Anti- drum beat/syncopation

OK, I got a fortune cookie today that said...

"Don't concern yourself with meaningless contradictions"
So, I am leaving this thread alone now...

lol

 

Interesting....

I got a fortune that read...

 

Sopranette, I think if you read Tiny's post again you'll see that he is saying that that song is NOT a worship song. And I have to agree with his reasons that he does not approve of "I'll Fly Away". It's not worship. In fact, it leans toward boasting. It's all about "I". Having said that, I happen to enjoy playing the song on my guitar in a bluegrass style. It's one of the few "gospel" songs I know of that I can play hot bluegrass rifs on. But I would never consider it appropriate for a worship service.

Some modern-era music does make the cut and can become respected hymns. "God and God Alone" comes to mind. It was considered contemporary at one time, but it is being included in hymns books, and well it should.

And has been said, there are some songs in the hymn books that don't belong there, but publishers include them because they know churches are looking for popular music in the hymn books. A lot of the Gaither stuff is in hymn books now. Beautiful music - but they are not hymns.

 

Well, J,D.,

That's the whole point. What is a worship song? He called them Christian songs. What's a Christian song, for that matter? So far I've heard a lot about what each person says they think a worship song is, what they say is okay or not, but no one has proved to me what the Bible says. I've read some really good Bible verses in this thread, and so far I have to say, according to these verses, most CCM songs are to be avoided. I'm not really going to defend "I'll Fly Away". It's a pretty weak statement of faith, IMO, and nowhere does the Bible say we'll actually fly after death, anyway. But it sure is a better Christian song than anything I've read about P.O.D's music.

love,

Sopranette

 

Isn't all the activities of the Lord's day assembly collectively know as "worship"?

 

Okay, I see your point. I don't like calling things like that "Christian" either. But at least Tim acknowledges that there are differences which must be recognized, as opposed to some folks that think that no discernment whatsoever is to be applied to musical choice.

 

oops . . . .

 

The problem with this view, other than that it isn't Scriptural, is that it presents the worship service as if it were an individualistic free-for-all—that the preacher is just doing whatever it is he does because that's his "gift," just like one might be in the crowd speaking in tongues because that's his gift.

The focus of the preacher's part in worship is the sheep. God doesn't need the preaching, but the sheep do.

You can't focus on one without the other. There is no distinction to be made between God, and God's words. Christ is called "the Word." And so attendance to be given to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. There is no other way to focus on God. I have a sneaking suspicion that you are trying to work in an ecstatic experience and calling it worship rather than the listening to reading and doctrine.

Yep. My suspicion is confirmed.

Maybe if you gave attendance to reading and doctrine, you would recall that Christ said that true worshippers worship the Father . . .

 

Um....the Bible and Jesus are not one and the same.

 

I didn't say Jesus and the Bible are one and the same. The Bible is simply where Christ's words are recorded. You cannot know Christ without knowing His words. Deny His words, and you deny Him.

 

OK, we agree on that. Just making sure! :thumbs:

 

what's with John 1:1 then?

 

The Word in John 1 refers to Jesus, not the Word of God. The two are related (the Word of God reveals Jesus, the Word) but they are different.

 

Read on, have you ever seen a bible take on flesh?

 

ah ok.
not literally then.

makes sense that way.

they're still one and the same though.. just not literally. right?

 

No, that would mess up the concept of the trinity...
It would be what, a quadity... quadilatrerality... uh... a four part harmony...no...

If the Bible was the same as Jesus, then we would have the Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Bible....

This is what Sanderson believed while he was on the board...

Cowboymatt said it best... The Word in John 1 refers to Jesus, not the Word of God. The two are related (the Word of God reveals Jesus, the Word) but they are different.

One of the reasons John called Jesus the Word was the fact that at the time the Gospel of John was written, gnostics were the prevelant heresy.
The gnostics placed such a high regard on knowledge, that John was trying to fight this heresy. And by doing this he acknowledges that Jesus is the Word... the ultimate message from God.. there is no higher knowledge than Him....

 

yeah i understand that.

i don't see it as it adding to the trinity though..