What can wash away my sin?

umm. so what are you worried about Linda? the second to last verse?

 

It would be good for one to be acquainted with both the author of the hymn as well as the words themselves. Many of the great hymns of the faith that we sing were written by Godly people and tell of the spiritual experiences that they had, their faith in God, no matter what tribulation may have befallen them.

One such writer was Spafford:
This hymn was writ*ten af*ter two ma*jor trau*mas in Spaf*ford’s life. The first was the great Chi*ca*go Fire of Oc*to*ber 1871, which ru*ined him fi*nan*cial*ly (he had been a weal*thy bus*i*ness*man). Short*ly af*ter, while cross*ing the At*lan*tic, all four of Spaf*ford’s daugh*ters died in a col*li*sion with an*o*ther ship. Spaf*ford’s wife Anna sur*vived and sent him the now fa*mous tel*e*gram, “Saved alone.” Sev*er*al weeks lat*er, as Spaf*ford’s own ship passed near the spot where his daugh*ters died, the Ho*ly Spir*it in*spired these words. They speak to the eter*nal hope that all be*liev*ers have, no mat*ter what pain and grief be*fall them on earth

Listen to his testimony as recorded in this hymn, the only one that Spaffford ever wrote:

When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.


Refrain
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.


Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control,
That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.


Refrain
My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!


Refrain
For me, be it Christ, be it Christ hence to live:
If Jordan above me shall roll,
No pang shall be mine, for in death as in life
Thou wilt whisper Thy peace to my soul.


Refrain
But, Lord, ‘tis for Thee, for Thy coming we wait,
The sky, not the grave, is our goal;
Oh trump of the angel! Oh voice of the Lord!
Blessèd hope, blessèd rest of my soul!


Refrain
And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll;
The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend,
Even so, it is well with my soul.
Refrain

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/i/t/i/itiswell.htm



Though he had lost everything he had, including his own children, he had come to the place in his own life where he could testify: "It is well with my soul."

This is far different that the so-called "Praise" songs that we have today, some of which have no mention of Christ at all, and when examined carefully could be a song of Praise to Allah as much as to the God of the Bible. There is nothing in the song to distinguish between the two Gods. It is pitiful.

We have a story to tell to the nations. Is that story obscured by the music and the modern day lyrics that is put to those lyrics?
DHK

 

When did I say I was worried about anything--I asked a question:

Based on the information in my post, do you think that hymn is secular or Godly? You didn't answer it. You always answer a question with another question--getting on the defensive.
***************************************************************
DHK:

Good post--It Is Well is a great example of what the difference is between secular/CCM and the traditional hymns of the faith. It would be good if the young people would read the words and the biographies of these great hymn writers, like H. G. Spafford.

When the music does not match the message, the message will fail.

 

So that says that it was written as a Christian song first, and then adapted as a national anthem. Still, was the music still "sacred" when it was used by the Nazis, or only in this case do only the words set to it matter?
This ought to show that something good can be used for bad, but that doesn't make it bad in itself. And that it is not only modern rock styles that can become associated or "matched with" a message of evil (which is the primary basis of all these charges of "worldly music").

 

While I agree with the powerful birth of "It is Well," I find your remark ridiculous. By your post, we should only sing the traditional hymns and NEVER sing new songs? Pardon me, but that's dumb. You're still equating the worth of a song by the age and the style. Is this worthy? Based solely on what you read following, not based on the age (which I'm guessing you won't know) and the style (which you don't know) is this song worthy of my time?

What Grace is This?
What grace is this that pardons sin, cleanses iniquity saving all men?
What grace is this that finds a home inside a heart once made of stone?
The grace of God, so full and rich! His praise is ever on my lips!
Grace reaches out and calls me home; Blood of the Lamb for sin atones.

What mercy hangs upon a tree enduring nails and thorns for me?
What mercy wills to take my place to pay the price for my disgrace?
Eternal life in endless day replaces death of sin's dark wage
Mercy restraining judgment's hand, reveals the grace in which I stand.

