-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Anyone heard this?
- Thread starter Rachel
- Start date
It is disheartening to see those who call themselves Christians, born again of the Spirit of God, to put themselves in the same class as sexual perverts, homosexuals, and drug addicts, all of whom shall not inherit the kingdom of God. What a shame?
Wherfore come out from among them and be separate saith the Lord, and I will receive you.
Has the Lord received you?
DHK
Wherfore come out from among them and be separate saith the Lord, and I will receive you.
Has the Lord received you?
DHK
Dr. Bob, it is offensive to me to have a co moderator on this forum who blatantly desregards the rules of BB. I don't take too kindly to having my christianity questioned and I certainly do not like to be classified in the same category as a sexual pervert, homosexual and drug addict as DHK has done.
T
Travelsong
Guest
DHK has been that way forever. He has no accountability here. You aren't the first and you certainly won't be the last to complain about his abuses.
The Bible says that we should have no fellowship with unbelievers, not even be associated with them. I point out to you Biblical truth. Read the entirety of 2Cor.6, and see these truths for yourselves.
Marsha Stevens is a Lesbian.
Elvis Presley was a drug addict.
Michael Jackson is a sexual pervert.
Are you ashamed of these things? You should be.
Yet they are facts of life.
You complain because you associate your music with theirs. Who should be ashamed, and why are you complaining? I have done nothing wrong.
Be not conformed to this world but transformed by the renewing of your mind that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable, perfect will of God.
James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
Whose side are you on?
DHK
Marsha Stevens is a Lesbian.
Elvis Presley was a drug addict.
Michael Jackson is a sexual pervert.
Are you ashamed of these things? You should be.
Yet they are facts of life.
You complain because you associate your music with theirs. Who should be ashamed, and why are you complaining? I have done nothing wrong.
Be not conformed to this world but transformed by the renewing of your mind that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable, perfect will of God.
James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
Whose side are you on?
DHK
DHK, what I am ashamed about is the fact there might be new believers who come on here and have to put up with your legalistic garbage and are made to feel less holier than you by what they listen to. Who are you to tell me I should be ashamed about the music I listen to? I'M NOT!
And about the Bible telling us we are to have no association with unbelievers, this is a lie and a indirect slap in Jesus' face. You were an unbeliever at some point. Someone "associated" with you enough to share the gospel.
And about the Bible telling us we are to have no association with unbelievers, this is a lie and a indirect slap in Jesus' face. You were an unbeliever at some point. Someone "associated" with you enough to share the gospel.
If you are not worthy to preach the gospel then don't. God doesn't want unworthy ambassadors.
If you are not worthy to sing his praises, then don't, you would just be a hypocrite to sing those words that you would be unworthy of singing.
If Amazing Grace hasn't saved you, then by all means don't sing it. Don't be a hypocrite singing the songs you sing.
Example:
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/m/u/mustigoa.htm
If you are not worthy to give the Lord even a day of service then don't sing the song. If you are not worthy of the message don't sing the hymn. Don't sing it if you don't mean it from your heart.
DHK
This is a strawman.
Show me in the Bible where music led anyone to the Lord. Most music is pure entertainment, especially CCM, and specifically the song in question in this thread.
Paul said:
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
It is not through music that people are saved; it is through the preaching of the gospel. That is what the Bible teaches. I wasn't saved through music. I don't know of people that were saved through music. Music doesn't save; the gospel does.
Association with unbelievers:
Read your Bible:
2 Corinthians 6:14-16 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Clear enough? Paul uses a myriad of illustration to show that the believer should have no association with the unbeliever. Be not unequally together with unbelievers, and that is not just talking about marriage.
DHK
DHK, it would help you to use context. Do you even know what a yoke is (hint: not in an egg)? This is not associating with unbelievers.
This is a strawman as you cannot show me from scripture where noone was saved from music. If "most" music is "pure entertainment", what is the rest?
It is through HEARING one has faith and is saved. The Bible mentions nothing of preaching being the only means of this. You assume nobody is saved through music, but you have no proof. I bet there have been people who were saved at CCM concerts.
First, I had never heard of Marsha Stevens until the link to her music was posted here.
It is beautiful music.
