obedience to the requirements of God's law and obedience of the whole heart.

When you are young you learn obedience and discipline by force against your will. You obey in fear of punishment from authority. When you are older you learn obedience of the entire will through the love of God and His commandments.

You keep saying the same thing over and over without any Scriptural support. There is nothing in the Bible which suggests that God sets us up to sin through no fault of our own or that God judges anything other than the heart. There are truckloads of Scripture which I have already pointed out to you that confirm the very truth of this. You have ignored all of it.

What do you cling on to? 1 John 3:4?

Let's look at it in context:

What about this exhortation to live righteously implies that we should avoid sins we can't help committing?

What about these passages leads you to conclude that sin comes from anywhere but the heart?

Now this one is just amazing:

Here we have the Israelites writing their own civil law and God still judges their hearts! They were accountable for knowing the holiness of the marital bond.

Another beautiful one:

What? Not a discerner of willful sin and oops sin?

One more for now:

Why all this exhortation to know the heart? Search the heart? Act of a clean heart? Where's the exhortation to pray for avoidance of "OOPS!" sin?

 

I enjoy listening to Keith Green.

To Obey Is Better Than Sacrifice


To obey is better than sacrifice,

I don't need your money, I want your life.

And I hear you say that I'm coming back soon,

But you act like I'll never return.


Well you speak of grace and my love so sweet,

How you thrive on milk, but reject my meat,

And I can't help weeping of how it will be,

If you keep on ignoring my words.


Well you pray to prosper and succeed,

But your flesh is something I just can't feed.


To obey is better than sacrifice.

I want more than Sunday and Wednesday nights,

Cause if you can't come to me every day,

Then don't bother coming at all.

Lah, lah,lah….


To obey is better than sacrifice.

I want hearts of fire, not your prayers of ice.

And I'm coming quickly, to give back to you,

According to what you have done,

According to what you have done,

According to what you have done.

 

I wondered if you'd try to use that. But then I figured "nah; after all; he does use this very passage to tell us to respect our brother's weakness, and that is certainly not 'dismissing it as superstition and ignorance'". But sure enough! Now we have:

So this would mean; you ADMIT that people's aversion to rock is "superstition and ignorance"; but we should avoid it anyway; out of "love". But then; the real reason all along you and others have been saying we shouldn't listen to it is because this person's concerns can't be superstition and ignorance; but rather God's conviction. "Rock music is an evil, carnal and sensual form of music unfit for the worship of Christ, and incompatible with the day-to-day life of the Christian.", we get later on.

Which is it?

You are playing both sides of the fence here!
And note: we are to TEACH the person, while abstaining. So I should anstain now while I ty to teach you. That would be an admission, basically that I am right. But if you stubbornly keep refusing to be taught; and maintain you position; then I am to keep abstaining indefnitely? That way; YOU basically CONTROL my and every other Christian's listening habits. (And all the while; you do not budge an inch for anyone else).

This is precisely why "convictions" like this get ignored and people just go on and listen to what they want! As I say on the page:
Paul is giving us the attitude we should have, and yes, many have failed here. But this is not to be manipulated in order to completely obliterate others' preferences altogether. Else, the person doing this is violating the intent of these scriptures just as much as the supposed "offender". Plus, nobody would be able to do anything, because different people will claim to be "offended" by everything and anything. The people claiming to be "offended" must have a sensible claim. The Bible does not tell us to yield to any [such claim] that comes up in the Church, for then there would be no way to keep out false doctrine! Paul may have in one place told his readers to yield to those with weak consciences regarding meat, but then in 1 Tim.4:1-5 he condemns those among other things, "commanding to...abstain from meats". Contrasting this with Rom. and 1 Cor. shows that with some it is a legitimate issue of conscience, and with others, it is part of a false system of doctrine. He does not even say "well, since there are some who have legitimate conscience issues, we should still abolish all meat anyway, [as basically, the false teachers happen to be right on that]". In fact, rather than a genuine personal spiritual conviction, it seems in this issue the music critics are bent on stamping out of existence altogether a whole range of music largely because of the culture its elements came from, or because it's not what they are used to, or because they thought any amount of physical pleasure was bad! Is that what Paul suggested we do with meat? No, but it is closer to what the false teachers in 1 Tim. apparently were trying to do. Younger generations questioned this, dismissed it, and then went and did whatever they felt was right. Both went about it the wrong way! The Biblical way to resolve this would have been to all sit down and discuss it prayerfully as brethren, but the problem was that those favoring the old ways were usually totally unreasonable, and did not even believe in discussing or debating, so actually, the brunt of the blame for this discord would fall more on the traditionalists!

