MMF - biblical principle

Sue--do we do what we do because the group does it? Or do we do what we do because it's right according the the principles and precepts of God's Word? The whole world can jump off a cliff, but I won't. I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at with these questions/statements--at least I hope you can! Remember, it's not about me and what I want. It's about God and what He wants!

 

Daniel,

The point for my addressing the group participation in dancing was for the fact of explaining that there is no one standing and gazing at my body with lust while I'm praising God...so is everyone else so I'm not the only one. You keep saying that its not about what you want but what God wants, and yet you assume God doesn't want Christian rock, I still don't see proof where he disaproves.

Sue

 

Dancing is definitely not an aspect of New Testament worship. I wonder why when the Psalms are invoked to justify carnal methods of worship we don't see the CCM crowd pushing to offer bulls and burn incense. (Not yet, anyway.) After all, the Psalms command us to do these things.

There are many aspects of Jewish worship other than the shedding of blood that were done away with through the sacrifice of Christ. As Jesus said, "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth," John 4:23-24.

Paul reiterated that sentiment when he said, "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" 2 Corinthians 5:16-17.

And again in 1 Corinthians 13:11, "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

Paul elsewhere compares the difference between the Old and New Covenants as the difference between a child and a man of full age, Galations 3:24-4:7.

It is clear that the Psalms must be understood spiritually in the light of the New Testament, as in this quote by Sir Richard Baker quoted in The Treasury of David by C. H. Spurgeon under Psalm 33:2: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is said that David praised God upon "an instrument of ten strings;" and he would never have told how many strings there were, but that without all doubt he made use of them all. God hath given all of us bodies, as it were, instruments of many strings; and can we think it music good enough to strike but one string, to call upon him with our tongues only? No, no; when the still sound of the heart by holy thoughts, and the shrill sound of the tongue by holy words, and the loud sound of the hands by pious works, do all join together, that is God's concert, and the only music wherewith he is affected.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Theopolitan posted this quote in another thread.

Musical instruments may be employed as a help for Christians to sing, but to invoke the Psalms to justify full instrumental worship and carnal expression (dancing) is folly. And to think that God some how takes pleasure in and inhabits the sounds we are making with inanimate objects borders on pagan superstition.

It would benefit all of us to consider Dr. Peter Masters' exposition of this matter. Dr. Masters is the pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle (C.H. Spurgeon's church).
http://www.freedomministries.org.uk/masters/worship2.htm

P.S. What happened to our signatures?

[ August 28, 2001: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Welcome back Aaron! Enjoyed reading your post. Thanks for the link. The signatures were done away with because we wanted to save space, and some people used about 10 lines to define their character.

 

Welcome back, Aaron. Thank you for the highly insightful post. You know that many will not allow sensible reasoning in this forum, but rather emotional expression void of logical and Biblical soundness. Nevertheless, we will continue to try. There is always hope in the Lord, brother. We look forward to many other posts from you!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Dancing is definitely not an aspect of New Testament worship. I wonder why when the Psalms are invoked to justify carnal methods of worship we don't see the CCM crowd pushing to offer bulls and burn incense. (Not yet, anyway.) After all, the Psalms command us to do these things.
There are many aspects of Jewish worship other than the shedding of blood that were done away with through the sacrifice of Christ. As Jesus said, "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth," John 4:23-24.

Paul reiterated that sentiment when he said, "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" 2 Corinthians 5:16-17.

And again in 1 Corinthians 13:11, "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

Paul elsewhere compares the difference between the Old and New Covenants as the difference between a child and a man of full age, Galations 3:24-4:7.

It is clear that the Psalms must be understood spiritually in the light of the New Testament, as in this quote by Sir Richard Baker quoted in The Treasury of David by C. H. Spurgeon under Psalm 33:2:

quote: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The New Testament clearly says that blood offering are superseded, and it also gives us clear principles about dietary laws, and the sabbaths, but just because it doesn't mention something, how can we just go and say "well, that was done away", with something we don't like, or on he other hand "God does not change" with stuff we think should continue (for instance, people cite God's dealing with Aaron and others and reason "If God was so strict on worship, then we must treat music like that also". Why isn't this seen as "the puerile instruction of the Law" that was superseded by the age of Grace now?)
We are just adding to the Word left and right stuff that just is not there. If it isn't mentioned, and it doesn't directly violate a clear principle, (like drug use) then we are to have liberty and charity. And for the third time, the arguments of Spurgeon and others are against all instruments, not just a "beat", yet what people are really trying to do away with is a type of beat, not their old beloved pianos, organs, "majesty" style horns and string orchestras. A these arguments (Spurgeon/Masters) too are just made up, from non-biblical ideas, (to justify the repression of the past) just as much as "let's interpret the 7 days of creation as ages" (to justify scientific dates for the age of the universe). We can't say this "spiritual" interpretation is "in Light of the New Testament" when the NT (including the scriptures quote above) doesn't even address the issue. Let's be consistent and honest here. If you all think this way, then fine, but you need to stop saying everyone else is disobeying scripture, because you are violating the scriptures with these universal restrictions (based on your choices) just as much as someone who continues to offend the weaker brother with their choices.
The issue with dancing is not that all of the hip movements of today are good, but that the argument that music is bad if it is lively enough to "make you want to move" (other than marching), are disproven. God did accept David's worship, so how can you call it "carnal methods of worship". Why is the classical European way of doing things always made out to be God's standard?

Well, anyway, welcome back Aaron. DHK and Theolpolitan have been waiting all summer for you, but still, we need to learn more to separate scriptural mandate from personal conviction.

 

Aaron,

Wow, that was alot of what that you said? Where in the scripture does it say dancing is carnal? Please tell me why it is that we choose to accept the NT but not the OT? Btw..how do you know the CCM croud does not use bulls and horns or incense in worship?

It is still coming from personal opinion only that dancing or ccm is carnal or of the world, show me the scripture.