If it is so bad to listen to her music, why was the link posted here on the Baptist Board for all readers, including minors, to listen to Marsha Stevens music?
It is beautiful music.
If it is so bad to listen to her music, why was the link posted here on the Baptist Board for all readers, including minors, to listen to Marsha Stevens music?
I received a message about DHK, condemning his words and another saying he is not ever scrutinized in his posting.
Letting you know that he is, like I am, also held to the same standards as everyone else. But we also have the right to share opinions - we are NEVER required to be "neutral" or not take an active side in the debate.
That said, I just read this page and found NOTHING to disagree with by DHK. The thought of a lesbian singer "praising God" is so vile and offensive that I am repulsed by it. And will remove the link.
The thought of good Christians associating and yoking up with the likes of the molesting pervert Jackson (Michael; Jesse is with older women) is likewise sickening.
If you want to defend that filth and trash, you will have TWO people jumping down your throats.
Letting you know that he is, like I am, also held to the same standards as everyone else. But we also have the right to share opinions - we are NEVER required to be "neutral" or not take an active side in the debate.
That said, I just read this page and found NOTHING to disagree with by DHK. The thought of a lesbian singer "praising God" is so vile and offensive that I am repulsed by it. And will remove the link.
The thought of good Christians associating and yoking up with the likes of the molesting pervert Jackson (Michael; Jesse is with older women) is likewise sickening.
If you want to defend that filth and trash, you will have TWO people jumping down your throats.
I missed where he called you such, webdog. I see him state that he is "disheartening to see those who call themselves Christians, born again of the Spirit of God" that is not questioning their salvation, "to put themselves in the same class as sexual perverts, homosexuals, etc ".
So he is unhappy that some Christians put themselves - he doesn't put someone there - in with the perverts and lesbians et al.
I am too. What kind of a Christian would do that?
You fill in the rhetorical question.
Those arguing against the production based on the record it was spoofing (moreso than just "style"/genre) have a big point here that should not be readily dismissed.
This is the proper use of the objection of "association". When I first heard it, it immediately drew to mind the "big butts" video (naturally), which is of course a sinful song about lust; and specifically since it is "back"/butt that direcly corresponds to (is being replaced with) "Book" (the Bible) the first thought was a question of whether this was denigrating the Bible, and then, particularly to others who are more sensitive about these things. I myself was divided on it, since it was ingenious in ways, and I love ingenious parallelisms, but having questions myself whether it crossed the line, and knowing how others would understandably take it; I have to at least say the objectors have a legitimate point. This is now when what Aaron tries to argue sometimes rightly comes into play: being concerned about offending the ["weak"] brethren. While Aaron takes it a bit too far, to try to rule out entire genres of music (based on beats, or cultures of origin, and ignoring the motives of the originators of that teaching), this issue we have here truly is very [morally] questionable, you should at least admit.
I see some of you are still responding about "music" being good or bad; Christian or non-Christian, but except for the ongoing debate with Aaron, the other objectors are not discussing music style at this point, but rather the association of the original spoofed rap, so give them credit, as that is what we have to address now. If we have a particular melody (and technically, rap lyrics do have a type of melody, since the words follow a definite time sequence. You could scat the words to the rap, and you would still know what it was from. You could even write this on a music sheet, using the familiar note symbols, and the difference would be that they would all be on the same line, since the up/down in the tones is what is lacking compared with regular singing)... anyway, if we had a particular melody of words, (or instruments that accompany them, or whatever), if the meaning of the words is familiar, it will have a certain connotation based on what the original words mean. This is the association. So changing the words from something bad to something good will still bring up the same connotation in most people's minds. It will appear to taint the good. (and changing the words from something good to something bad will appear to denigrate the good). This is not quite the same as taking a whole style (not a particlar song), and "changing the words". You're not actually changing the words of an existing song, but making a whole new song of the same style, with a different type of words. That is very different. Now, that can still create a negative connotation in some people's minds. I do not deny the conscience of someone who may genuinely associate rock or rap with nothing but bad stuff. But since those are whole styles, they are more separable from the bad things done under their umbrella, and objectors should have a little more grace towards those who don't have those bad associations. Especially if the people bringing in new styles go and form their own churches, and don't push it on you).