What love is this that rules and reigns and guides my steps upon the way?
That orders steps from here to there, taking me to my home prepared;
In heaven's halls we'll join the throng of saints and angels at His throne,
His narrow path the way I've tread has ordered life and safely led.

Forevermore in paradise, we'll worship 'round the throne of Christ,
Because of grace, mercy and love I have a home in heaven above.

Now tell me... based on what you read, is this song ok? Or do you want the author's bio? If you do, keep reading.

Well how about it? I love this song. What say you?

 

Everybody knows Jesus sang no hymn written after 1799. In fact, it is a little known tidbit of trivia, that his favorite song was "How Great Thou Art". :laugh:

 

Wouldn't if have been "How Great I AM"?

 

Linda... you didnt even answer the original question. still havn't. so why should i answer your question? LOL.

 

Have you ever heard of Ron Hamilton. He is a "contemporary" musician, though his music is quite traditional.

info gleaned from
http://www.patchthepirate.org/pages/piratefs.html
and personal experience.


To hear Ron Hamilon give his own testimony (as I did some years ago) was one of the most memorable moments of my life, and one of the greatest blessings.

Here is a case where the medium (music) fits the message, and the messenger himself has a message to bring. This is what one ought to strive for in Christian music:
The right message.
The right medium.
The right messenger.
DHK

 

I enjoyed reading about Ron, thanks for the post DHK. What an amazing gifting this man has. However, that does not mean that all "contemporary" meaning "recent" music is bad, as is purported by some here on this board. No one determines what is acceptable for all. That is not within anyone's right or privilege. Let each man be convinced in his own mind, and let it be. This argument does nothing but divide people, congregations, and denominations worldwide.

 

Those who advocate the rock and roll style songs (notice I did not say gospel, because they are far from gospel) in the church, I ask this question. Why were not the same styles played in the church when our grandparents were teens?

Back then, people relied on the leading of the Spirit instead of the lust of the flesh to show them what true worship was. Rock was in the world before it was in the church.

When Elvis style singing was first introduced into the church, the body was shocked that it would be allowed... and it was not permitted to continue. Pastors were not ashamed to stop a song that was being sung if that song was to the worldly beat, feeding flesh rather than spirit.

Nowadays, people are drinking from the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils. They are preaching and singing a watered down gospel.
.

When a hunter goes into the woods, that hunter dresses up in a camouflage outfit so that it is less likely that an animal will see him and be spooked; to fit into the surrounding environment. This is exactly what is happening when you put the gospel in a rock style song. The surrounding is just like the world (Paul wrote, 'Wherefore come out from amongst them and be ye separate...', and James wrote, 'Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is at emnity with God'). The world sees no diffence when it hears the music, none whatsoever.

Paul wrote, 'But if the gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost'. You cannot hide the gospel behind the music of the world and expect the world to be saved. And yet, that is exactly what is happening, the gospel is hid.

You may say, 'People are being reached.' Are they? What is reaching them? It is the music of the world that is reaching them, not the glorious gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

'Oh, but you are wrong. People are coming to the altar and dedicating their lives to the Lord.' The Bible teaches that when one truly hears of and trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ and His blood sacrifice, there is a transformation that takes place. That one puts off the things of the flesh, the old man; and takes on a new nature, the nature of Christ.

Camouflaged Christians clothed in the world are not pleasing to Christ. Jesus said, 'Ye cannot serve two masters.'

Paul wrote, But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. People claiming to be of Christ are putting on the filth of the world instead of Christ.

Josh, I do not appreciate your implying that my wife is dumb because you disagree with what the Lord has revealed to her concerning this matter. It very could be the other way around.

 

i like that. thank you DHK.
i do agree with your "medium must fit the message" now.

as i look into it - for example - the above lyrics. the message would have the same effect with - piano accompaniment.

i do not agree that piano accompaniment is the only medium that would make the message have the same effect though.

hard rock would do the lyrics worse because of the overall tone of hard rock. it may though have an effect on those who listen to hard rock more then those that dont.

a soft beat with acoustic guitar - i believe that medium would make the message have virtually the same effect. it would appeal to a different audience - yes.

a softer surf style (i.e. michael watson - www.myspace.com/livintheglow) - that medium would make the message have virtually the same effect. it would appeal to a different audience - yes.

etc. etc.