Sue

 

Hello Eric B. Thank you. It's good to be back.

En Garde!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eric B said: The New Testament clearly says that blood offering are superseded, and it also gives us clear principles about dietary laws, and the sabbaths, but just because it doesn't mention something, how can we just go and say "well, that was done away", with something we don't like, or on he other hand "God does not change" with stuff we think should continue (for instance, people cite God's dealing with Aaron and others and reason "If God was so strict on worship, then we must treat music like that also". Why isn't this seen as "the puerile instruction of the Law" that was superseded by the age of Grace now?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A principle and a method are not the same thing. The One held before our eyes in the Old Testament, though veiled, was Christ. The One held before our eyes in the New Testament is the same Christ now unveiled. Under the Old Testament Christ was known after the flesh. He was approached with an offering of either a life or with grain, with incense and ritual, and always through a priesthood, and always through a meticulous and burdensome rite. These things were for our instruction, 1 Corinthians 10:11; Galatians 3:24. Paul calls the provisions of the Law "carnal commandment," Hebrews 7:16. (There's your Scripture, Sue.) But now henceforth know we him no more, 2 Corinthians 5:16. Not even His bodily presence is to be preferred to knowing Him by His Spirit.

The eternal truths of Christ foreshadowed in the Law are still valid, but the method has "passed away."

New Testament worship must tenaciously adhere to this principle. In all its outward forms it must testify that Christ is no longer known by the flesh. He is not now known through the vibration of strings, nor by the clapping and lifting of hands, nor the gyration of our bodies. He is known by His Spirit which is received by the "hearing of faith," Galatians 3:5, through the preaching of the Word, Romans 10:17.

And if one suffers carnal "helps" to be employed, then he must make absolutely certain that they do not distract from that testimony.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eric B said: We can't say this "spiritual" interpretation is "in Light of the New Testament" when the NT (including the scriptures quote above) doesn't even address the issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Arguments can be made from the silence of the Scriptures. Paul interpreted absence of Melchisedec's genealogy to mean that he was eternal and therefore a type and foreshadow of Christ's Priesthood, Hebrews 7:3. If I am to remain true to the Scriptures, then I must conclude that the New Testament church did not employ musical instruments since they are not mentioned, and, indeed, history bears this out as Theopolitan aptly posted in the aforementioned thread. Then to what advantage were the Psalms to a religion which abandoned the use of harps and psalteries, timbrels and pipes, and to whom Paul said all scripture is . . . profitable, 2 Timothy 3:16?

Eric, some of the difficulty you have with this is your unwarranted expectation that every issue important to God is going to be cut and dried in some straightforward maxim in the Bible, and the sincere milk of the word is in a form very much like that. But God expects us to do some digging. One must labor to get understanding. He must seek her like hid treasures, Proverbs 2:1-5. He must seek, ask and knock, Matthew 7:7-8.

Don't proceed on the premise that (apparent) silence equals license. That's what I used to do as an unruly youth. "The teacher said no talking, but she didn't say anything about passing notes!" It is obstinacy that assumes permission where none is granted.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>New Testament worship must tenaciously adhere to this principle. In all its outward forms it must testify that Christ is no longer known by the flesh. He is not now known through the vibration of strings, nor by the clapping and lifting of hands, nor the gyration of our bodies. He is known by His Spirit which is received by the "hearing of faith," Galatians 3:5, through the preaching of the Word, Romans 10:17. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To take scriptures on "the flesh" regarding blood sacrifices and other rituals, and then jump them over to praise, music, instruments and worship is the biggest stretch I've ever seen. One just does not have anything to do with the other. Blood sacrifice had no other purpose but to atone for sin, and remind them of the seriousness of sin, so naturally, that "fleshy commandment" would be fulfilled in Christ. But lively styles or worship and instruments? Now, Platonic auterity is our pattern; the "fulfilment in Christ"?
And nobody will address the fact that musical instruments are being ruled out, but most of you still use them. Masters allegorized the instruments in Ps. 150, and then went right on to say the organ was good, (but a few cebnturies ago, the plainchant people said it had "a devil in every pipe"!) This is supposed to rule out a rock beat along with other African-influenced styles? Early Take 6 albums were a-capella, just like these poeple are advocating, but you would still say they were no good because of the jazzy styles. The arguments are not consistent here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Arguments can be made from the silence of the Scriptures. Paul interpreted absence of Melchisedec's genealogy to mean that he was eternal and therefore a type and foreshadow of Christ's Priesthood, Hebrews 7:3. If I am to remain true to the Scriptures, then I must conclude that the New Testament church did not employ musical instruments since they are not mentioned, Don't proceed on the premise that (apparent) silence equals license. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
On one hand, if something is not mentioned, we can safely assume it wasn't there, but on the other if something (a rule or command)is not mentioned, we better assume it is there. And I'm not advocating "license" as you'll see in my other posts. Just not this limited choice of music styles.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eric, some of the difficulty you have with this is your unwarranted expectation that every issue important to God is going to be cut and dried in some straightforward maxim in the Bible, and the sincere milk of the word is in a form very much like that. But God expects us to do some digging. One must labor to get understanding. He must seek her like hid treasures, Proverbs 2:1-5. He must seek, ask and knock, Matthew 7:7-8.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll have to get back to you with the quotes, but suffice it to say, your site has links to both Terry Watkins anf Jeff Godwin. They spew out some of the most hostile rhetoric against Christians who use rock, almost equal to that of Peter Ruckman in the KJV issue, sometimes. Plus, they defiantly say they will refuse responses. Now if this issue does not have to be cut and dry, then tell me, are they right? Does this issue warrant that kind of bile, yet not have to be more clear? Do contemporary Christians deserve all that because God really hates any bodily movement, but He allowed it in the OT, but that was only a shadow, according to the medieval Church, and now He only wants austere worship. Based on this, todasys Christians are so "wicked" and apostate, and mabe not even saved. Godwin even mocks C-rockers for saying "Show me in the Bible", and then even says "God's Spirit Doesn't HAVE to convict us...!" So we can't go by the Word or the Spirit. Whatis the real authority then? Thse men? "Historic" post-apostlic leaders and their interpretations and allegories. We today are so wicked for not following this? Go and read again Godwin and Watkins and see if that fits the issue.