So the most we could get out of this, to be safe is not to eat meats or listen to the music around them. "I will never eat mean again for their sake" is the attitude we are to have. NOT necessarily the practice! Else; we will end up "tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine".

Guitar is right. You've lost me there, too! On one hand; now you are not arguing music; but rather "the Bible doesn't have to explicitly define something in order to condemn it"; the case being "a proud look". If we just yield on that; then the next step is "likewise; the Bible does not have to mention rock music to condemn it". So you ARE still making an argument on music; though you have "stepped aside" for a moment to try to build the principle from elsewhere, to support your argument. Fine. But the problem is; that principle does not support your argument!
Everyone knows by nature what a proud look is; jut like we know what a happy look, or a sad look, or an angry look. (the latter even extends into the animal kingdom!). It is the nature of facial/body expression that is instilled in us by instinct; so the Bible assumes it and does not have to define it.
Now; with the music; you try to basically build an argument of a "sensual look"; and there is of course, such a thing. But once again; it is not universal to rock music; or music with that defining beat. People use it like that; but once again; you extend it only by certain people's claims; that are from their own feelings or experience; and do not carry on to everyone. Once again; we still have not escaped that old cycle of shifting arguments! (Likewise; classical can be associcated with that very "proud look" that is mentioned there!) So all of this proves absolutely nothing!

 

You make some good points Eric--some that I can apply to my discussion with Travelsong.
When I was unsaved I listened to rock music. I was ignorant that it was "sin." Many would disagree with me on this point; I realize this. But when I became saved, a combination of the teaching of the Word of God, and conviction of the Holy Spirit told me that Rock music was wrong. Now if I listen to it, I go against the teaching of God's Word and, and am convicted of the Holy Spirit that what I am doing is wrong. That is what Travelsong refers to as a sin that is rooted from the heart. And it surely is.
But before that time, how could it be sin?

There are many areas where we as Christians need to grow in grace, learn from the Word of God, be convicted of the Holy Spirit, to learn that certain things are wrong. Many of these things fall into the category of Romans 14. If there is no change in a person's lifestyle after they are saved, perhaps they are not saved.
Here is a good example of a sin of the heart vs. not a sin of the heart.

A person attends a church where the teaching is that women ought to where a head covering.
Is that a sin for an unsaved person. Obviously not. But there is clear teaching on that in 1Cor.11. To directly disobey is wilfull sin.
Of course those that don't think (or want to think ) it is sin, may be sinning anyway (out of ignorance or rebellion).
DHK

 

Easy. If listening to rock is a sin, then it is a sin regardless of whether or not you believe or know it to be. It will be sin because listening to it requires you to remove your reverence for the one true God and place it on your own desires.

We suppress the truth (Romans 1:18-28)! We have from the beginning. That doesn't make us any less accountable!

 

Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

A dead person cannot sin.

 

Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

A dead person cannot sin. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't know what you are talking about anymore and I suspect that you don't either.

Yes, we are dead in our sins before we come to saving faith. I don't know what this snippet of Scripture is supposed do for you but here it is in context:

Murder is sin before and after conversion. Stealing is sin before and after conversion.

Any action which denies God His station as supreme authority is sin regardless if you do it consciously or not.

 

Romans 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Man knows it is wrong to steal, and wrong to commit murder, etc. because God has written his moral law (i.e., Ten Commandments) upon the heart of every individual. Concerning other spiritual things it is not so.

1 Corinthians 2:11-12 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
--Only the believer can fully understand the Bible, for he has the Holy Spirit to guide him. The natural man (unsaved man cannot understand the Word of God; he is spiritually discerned. How then can he sin wilfully against that which he has no knowledge of. He may still transgress the law of God, but it will be out of ignorance.

The Bible specifically teaches this:
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Paul's own testimony:
1 Timothy 1:12-15 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
DHK

 

I guess. You can't have soundwaves without air. They're like ink on a page.

However, music is not just any old soundwave. I can hear a train rumbling on the tracks right now. That's not music. Music is the intelligent and aesthetic arrangement of sounds with the purpose of eliciting a specific emotional response.

 

I'll try to go slower.

IF lilrabbi is right about music, then God really DID convict him and rock music is wrong for everyone.

IF lilrabbi is wrong about music, then God really DIDN'T convict him and rock music is right for everyone, but lilrabbi's "conviction" is the product of ignorance and superstition, or weakness if you don't like the terms ignorance and superstition.

That's no admission of anything. It's only saying the Holy Spirit has not afforded you the privilege of abdicating your responsibility to prove what is that good and acceptable by saying, "Well, that's just how God is dealing with you, but He deals with me in a different way."