 

Forgive me, I did not mean to imply that I thought Linda64 was dumb. Far, far from it. On certain issues on this board, I have seen great wisdom coming from Linda. However, I did mean that only singing the traditional songs and steering away from anything new because it IS new and in a style that you don't like, is dumb.

SFIC - while I disagree wholeheartedly with the two of you, I believe that you have the right to sing, listen to, and worship with any song you so desire. Remember, the same God that told you that those songs are BAD, has told me that they glorify Him. Would He tell us to seperate things? I don't think so. So one of us is not hearing. Is it me? Could be. Do I believe it's me? No.

But I do believe, maybe now more than ever, that bickering and arguing about this is ridiculous. ESPECIALLY FOR ME, because I love the old faithful hymns as well as some of the newer songs. So I'll say again, this argument does nothing but inflame and turn people against one another. Can't we get on to the more important things?

 

Our grandparents didn't listen to it because they didn't exist then. My grandparents were teens in the 20's and 30', and you look like you're older than me.
The Churches used the styles that were popular back then, and when the new African-American-infused styles came about this past century (first jazz then later rock&roll) they were against it because they were't used to it. And this had happened even earlier in Church history, when instruments were first introduced, then when polyphonic styles, and finally the classical styles were new. The Church had hangups with "the flesh" (just physical nature in itself, which was looked down on as bad), and everything people weren't used to was demonized as earthly, sensual and demonic, including the styles you are calling good now. This was especially repeated when styles with African influences were added, and that is really what this whole argument is about.

That is not true, as people thought that the "flesh" only involved physical pleasure, so as long as they were sitting stiffly to the traditional style, they were OK. But such pride and the smugness and preference based on unbiblical hangups or comfort zones, and racism a lot of them had was just as much of the flesh as any sensual pleasure.

So now, you knwo for sure that every single Christian who gets saved in a contemporary worship and music setting is a "camoflaged Christian". All because of a music style, when you have yet to give any proof that the style is naturally bad, and your old styles are not from the world. Just your own sense of association, (what you have seen the world use it for) and the apparent assumption of a sacred "Christian culture" that ended in the 1950's. That's all this is! It is not valid for making such broad judgments.

 

"Remember, the same God that told you that those songs are BAD, has told me that they glorify Him."

A double-minded God? I don't think so.

I have posted plenty of scripture showing the true child of God is not to have fellowship with things of the world, such as rock and roll which feeds the flesh instead of the spirit.

We are to be separated unto God. We are to look different than the world. 'Mortify therefore, the deeds of the flesh.'

There is just too much scripture that points to the christian coming out from amongst that which the flesh lusts after.

I have given an illustration of a 'camouflage christian', wanting to look good to the world and yet, still wanting to please God. I will share one more scripture from Acts 5... Peter said, 'We ought to obey God rather than man.'

Yes, it seems we have reached an impasse. You believe the music glorifies God and I believe it is a stench in His nostrils.

I will leave it at that.

 

You're jusr asserting the same things over and over and jumping the burden of proof. Your traditional styls is from the "world". It did not come down from Heaven. It was made by a culture of people who were just as much sinners as the cultures that produced the modern styles. They had more of a veneer of "Christianity", but that can be questioned. Much of that may very well have been a stench in the nostrils of God.
So the issue of "the world" versus "sacred" is not drawn along a style, or which culture or generation it came from.

 

oh... so now you're the one to dictate what God likes and dislikes?

 

the only time that any kind of music will ever appeal to your flesh - IS IF YOU ALLOW IT TO.

 

SFIC... if you're driving down the road - and a pimped out poser ride drives up beside you with the boom box blastin away...

what does your flesh nature do? im quite curious actually.

 

According to God's Word, I can dictate to others what His Word says, but I can see that many choose to walk in the darkness of their own understanding.

I may be blind physically, but spiritually, I have better sight that many who think they are in the Light.