 

Well, it seems this thread was forgotten about, but here are the quotes I was referring to on the last post: Here are the quotes of Watkins and Godwin. Once again, tell me if anything the music styles int he church warrant this:

This "Why Should the Devil Have All the Good Music?", rebellious, CCM attitude, is wicked, perverted, ****** and irreverent! And it is completely AGAINST the Word of God!

Woe unto them [ditto, Larry Norman, Paul Baker, Geoff Moore] that call evil GOOD, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20
The Lord Jesus Christ is completely OPPOSITE Larry Norman, Geoff Moore, Paul Baker and CCM: (Who do you think is RIGHT?)

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a CORRUPT [DEVIL – ROCK MUSIC] tree bring forth GOOD fruit. Matthew 7:18
Does not "Why Should the Devil Have All the Good Music?" PRAISE the Devil and his music? And on the opposite side of the statement — Larry Norman, Paul Baker, Geoff Moore and CCMers, are subtlety (see Gen. 3:1) "PUTTING-DOWN" the Lord God and His music! This is God Almighty that has NO GOOD MUSIC! This is the Creator of the universe that has NO GOOD MUSIC! And you're asking people to love, trust and serve a God that can NOT write or inspire ONE GOOD SONG in 6,000 years and millions of songs!
WOW! Somebody's elevator is not coming up to the top. Somebody's a couple of fries away from a "happy meal"! (I'll give you a hint – they believe the Devil has ALL the GOOD music).

Goebbels [or Satan] was correct — tell the biggest, most outrageous lie; tell it often enough; tell it loudly enough — and eventually people will believe it!
Good work Larry Norman and CCM! Your rebellious attitude, lies, lack of spiritual "guts" and convictions, are destroying the "foundations" of real Christian music and convictions in many of these CCM "nurtured" young people. Goebbels [and the "father of LIES" – Satan] would be proud!
Here's another interesting perspective, to Larry Norman's and CCM's, "Why Should the DEVIL Have All the Good Music"? — by their own admission — ROCK MUSIC IS FROM THE DEVIL! The reason, I emphasize that, many CCMer's "go in to looney-land" trying to "exorcise" the devil from rock music.

Do they provide any serious research or documentation to back up such a claim? Of course not, only a "brain-dead-agenda-bound-rock-loving-disobedient-CCMer" would make such a ridiculous and laughable statement [we'll discuss this in much more detail and provide documented research to "prove" where rock music came from in a later article].

Petra recorded the song "God Gave Rock And Roll To You" one of the most perverted songs ever recorded! They sing: God gave rock and roll to you/ put it in the soul of everyone. . . SICK! PERVERTED! BLASPHEMY!Listen to it. Who but a SPIRITUAL IDIOT would think a holy God gave the rebellion of rock'n roll!

Surely "goody-goody" CCM's "Point of Grace" wouldn't sing ANYTHING by "new-age- occultic" Earth, Wind and Fire"?
OH YES THEY WOULD! (Printed in 24 point size)

Webster dictionary defines "blasphemy" as "lack of reverence for God." Blasphemy saturates Christian rock, such as the blasphemous "humor" of Carman Dominic Licciardello, better known as Carman. His blasphemous, street-jive, dialogue between John the Baptist and Jesus Christ as teenagers on his video Live. . . Radically Saved is digusting! Here's a sample of Carman's blasphemy: JOHN: "Hey man, Hey cuz, Whatchoo doin man? I ain't seen you in a long time. HEY, BABY." (John calling Jesus baby!) Jesus turns and says, "Hey, what's up, John?" See, Jesus is always cool; he's always together. He's got his thing together, y' know, Then Carman blasphemously imitates the Lord Jesus Christ walking hip-jive doing what Carman calls "THE MESSIAH WALK". UNGODLY! BLASPHEMY!
Carman's PERVERTED humor is the lowest BLASPHEMY I've ever heard!
And God's people defend this blasphemous trash! (24 point)
Like the group dc Talk... Ecclesiastes 1:9 says, " . . .there is NO NEW THING under the sun." But that was before dc Talk came along, as they sing, "God is doin' a NU THANG through our music" (they can't spell either!).

The Jesus DC Talk "raps" is a hip-hopping, rapping, groovy, "just alright" — FREAK!

After a an hour performance, there is not even enough of God for the lost world to even know these "so-called CHRISTian stars" are Christians! What a pitiful excuse for a Christian! Shame on you Smith! These young people are looking at you for help and inspiration and you ol'backslidden-carnal-coward, you won't even mention the name of the ONLY HELP in this universe that can help them! Many of these young people are from broken homes, shattered lives, facing tremendous peer-pressure, begging for something REAL and you will not even mention the ONLY REAL HELP in the universe! Shame on you!
--------
Posting all of this here still does not do justice to it. You have to see the site with the various forms of emphasis he uses--large point sizes, colors, italics et--which have the effect of screaming. He sounds like a madman, just for some Christians using a style of music (even if some of them did go too far in the gimmicks and secular bands they copy, which I agree. Yet mild responses of CCM defenders are "attacks", right? My responses are "vicious slander, right?
Even when he is not so harsh, he is still sassy as a spoiled rotten child:

You'll never guess the song dc Talk uses toward the close of their "Jesus Freak" concert? Amazing Grace? Blessed Assurance? OH NO! They do a cover of Kurt Cobain and Nirvana's "All Apologies"!