But an individual tune is not really separable from its original words, unless the original is completely forgotten about, or people don't know it. So we do need to be more careful about what we copy and convert.
Now, on the other hand:
So even though we are to separate from sin, and preach against it, still, it is that attitude here that people are opposing. Yes, those people are wicked wretches, while we are forgiven by Amazing Grace, and thus declared righteouss, in comparison to those still dead in their sins. But since this is by grace, and not our own works of righteousness, we do not need to be rubbing in with such utter contempt what wicked wretches others are, or at least we need to be more careful about it. (people do not understand such harshness). They stand that way before God; not before us! I question the way people like Luther and Calvin always called themselves miserable "worms" and "wretches" and such, but then they became so hard on others. (that seemed "hypocritical") It makes one wonder if they really understood the full implications of what they were saying about themselves! If so, there should be more mercy. Let God judge those who reject Him.
This is the proper use of the objection of "association". When I first heard it, it immediately drew to mind the "big butts" video (naturally), which is of course a sinful song about lust; and specifically since it is "back"/butt that direcly corresponds to (is being replaced with) "Book" (the Bible) the first thought was a question of whether this was denigrating the Bible, and then, particularly to others who are more sensitive about these things. I myself was divided on it, since it was ingenious in ways, and I love ingenious parallelisms, but having questions myself whether it crossed the line, and knowing how others would understandably take it; I have to at least say the objectors have a legitimate point. This is now when what Aaron tries to argue sometimes rightly comes into play: being concerned about offending the ["weak"] brethren. While Aaron takes it a bit too far, to try to rule out entire genres of music (based on beats, or cultures of origin, and ignoring the motives of the originators of that teaching), this issue we have here truly is very [morally] questionable, you should at least admit.
I see some of you are still responding about "music" being good or bad; Christian or non-Christian, but except for the ongoing debate with Aaron, the other objectors are not discussing music style at this point, but rather the association of the original spoofed rap, so give them credit, as that is what we have to address now. If we have a particular melody (and technically, rap lyrics do have a type of melody, since the words follow a definite time sequence. You could scat the words to the rap, and you would still know what it was from. You could even write this on a music sheet, using the familiar note symbols, and the difference would be that they would all be on the same line, since the up/down in the tones is what is lacking compared with regular singing)... anyway, if we had a particular melody of words, (or instruments that accompany them, or whatever), if the meaning of the words is familiar, it will have a certain connotation based on what the original words mean. This is the association. So changing the words from something bad to something good will still bring up the same connotation in most people's minds. It will appear to taint the good. (and changing the words from something good to something bad will appear to denigrate the good). This is not quite the same as taking a whole style (not a particlar song), and "changing the words". You're not actually changing the words of an existing song, but making a whole new song of the same style, with a different type of words. That is very different. Now, that can still create a negative connotation in some people's minds. I do not deny the conscience of someone who may genuinely associate rock or rap with nothing but bad stuff. But since those are whole styles, they are more separable from the bad things done under their umbrella, and objectors should have a little more grace towards those who don't have those bad associations. Especially if the people bringing in new styles go and form their own churches, and don't push it on you).
But an individual tune is not really separable from its original words, unless the original is completely forgotten about, or people don't know it. So we do need to be more careful about what we copy and convert.
Now, on the other hand:
The "same class" people are putting thelselves in is unworthy sinner. That's what we all are, by nature. The difference between us and others? Christ, and His "amazing grace", not our own merits.
So even though we are to separate from sin, and preach against it, still, it is that attitude here that people are opposing. Yes, those people are wicked wretches, while we are forgiven by Amazing Grace, and thus declared righteouss, in comparison to those still dead in their sins. But since this is by grace, and not our own works of righteousness, we do not need to be rubbing in with such utter contempt what wicked wretches others are, or at least we need to be more careful about it. (people do not understand such harshness). They stand that way before God; not before us! I question the way people like Luther and Calvin always called themselves miserable "worms" and "wretches" and such, but then they became so hard on others. (that seemed "hypocritical") It makes one wonder if they really understood the full implications of what they were saying about themselves! If so, there should be more mercy. Let God judge those who reject Him.