That is a lukewarm, lazy, and unscriptural response. If anyone is playing both sides of the fence, it's you.

If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

Four. It doesn't matter what you call a tail, it's not a leg.

And that's what's going on in the arguments about music. Instead of understanding music as thought, we want to call it an object, like something you can pluck from a tree or find washed up on the seashore.

But if one understands its true nature, then he sees that the Scriptures indeed have very much to say about the kinds of music we should be indulging. They don't have to go into the detail that we think they should in order to judge something as good or evil.

[ April 01, 2005, 06:42 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Romans 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Man knows it is wrong to steal, and wrong to commit murder, etc. because God has written his moral law (i.e., Ten Commandments) upon the heart of every individual. Concerning other spiritual things it is not so.

1 Corinthians 2:11-12 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
--Only the believer can fully understand the Bible, for he has the Holy Spirit to guide him. The natural man (unsaved man cannot understand the Word of God; he is spiritually discerned. How then can he sin wilfully against that which he has no knowledge of. He may still transgress the law of God, but it will be out of ignorance.

The Bible specifically teaches this:
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Paul's own testimony:
1 Timothy 1:12-15 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I still don't get the point you're trying to make DHK. Ignorance nullifies sin?

Sin is still sin whether you're aware of God's commandments or not. We're not talking about conviction of the conscience through knowledge of the law. We're defining the nature of sin.

Look at your citation of Timothy.

When Paul was in ignorance, he was a blasphemer and a persecutor (actions of the heart), but he obtained mercy from God even in his ignorance. The sin was still sin, and it was still very much an action of the heart. If sin from ignorance was any less sin against God, why would Paul need mercy? Where there is no sin, there is no need of mercy.

[ April 01, 2005, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Travelsong ]

 

OK. So I should say you're admitting the possibility that his conviction could be superstition and ignorance. Whatever...

No; because you are the one who hasn't proven what is the good and acceptable will; you just make pronouncements on it based on tradition; and then take other people's "testimonies' as the ultimate proof. Then you try to put us in the bind that eiither we must believe what they say; OR be guilty of accusing them of "superstition and ignorance" (i.e. "insulting" them); and thus US being the intolerant judgers, and non-objective; and thus our views are invalidated by default. So you "win" the argument (in your own eyes) while throwing what you are actually guilty of back on us to boot. Pretty nice system you got there. Unfortunately; nobody is buying it!

Maybe so, at least to some extent. But as we see here; you are giving us everything but this scriptural proof that the music in question is wrong, or that the styles you accept are right. It's all based on ASSUMPTION; and I'm sorry; but you can't use this "true nature" claim or that "proud look" argument to justify assumption and turn it into bolical command.
And these scriptures in question DO teach that God convicts people based on their knowledge; for precisely this reason: So we may have harmony in the body, instead of people judging one another over ridiculous issues that spring forth from their own minds. This is a provision made for the fact that people WOULD have ignorance and superstition, and/or "weak consciences" that are easily offended. If someone has some question about something; then God will convict them precisely because "whatever is not of FAITH is sin"; whether that thing is actually sin or not. As I am going to address to DHK; there is a big difference between the LETTER and the SPIRIT of the Law; and people are getting hung up on the letter, while the Spirit goes right over their heads; and is dismissed as some sort of lawlessness (Rom.3)

I have not been the one arguing "music-is-a-thing". Yes, it is thought or communication. The best rock, jazz and other artists we often listen to have empasized themselves that their music is their thoughts. But you still think that acknowledging this automatically proves which is good and which is bad. But it does not. It all winds up being "proven" by certain people's interpretation of particular sounds (which by thesmelves as elements ARE about as neutral as the train sound you mentioned above). When we point out that it does not move everyone like that, so it must be their own conviction; then you say "no; if God convicted them; it must be universal; or you are calling them ignorant". When we ask for scriptural proof that it is a universal conviction from God; then here come people's claims of negative affects/conviction" again! Once again; the same CYCLE of mutually self-proving arguments. I say again; God convicts each individual person based on his own knowledge or conscience to avoid these types of senseless divisions in the Church. You might say "well; if that's true, and God concivts people of all different styles instead of having one standard style; they they are divided anyway". No; as they can find a fellowship that agrees with their conviction, so they won't be offended. As long as they don't still rise up and judge other churches who don't have the same conviction (such as "traditional-only" separatist fundamentalists are doing), then the Body would still have Unity in Christ. But as I have told the sabbatarians on other threads; that is just no "fun" to our pride. Like their days of worship; what good is esteeming something unto the Lord if I can't judge someone else as "less obedient to God" for it. So with all this talk of "the flesh"; it is the oned doing the talking who are most indulgent in the REAL (spiritually speaking) "flesh"!