Let's get something straight dc Talk! Jesus Christ is not "alright"! Jesus Christ is NOT 1) well enough 2) and satisfactory! Jesus Christ is the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings!

----
Here's where he refuses any disagreement:
"We do NOT debate. We do NOT argue. But we welcome any King James Bible answers to CCM." and that "All E-mails violating these requests...may get a canned response of "IGNORED" because we will not waste our time further with those trying to rationalize their wicked behavior with the Word of God."
Once again, no civil discourse, no respect of honest disagreements; they are so RIGHT, that they should just be able to balk AT people once again, and not be questioned (anyone questioning is just trying to justify their own "wickedness" anyway). Isn't this strikingly similar to a defiant child plugging up his ears and making noise so not to hear someone he is arguing with, and have the last word? (A classic picture of bona-fide rebellion!) As you'll see next, their whole attitude is that to talk to them, you must come to them on your knees, admitting that they're right in their interpretation of the Bible:
"This is not for C-rockers unless you plan on repenting and following what the Bible teaches! The purpose is to assist Christians that are serious in defending their churches against this wile (C-rock and CCM) of our adversary."

And with all of this holy indignation, if you go to av1611.org and click the link to the music ministry he supports, what style will you find? Country! Most of the other critics now condemn country as just as worldly and sensuous as rock! It too is full of themes of adultery, breakups and other sins. In fact, it's said that if rock&roll=sex, then country is the 'guilty afterglow'! Yet this critic seems to think it's OK, as did many other southern fundamentalists. Once again, this shows us how it is never safe to be that hard on others. (Though I wonder if the other critics overlook this)


Godwin is not quite this bad, but with him, the vitriol is spread out in the words he says:

"...the angry, confused, denying and deluded C- Rock fan will always hit one final button as a last resort in his effort to justify his sin: It's called self-righteous pride. Yet C- Rock defenders continually justify their sin by patting their own backs. Noses in the air, they demand a scripture that says: "THUS SAITH THE LORD; THOU SHALT NOT LISTEN TO 'CHRISTIAN' ROCK". They overlook the fact the Bible also fails to specifically mention marijuana, cocaine, X-rated porno movies, and abortion as sins. Does that make them any less sinful? Biblical holiness from Genesis to Revelation is swept under the rug by this kind of rock-hard, rebellious heart. C-Rock brainwashing has completed its task. The victim's rebellion is now set in concrete. Though living totally contrary to God's Word, the deluded, confused and hard-hearted C-Rock victim prides himself in his "'powerful" testimony for Jesus Christ. (What's Wrong With Christian Rock's Fruits? / http://www.freedomministries.org.uk/godwin/jefchap1.shtml)
-----
First, it's striking how Godwin describes "C-rockers" as going through psychological-style cycles of trauma (much like someone who has been raped or lost a close loved one tragically) over his teachings. (The main difference is that the standard cycle ends in "acceptance" while the "C- rocker" cycle ends in "REBELLION") You can almost detect a sense of satisfaction that he has such an effect on people (I am so right that people just can't deal with my "truth", and go into anger, confusion, denial, etc) But actually, the cycle he describes is actually a perfect descriptions of critics such as himself. They are the ones who are the most angry (just look at his whole diatribe as well as many of the others), much more so than the CCM fans, who are generally passive and often apathetic, as I have mentioned.

Here's another possibility: Many a C-Rock fan has become so violent in their deluded defense of an ungodly, wicked mockery of Christian music they can't HEAR the Holy Spirit's voice anymore!
(So once again, the work of the Spirit can be set aside. Now how do I possibly know what is right? Why, by what they tell me, of course.)

What absolute hogwash! This kind of nonsense is typical of self-serving C-Rock deception. First: There AREN'T any grey areas in the Bible! From Genesis to Revelation, God lays everything out in blacks and whites: Blessings/Cursings, Life/ Death, Heaven/Hell, God/Satan, Christ/the world. Now make your choice. Why don't these supporters of "Christian" trash come clean and admit the obvious." (http://www.freedomministries.org.uk/godwin/jefchap1.shtml)
(So no issue requires "discernment", thought, prayer, or any other sort of discourse. It's these critics' way or no way at all, and if they say it's wrong, God has said it was wrong, case closed.The Bible deals in "Blessings/Cursings, Life/ Death, Heaven/Hell, God/Satan, Christ/the world", and you can add to that "traditional/contemporary music".
Despite the fact that by Biblical authority the two issues addressed in these passages [Rom.14, 1Cor.8] are in fact such "gray areas" that require discernment as well as grace, and that they ignore the holes in their theory, such as the type of music that was accepted by God as worship in Israel, and the pagan influence in traditional forms. These points are precisely why an area like this is "gray" and requires discernment. Because no one has all the answers, and we are cautioned against making statements about our brother's walk based on our convictions when we ourselves do not see the whole picture either. The critics will go as far as discussing these two chapters of the Bible, but the outcome is always twisted to cover up their own egregious violations of the principles of these scriptures, and once again point the finger at their opponents. ("liberty is not 'licence to sin' or offend", etc. But once again, how do they have the authority to determine what is sin, or what offends God or anyone other than themselves?). You cannot try to override scriptures while pointing at everyone else as violating Scripture! )

And they all refer to the few responses the CCM crowd do make as "vicious slander" or "attacks", but it is still nowhere near the bile many of these critics are spewing (CCM leaders and fans never refer to the fundamentalists they criticize as "false", "apostate", "following the devil", etc. nor do they call the old music "wickedness" "wiles of Satan" or "trash")

So once again, in light of this, can these people be so right in this rhetoric and its tone if it's only "NT principle" and not clear, written NT command, that all lively music is abolished?
As I had said:
...any issue this important will be clearly delineated in scripture. Don't you think God would have specifically condemned rhythmic beats if they were so offensive to Him, and as destructive as these critics make them out to be? Salvation, new birth, the doctrines about Christ's birth, death, resurrection and return, and the Christian life are all directly taught, and repeated throughout scripture.
If all the stuff these people are saying is true; that lively music with rhythm is a "wicked mockery", then would God have ever allowed it even in His "puerile instruction of the Law" for Israel in the first place? Did God once allow "The wiles of Satan", in His camp (whether it was in the sanctuary or not?