You seem to be blurring the line between that which is holy and that which is profane on purpose. I want you to think about what is true worship. A good example is the celebration of the Lord's Table. In our church in order to partake of the Lord's Table one must first be born again, and second be baptized. Third, they must examine themselves to see if they are right with the Lord. If they are not right with the Lord we advise them not to partake of the elements of the Lord's Table. This is what the Bible teaches.
1 Corinthians 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
The Communion Service is undoubtedly the most worshipful service of the church.
Music is also worship.
If the person is not right before God before he sings, then he or she ought not to sing. If you can't sing the words from your heart you ought not to sing them. Don't be a hypocrite. Unsaved people can't sing honestly the great hymns of the faith.
How can unsaved individuals sing:
"It is well with my soul," when it is not?
"Oh how I love Jesus," when they hate him?
"Tell me the Old Old Story," when they don't want to hear it in the first place?
"Amazing Grace How Sweet the Sound," when such a wretch as they are not saved at all?
"When the Roll is Called Up Yonder I'll be There," but they won't?
"Count Your Blessings, Name Them one By One," but they can't see "what God hath done."
"How Great Thou Art," when the devil is their father?
Need I go on? Unsaved individuals cannot sing the hynms of the faith. Neither can people here if they are not right with God. "Oh how I love Jesus." Do you? The great demonstratioon of our love is our obedience to him. John 14:15,21,23: In this one chapter Jesus tells us these three times that if you love me, you will keep my commands. Obedience is the demonstration of our love for Christ. "Oh how I love Jesus." Do we?
DHK
Huh?
I wasn't arguing anything about whether an unsaved person should partake in communion or sing hymns!
The only reason the unsaved came up is that you made comments about Elvis, Michael Jackson, and that other person; Ian and Daniel, obviously cautioning against such harsh words toward them remind us that "I, too, am an unworthy wretch only saved and yet alive by the amazing grace of God. Would to God that we would see ourselves for what we are apart from the imputed righteousness of Christ!" "I am not worthy of the message I preach, yet the Lord has called me to preach it.
Are any of us worthy? Not according to my Bible."
This you took as "put[ting] themselves in the same class as sexual perverts, homosexuals, and drug addicts", and then from that, you went into this whole thing of "if you are not worthy, you should not preach, you should not sing, If Amazing Grace hasn't saved you...don't be a hypocrite" etc. (this, Dr.Bob, is what people probably meant by their Christianity being questioned. Out of nowhere he insinuates they they must be professing to be unsaved). I simply came to clarify, what they meant by being "unworthy", and how it's the attitude I believe is being addressed. No one is saying that we are in the same spiritual state as unbelievers (not saved by amazing grace), or that they should be able to take communion and sing Christian songs. Ian says "though I am not worthy...The Lord has called me" (which is why we preach and sing regardless), just like Isaiah and others voiced, and this is more the humble attitude we should have. That is their point.
If you are not worthy to preach the gospel then don't. God doesn't want unworthy ambassadors.
If you are not worthy to sing his praises, then don't, you would just be a hypocrite to sing those words that you would be unworthy of singing.
If Amazing Grace hasn't saved you, then by all means don't sing it. Don't be a hypocrite singing the songs you sing.</font>[/QUOTE]But Paul says:
Amazing Grace saved me too, but I am not worthy of it. You can stand on your own worthiness if you want. Maybe you won't go empty handed to stand in judgment, and maybe God will be impressed with all that you bring. As for me, I will stand on this:
Then one shouldn't use a sense of false piety which is just as bad as the sin of pride. God counted me worthy to preach the gospel (to witness of his grace) the moment I was saved. To say that I am unworthy to do so is just a false humility or false piety, sin. It is a red herring to this discussion. How does it fit in to homosexuals either preaching the gospel or singing of the Amazing Grace of God? The comparison is ludicrous.
But if you must, I will post scripture to the effect that shows how one is worthy to serve the Lord:
Matthew 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
--In other words, if you take up the cross, as commanded you are worthy.
Luke 21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.
Ephesians 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Colossians 1:10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;
1 Thessalonians 2:12 That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.
2 Thessalonians 1:5 Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:
2 Thessalonians 1:11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:
1 Timothy 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
James 2:7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
Revelation 3:4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.
DHK