 

It seems to me that you are drawing a rather arbitrary distinction between the medium of communication and the heart. Why exactly do you stop at the page before ink is applied or at the air before soundwaves move through it? Aren't soundwaves fundamentally just as much a part of the material universe as air?

In other words, in order for an intent of the heart to be communicated, it must make use of the temporal world. Soundwaves are not naturally a part of the heart so I wonder how you get from sin being an action of the heart to sin being external and independant of the heart in a materialistic sense.

 

You're taking a purely technical, "letter" definition of the Law. But this missed the OTHER scriptural definitions; which goes beneath the first: "to him who knows to do good but does it not; TO HIM it is sin" (James 4:17). Related to that is "whatever is not of faith is sin" (Rom.14:23-- e.g. if you are not sure it is right). Then there is Paul's discussions in Romans about how "by the Law is the knowledge of sin" (4:20), "where there is no law, there is no transgression" (5:15). People are looking at legal guilt only, but the Gospel teaches that God is not operating on Law (in which no one could ever be saved). He judges by conscientious guilt.
(This is actually an excerpt from my Predestination page; as the issue closely parallels the CvsA debate over whether "guilt for sin", and thus election/reprobation extends to infants who die; or if there is an "age of accountability" instead).

Even the OT Law had more grace than this, from what I have seen! There are provisions made for techical "sins" done purely in ignorance.

So while some speeding because he did not see a hidden sign is "technically" "sinning"; if "the Law" in that area did not make sure the rule was clearly posted; then in court; the person would most likely be found "not guilty". He would be "technically guilty"; but end up not charged. (If it was visible, and he simply was not paying attention; than THAT is where his "sin of the heart" would lie!) So if people are using this to try to "prove" that "you are sinning by using that music that is offensive to me (or presumably, to God) even though you don't know it was offensive/didn;t mean to offend"; then sorry, but that does not work. It is just another attempt to judge another man's servant, and basically force our convictions on them.
We must not get so hung up on "the letter"; because the letter kills (hence all the discord); but the Spirit gives life.

 

I agree with most of what you say but I don't think it's fair to paint the opposition with such a broad stroke. In fact it should be broader. If you know your own heart I believe you have found an element of self righteous judgement within yourself. It's in all of us whenever we go head to head over doctrine.

 

I wasn't really implicating any definite individuals with this; only painting a general picture of our nature (mine included. I realized thjs what I discovered that my reason for being a sabbatarian years ago was to judge others). So yes; we all have this element in us, and I am simply reminding the opposition of it so hopefully, they would keep it in mind.

 

ah, ok. I misunderstood you.

 

That is what I have been saying all along Eric. God made provision for sins of ignorance--that is sins that they did not do willfully out of the heart.

Aaron pointed out (and I believe rightly so) that Rock music is sin, or sinful). But an unsaved person is not going to see that because he is spiritually discerned (1Cor.2:14). He understands not the things of the Spirit of God. When a person gets saved he becomes a new creature in Christ; old things are passed away, all things are become new. The Holy Spirit works in an individual to bring change. If there is no change in a person's life when they get saved, I doubt if they are saved.
Rock music is wrong. When a person gets saved the Holy Spirit enlightens him to that fact. The Bible says in Eph.2:1 that before salvation we were dead. A dead person does not sin, knows not sin--apart from the moral law that God has written on their hearts. When he gets saved the Holy Spirit comes and dwells within him and joins with his spirit making his spirit alive to things of God that he is able to discern what is right and wrong according to the Word of God. Now there should be no excuse for the believer to see that the ungodly, fleshly, worldly music of Rock is wrong.
DHK

 

Yes, the provision provided for all of God's people through the entirety of human history is Jesus Christ. Animal sacrifices never removed guilt, faith pointing toward and looking back to the cross effectualizes righteousness imputed.

What you seem to not be getting is that at one time Adam was at harmony and capable of pure communion with God. His willfull disobedience cursed his will so that all of his natural affections turned to his own authority. Now, not only does this degraded, scarred nature get past along, it also loses more and more knowledge of God's commandments through willfull rebellion and suppression of the truth.

Look at Sodom. It's safe to assume by the vivid description of these people's hearts that they considered blackness virtue. They took delight and pride in every wicked imagination man is capable of constructing. This was a people who had lost virtually all knowledge of God. In a word, ignorant.

Now what does God judge?