 

Now for the historical perspective. People are digging up all sorts of authorities who claim the lively music of Israel, was virtually outlawed in the New Testament church.
On one of the other threads, Theopolitan said I was "making up my own history", when I debunked this assumption, pointing out the post-apostolic church was influenced by paganism. This dismissal of Hebrew worship begins as early as Justin (mid-2nd century), which makes it really look like this must have been the New Testament apostolic attitude. But you really can't jump over this 100 year period like that, because there was great change in that period, that has been heavily documented by historians.


Jesse Lyman Hurlbut The Story of the Christian Church p.41
"We would like to read of the later work of such helpers of St. Paul as Timothy, Apollos, and Titus., but all these...drop out of record at his death. For 50 years after St. Paul's life a curtain hangs over the church through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last it arises, about AD 120, with the writings of the earliest church fathers [Justin], we find a church in many aspects different from that in the days of Peter and Paul

William J. McGothlin The Course Of Christian History
"But Christianity itself had been in [the] process of transformation as it progressed and at the close of the period was in many respects quite different from the apostolic Christianity"

Samuel G. Green A Handbook of Christian History:
"The 30 years which followed the close of the New Testament Canon and the destruction of Jerusalem are in truth, the most obscure in the history of the Church. When we emerge in the second century, we are, to a great extent, in a changed world"

William Fitzgerald Lectures on Ecclesiastical History:
"over this period of transition, which immediately succeeds upon the era properly called apostolic, great obscurity hangs..."

Philip Schaff History of the Christian Church
"The remaining 30 years of the first century are involved in mysterious darkness, illuminated only by the writings of John. This is a period of church history about which we know least and would like to know most.

But if we look closely through this mist, we can see what was happening. The Church, which started out as a Jewish sect, was becoming predominantly Gentile. It seemed gentiles were more open to the Gospel, while the Jews tended to be more resistant. That was because it offended their traditions. Some did get saved, and brought many of their traditions that did not conflict with Christ's substitutionary atonement. Likewise, the gentiles also brought in many of their beliefs and philosophies. Notice how all the Church authorities after the apostles are Roman and Greek. No more Jewish Christians are in any place of authority. (They had fled during the persecutions). So now the Jewishness of the Church was fading rapidly. At the same time, the gentiles began to look upon the Jews as a whole, as stiff-necked Christ-rejecters, and those in the Church who kept Jewish practices were seen as "Judaizers". Through this, they further squelched the Jewishness of the Church. A critical attitude developed towards anything Jewish, which was now looked down upon as part of "the Law of Death". (This would later escalate into the fierce anti-semitism we would see in later history. Even some of our beloved leaders throughout history were guilty of this.) All of this was supposed to be based on Paul's and other NT teaching, such as warnings about "Jewish fables" and criticism of their stubbornness, but they had it in perspective. They were Jewish themselves, and knew personally their cultural sins and addressed them. But this didn't mean the Jews were any more stiff-necked than anyone else, as later church leaders would assume. Paul taught on grace with issues of Jewish practices, simply because there were some who were trying to force them on all new converts, and some new converts (such as the Galatians) were being influenced by such people. He didn't say they were now outlawed. (His teachings on liberty would protect those who kept them as well. Otherwise, he would never say "He who regards the day regards it unto the Lord" (Rom.14:6).) At the same time as all of this, the gentiles' Platonic, dualistic beliefs and practices had to be justified, so here is the source of these new interpretations of Scripture that suggest that the Jewish practices were either "fleshy"acts that God "suffered" but now does not approve of (as was the case with divorce, polygamy, killing, etc) , or were allegorical. There was even an aberrant group that went as far as to say the Old Testament and the Jews had a different (evil) God from the New Testament Church. Most people didn't go that far, but it was the logical extension of the prevailing thought of the day.
Once again, here is Michael Horton's statement
Only in retrospect can we see how thoroughly the medieval world and medieval church were shaped by Greek dualism. Usually, the church simply adopted existing philosophical systems [which would include philosophy of music and worship], reinterpreted them in light of Scripture, and made use of them as points of contact with the wider culture. "Contextualization" is not a recent development, but it is easier for an American missionary to know when he or she is doing this among an unknown people than it is for us to distinguish between reason and revelation when pagan and biblical language, symbols, and patterns of thought develop slowly, sided by side (Beyond Culture Wars, p46)."
One of the quotes said this "lost period" was illuminated by the writings of John. What do we see in his epistles? False doctrine coming into the Church. In one instance, a person loving pre- eminence, putting Christians out of the Church. When we think of the "apostasy" of New Testament times, we think of either Jewish legalism or pagan licentism. But there was also a pagan legalism as well! As Steve Miller said, it wasn't a "new hedonism" (less rules) Paul (and also John) were warning about, but rather a new legalism (more rules). What John was describing was not coming from the Jews. Next after him was the apostolic fathers, such as Irenaeus. Already, you can see the elevation of the bishops as who Christians should look up to in persecution. The epistle of Barnabas (of Alexandria, not the apostle) has some good teaching about the meaning of the Law, but then goes into some wild allegory. (This was characteristic of the emerging Alexandrian school. All of you KJV people out there are highly suspicious of this segment of the church). So by the time of Justin, the Church was already on its way to becoming the paganized Roman church. We can glean some good teaching from the fathers and later leaders, but not put so much stock in them that we set (or justify, or condemn) doctrines upon them, and look at the Bible and New Testament Church through their eyes. Still, when I first came to this board, Aaron criticized me for pointing out the pagan influence of Clement of Alexandria, and more recently, Theopolitan criticized me for criticizing the teachings of Plato, who was a straight-out pagan, (and also the major influence of the Church I am describing)
Because Plato, Clement and others gave nice moralistic warnings about music, we think this must be the truth, and I get accused of "blaspheming". But don't be fooled by nice moralism. The same dualism that was behind the vegetarianism and celibacy Paul condemned, and the rejection of Christ's Incarnation that John condemned, was also behind the rejection of all pleasure in music and worship. The whole basis was that "flesh" is evil. Sounds nice and "spiritual" and "biblical" doesn't it? Doesn't Paul use "flesh" in a negative way? But what Paul is describing is the fallen nature of our souls, not the evil of physical nature itself. If this doctrine was true, then of course, marriage is evil and a holy Son of God would be purely spirit. But instead, it is called "Doctrines of devils" and even "The Doctrine of Antichrist"! So watch out! We do not expect nice moralistic teachings to come from Satan, but in his plot to deceive "the elect", he will not only use "compromise", but for those he can't get that way, he leads to an opposite extreme through moral looking teachings. But as long as it bewitches us away from "the simplicity which is in Christ", it is just as effective in his scheme. Just look at this war over music and other issues.

Watkins himself says:
You say, but these Contemporary Christian Music stars say they're serving the Lord! They sound so sincere!
Do you know who said the following?

"If we continue on this path, respectable, industrious and honest, if we fulfill our duty faithfully, it is my conviction, the Lord God will continually help us in the future. He will not leave respectable people in the lurch indefinitely. He may test them, but in the end He lets His sun shine upon them and gives them His blessing."
Billy Graham? Jack Van Impe? Billy Sunday? Dwight Moody?
ADOLF HITLER! (24 point)
He criticized CCM fans for following nice moral sounding teachings, but that is what he and the rest of you do to justify music restrictions

 

Eric,

I read your lengthy posts. What it boils down to is this: little is known of about approximately 50 years of church history between the time of the apostles and the earliest post-apostolic writings. You surmise that the consensus of the Early Church Fathers protesting the use of musical instruments in Christian worship is NOT a tradition handed down from the apostles who, you say, transfered their jewish traditions over into Christianity, but is the fruit of a growing Gentile membership who in their "anti-semitic" zeal and pagan superstitions labored to stamp out almost every trace of Judaism.

Theopolitan was right. You do make up your own history. Each authority you quoted in one accord confesses that there is no real knowledge of the events during this period. Now here comes Eric, the amateur historian, to peer "through this mist" for us and illuminate the sophisticated cause and effect relationships that formed the thinking of the Early Church Fathers.

But I digress. . .

Your argument contains some fundamental flaws, most serious of which I will briefly outline here. (I try to keep my posts a readable length.)

1. A philosophical shift of the magnitude you describe could not have occurred over such a short period. Many who heard the apostles themselves, and countless more who were taught by those taught directly by the apostles would still be living and teaching by the time the "changes" which your theory demands had to be complete.

There is no reasonable doubt that the bulk of the teaching of the Early Church Fathers, especially in those areas where there is wholesale agreement, was handed down from the Apostles themselves. Certainly the teachings of the Early Church Fathers do not carry the authority of Scripture. I never asserted that they do. But it is indisputable that the early church used no musical instruments, and the departure from Jewish forms was almost immediate.


2. You forget that the Gentiles were given over to more sensual forms of worship and music than what God suffered in the Jewish church. It is not reasonable to conclude that they would have censored all types of instruments (Something even Plato does not do) merely to purge themselves of all things Jewish, and you present no evidence that this is what happened.


3. To call the infant church a "Jewish sect" is the most serious of all the fundamental errors you commit. You do not comprehend the magnitude of Christ's statement, "Tear down this temple and I will rebuild it in three days."


I see a thread should be started about the allegorical nature of the Psalms.

 

Eric,

You have grossly misrepresented me and others in your tirade against Terry Watkins and Jeff Godwin. My only link to Godwin is under a heading about other sites, as are only two of Watkin's pages. You cannot construe their inclusion as a wholesale endorsement of everything they utter (but after seeing your interpretations of "history" this hardly comes as a surprise). I know that those who are interested in the issue will want to read or hear what they have to say and investigate their sources, not to become little Terry's or Jeff's. There is much of value in what they both say.

I did notice that your cavils centered more on style and personality and not on the merits of their case. Dare we say ad hominem?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Theopolitan was right. You do make up your own history. Each authority you quoted in one accord confesses that there is no real knowledge of the events during this period. Now here comes Eric, the amateur historian, to peer "through this mist" for us and illuminate the sophisticated cause and effect relationships that formed the thinking of the Early Church Fathers.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forget the scriptures and Apostolic fathers I cited which shed light on ("illuminated") what was happening in (the trends of) this period. I did NOT just "make up" anything. Is this claim just to discredit what conflicts with the "histories" I've been seeing here. Isn't this "ad-hominem?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A philosophical shift of the magnitude you describe could not have occurred over such a short period. Many who heard the apostles themselves, and countless more who were taught by those taught directly by the apostles would still be living and teaching by the time the "changes" which your theory demands had to be complete.

There is no reasonable doubt that the bulk of the teaching of the Early Church Fathers, especially in those areas where there is wholesale agreement, was handed down from the Apostles themselves.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes it could happen that quick. You yourself say: "the departure from Jewish forms was almost immediate". But among who? Who became the spokespersons fof Christianity after a while. Like I said, it became all gentile; you herd nothing else from the Jewish Christian community. The gentile Christians could only speak for themselves.

The earliest fathers such as Clement of Rome (Not Alexandria) and Polycarp may have known the aposles, but first of all, I'm really talking about later than that-- the middle of the 2nd century. Alot like this could happen in that time. Just look at the much lamented cultural-philosophical shifts in this society in a few decades.

And while they did receive teaching handed down from the apostles, they could also add their own. With the inspired apostles soon gone, yet the written New Testament not widely circulated yet, it was easy for teachings to change. As I said, alot of Catholic doctrines had their roots in some of these fathers. Were they handed down from the apostles. That's precisely what the Catholic Church claims!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. You forget that the Gentiles were given over to more sensual forms of worship and music than what God suffered in the Jewish church. It is not reasonable to conclude that they would have censored all types of instruments (Something even Plato does not do) merely to purge themselves of all things Jewish,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already addressed this. You assume ALL gentiles were only sensual, but as I said, they had their anti-sensual movements as well, especially in the Plato-influenced dualism. Again, What John was warning about was not Jewish! Once again, just look at the Catholic doctrines of monasticism, celibacy, etc, groups like the Donatists. All of this was purey pagan, gentile. Look at religions today like Buddhism, etc. I hate to say it, but who's making up history here. (All gentiles were sensual).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3. To call the infant church a "Jewish sect" is the most serious of all the fundamental errors you commit. You do not comprehend the magnitude of Christ's statement, "Tear down this temple and I will rebuild it in three days."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
When Jesus first began his following, people did see it as a "sect", meaning a small group "cut" (meaning of "sect") out of the larger one. Alot of people refer to it this way for the sake of perspective. I was not using it in the sense of a false group or anything like that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You have grossly misrepresented me and others in your tirade against Terry Watkins and Jeff Godwin. My only link to Godwin is under a heading about other sites, as are only two of Watkin's pages. You cannot construe their inclusion as a wholesale endorsement of everything they utter. I know that those who are interested in the issue will want to read or hear what they have to say and investigate their sources, not to become little Terry's or Jeff's. There is much of value in what they both say.

I did notice that your cavils centered more on style and personality and not on the merits of their case.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But this is what I am saying. These people do not convey any Christlike civility, or objectivity, yet we take them for their "value" or "merit". We should be embarrased by them! While standing up against what they see as false, they seem to have lost the what Jesus was about, including the fact that we have no righteousness of our own, so must be patient with other "beggars" or "prodigals". Read Rev. 2 (Ephesus church). Isn't this exactly what we are in the middle of criticizing CCM for (taking things from questionable sources for pragmatic reasons!) And also as we tell CCM peoples, the "style" and "personality" are important. They look like they have some serious internal problems they are venting on the world, and this will only make the secular and Christian rock stars they are lashing out at so much ignore them. Can you picture any of them reading that stuff and saying "oh, gee, he is right. I better change". Nobody takes them seriously except me (negatively) and some of you (positively). But they help reinforce the world's negative old images of Christians. This is not good. And this has been the purpose of my ministry. And once again, I m the wone "tirade"ing. Yes, it is easy to become like the ones you criticize, and I try to watch this, but I had to show what these men people look up to are about.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(but after seeing your interpretations of "history" this hardly comes as a surprise) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Once agin, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Dare we say ad hominem? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Another great point I just remembered after sleeping on it, to give some more proof of the shift from Hebrew practices-- The Quartodeciman Controversy of the 2nd century, over whether to keep the Resurrection celebration on the biblical Passover (Bebrew date of Nisan the 14th, hence, "quartodeciman"), or on a Sunday based on the vernal equinox (Where we got our "Easter"). Polycarp, the disciple of John, and his pupil, Polycrates argued for the Passover, against the Bishop or Rome, who wanted Easter Sunday. Now here were gentiles fighting for Jewish practice, but they did actually recive it directly from an apostle! Then the Sabbath would continue to be condemned, in councils like Laodicea centuries later, showing that practice was still around, though largely underground. Some kept both Sabbath and Sunday. I'll have to dig out the sources (NO, I am not making this up either!) but you can find alot of this from Sabbatarian writing, which I was into when I first came into the faith. Of course, They are trying to prove that the Sabbath (and in some groups, the Passover) were strictly kept in the NT and are still in effect, but I now know, and we know that this was wrong. But still, it shows that thre were Jewish practices among the successors to the apostolic church, but this quickly came to be supplanted by the emerging Roman-based church.

 

Eric,

I'm not going to quibble over every trifle with you. I will simply say you have not met the burden required to prove that the ban on musical intruments in the early church was, as you say, a late pagan/anti-semitic convention.

They are not commanded in the New Testament, and no where that the worship of the early church is described is there the mention of instruments. The most ancient and reliable authorities attest to their absence in Christian worship, and the most learned and devout of the later theologians concur. They are all agreed that Romanism brought instrumental worship into the church, and it will take much more than Eric B's dubious interpretations to refute them.

And no, half a century is not enough time for the philisophical shift of the nature you describe to take place, especially with the absence of modern means of communication and transportation. The death blow to orthodox Christianity was dealt in the mid-nineteenth century with the academic acceptance of Darwinsim, and today, over 150 years later, there is still no consensus among the most recognized Christian authorities about the issue.

Had the change you describe come about as you assert, we would not find the consensus among the ancient authorities as we do about this issue.

But why do I bring this up? Simply to point out that the Psalms cannot be used to justify instrumental music or dancing in Christian worship.

That's all.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They are not commanded in the New Testament, and no where that the worship of the early church is described is there the mention of instruments. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They weren't forbidden either. Where do we get a ban on something just because it happened not to be mentioned. If anything, that means it was not an issue, and the Bible gives us principles to guide us in things like this that are not directly covered. It certainly doesn't give us the permission to make up restrictions based on flimsy reasoning like this. This is poor eisogesis.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The most ancient and reliable authorities attest to their absence in Christian worship, and the most learned and devout of the later theologians concur.And no, half a century is not enough time for the philisophical shift of the nature you describe to take place, especially with the absence of modern means of communication and transportation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This does not refute the evidence I gave. Big changes did take place that first century as those historians attest, and while you disputed me on my description of how it took place (which I documented), still there is no doubt among the historians that the church changed drasically.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They are all agreed that Romanism brought instrumental worship into the church, and it will take much more than Eric B's dubious interpretations to refute them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe it did later on, but this initial change was from the same Platonic/gnostic sources that shaped the rest of Roman doctrine and practice.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The death blow to orthodox Christianity was dealt in the mid-nineteenth century with the academic acceptance of Darwinsim, and today, over 150 years later <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Church and its civilization were corrupted much earlier than that. This is precisely the whole problem in the conservative mindset-- a too high view of our own history, with everything bad coming from some outside source. (Including the corruption of music from African influences)
We are just sinners who supposedly are justified by grace, but who still reshape the gospel to our own tastes and opinions just like everyone else. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Had the change you describe come about as you assert, we would not find the consensus among the ancient authorities as we do about this issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There were consensuses about alot of things that are purely Roman and not biblical by this time. You may think there was not enough time, but however it happened, it did, and when you look at various NT scriptures, you can see the massive assault against the truth, that did have the capability of greatly corrupting it. We speak so much of the "massive assault" against US today, and act as if all these scriptures were referring to our time, with Darwinism, rock music, liberalism, etc. being the first massive apostasy to overtake the Church, but it happened log ago, with the Roman system.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But why do I bring this up? Simply to point out that the Psalms cannot be used to justify instrumental music or dancing in Christian worship.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're entitled to think that, but people are not entitled to blast the rest of their brethren as "wicked rebels" for using lively music or dance, based on this indirect, scriptureless reasoning. That is why I made the quotes of Godwin and Watkins. (Not to try to [mis]represent you in any way) You said you never asserted the fathers carry the weight of scripture, but then if this holy war is justified because the scriptures that invalidate it (Psalms) are interpreted in light of their teachings, then you are using them to set a restriction in the church, that anyone who does not follow is harshly denounced as rebelling against God. I still say, if it were this important to God, that all of these people's reactions are right, then He would have inspired someone to restrict it. THis is not the same as that "pornography wasn't mentioned in the Bible; is that OK?" argument. pornography 1) didn't exist back then. 2) Direcly violates teaching that was given in scripture. The elements of music in question did exist back then, and only violate scripture by indirect association-- certain people's use of it. Stuff like this was to be dealt with by liberty and grace. And once again, people can take this same argument about instruments and condemn the entire fundamental church, so it is not a good argument against rock. (especially as rock can be performed a capella)

 

Aaron,

To ignore Psalms talking about using instruments and dance in worship is simply to be ignorant. You chose to not acknowledge these scriptures because you have no other valid scriptural point to make on your side of the topic. The fact still remains that dancing and music is pleasing to God, and you can't push the "its done in the flesh" theory because when you are dancing in the spirit it may be your body moving but it certainly is not a fleshly thing, I know because I've danced in the spirit when I was not at all happy but in grief and that dancing became a dance of celebration of Jesus and me in tears in worship and adoration and love. It has a lot to do with ones heart, intentions and motives.

Sue

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eric said: [Musical Instruments] weren't forbidden either. Where do we get a ban on something just because it happened not to be mentioned. If anything, that means it was not an issue, and the Bible gives us principles to guide us in things like this that are not directly covered. It certainly doesn't give us the permission to make up restrictions based on flimsy reasoning like this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The idea that silence equals full freedom or "not important to God" is condemned in the Scriptures as "lasciviousness/wantoness (KJV)," or "licentiousness [notice the root word 'license'] (RSV)." It describes excess permissivism, an "overdaring sort of liberty," the "absence of restraint." It is the heart cry of those who "take counsel against the LORD," Psalm 2:2-3. Those who invoke silence to justify the indulgence of their personal preferences do so against the clear Scriptural warnings against such things.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The following references are from the RSV.

2Co 12:21
I fear that when I come again my God may humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned before and have not repented of the impurity, immorality, and licentiousness which they have practiced.

Gal 5:19
Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness,

Eph 4:19
they have become callous and have given themselves up to licentiousness, greedy to practice every kind of uncleanness.

1Pe 4:3
Let the time that is past suffice for doing what the Gentiles like to do, living in licentiousness, passions, drunkenness, revels, carousing, and lawless idolatry.

2Pe 2:2
And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.

2Pe 2:7
and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the wicked

2Pe 2:18
For, uttering loud boasts of folly, they entice with licentious passions of the flesh men who have barely escaped from those who live in error.

Jude 1:4
For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Liberty only exists for the sake of one's conscience before God. It is a wanton abuse of liberty when used to justify the idulgence of one's personal preferences at the expense of the conscience of another. But when permissiveness is granted in areas where the Scriptures seem to be silent, it must be done with the utmost caution and the most zealous defense of the purity of the worship of Christ, as stated by the oft-quoted Calvin: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What shall we then say of chanting, which fills the ears with nothing but an empty sound? Does any one object, that music is very useful for awakening the minds of men and moving their hearts? I own it; but we should always take care that no corruption creep in, which might both defile the pure worship of God and involve men in superstition. Moreover, since the Holy Spirit expressly warns us of this danger by the mouth of Paul, to proceed beyond what we are there warranted by him is not only, I must say, unadvised zeal, but wicked and perverse obstinacy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note: The only point in this post is the rebuttal of the premise that silence equals permission. Don't read anymore into this than that.

[ September 03, 2001: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

I love Calvin but Calvin and most of early Purtans, Baptists were quiete frankly wrong on worship and ignored Psalms 150 and Rev. 5 where the 24 elders are praising the Lamb with harps. Luther on the other hand andthe Lutheran churches never had a problem with musical instruments and were the pioneers in Christian Music (Luther, Bach, Handel)while Puritans and Baptists remained stuck in the mud of the regulative principle of singing metrical Psalms that were on the most part lifeless.

Thankfully Charles Wesley, John Newton, Isaac Watts and others brought lively music that we now enjoy singing.