What is my sin?

Travelsong,

You asked what your sin was. You've been answered. I knew you were asking a divisive, leading question, but I and others answered, not expecting that you or any of your mindset would accept the answer, but for the sake of those who are of like mind with us.

If you want to argue about how listening to certain kinds of music is like idolatry or any other work of the flesh, you can take that up in another thread.

Although it goes against my grain to stifle discussion, I can't see any value in leaving this thread open. Get your concluding remarks in. I'll close it this evening.

 

LOL...you can't be serious.

 

And those who forbade all meats may not have considered that preference, but still, because of the fact that such a thing as a dispute, Paul covered it in this chapter. This music issue falls under the same category.

"Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs". This says nothing about the modern styles under debate (and remember, what we are calling "hymns" today was not the "style" of the first century mideastern culture.) But many of the contemporary Christian songs criticized are either modern "hymns" (odes) of praise to God, and some are taken right out of the Psalms or other scriptures. Most are at least "spiritual" in that they advocate Christian values, and teach or encourage the believers (as the Colossians passage is instructing us), even if they may not be loaded with deep theology, or have a largely human orientation. (Can this even be said about classical pieces that don't even have words, or the national anthems, which are basically "hymns" of praise to our country, both of which are deemed "acceptable" by most critics).
Then the issue gets down to the "style" being "spiritual" or "carnal" because of the rhythm, and as the others have shown, there is not enough proof that a rhythm is carnal only because some have used it for sinful purposes, and the deciding factor is which accent the beat is on, or how much syncopation. This is why the argument is said to be unscriptural— because what is being offered is simply a proof-text that does not even address the minute issues being used to determine what is good or bad.

What "things that are taught". It's not some scientific study (that itself is based on variables that the average person can't test), or the testimonies of people who have a weakness for it others don't have, but the actual effect of the drug on ANYONE who takes it, plus the scripture directly condemning it (not that particular drug by name, but ones that do the same or similar things that did exist back then) as "sorcery". That is almost a paraphrase of "smoking dope is sin". I liked the way Travelsong answered: "If I said I loved pornography, and challenged you to show me what my sin was with regard to my enjoyment of it, would you spout a bunch of nonsense about being fleshly or ask me about my understanding of separation, or would you come right out and say I had a problem with lust?"

 

EricB, for the benefit of clarification (since you actually looked at what I said), my use of Eph. 5:19 is this: Paul had to say SPIRITUAL songs. Wouldn't that eliminate nonSPIRITUAL? Also, wouldn't that require that people be able to discern between the different styles? Further, I have not said a thang 'bout hymns.

 

Uh, remember, Church history is not pure. There are many periods of that 1900 years, plus whole institutions that were definitely corrupt, and the uprightness in music may be apart of that, just as much as people's reaction and swing to the opposite extreme.
And what you quoted was actually a clip from my page, and I had edited out: "In fact, rather than a genuine personal spiritual conviction, it seems in this issue the music critics are bent on stamping out of existence altogether a whole range of music largely because of the culture its elements came from, or because it's not what they are used to, or because they thought any amount of physical pleasure was bad!" That's why the young crowd had questioned and often ignord the older people's convictions.

Or what has become almost a cliche among the critics "modern Christians are more interested in what they can get away with or what God allows, rather than what God requires or how He might be 'pleased'".
This is human nature, and the problem has been greatly exacerbated by excessive rules that aren't even biblical. This would naturally lead people to ask what God really does allow or does not allow. Do we just follow anyone who comes up to us with rules, "if we really care about pleasing God", without question? (Cults have plenty such rules we do not follow). God may have neither "required" it nor be particularly "pleased" by it, unless it was freely done in regard to Him. (Rom.14:6). People urging us to keep Sabbaths or give up birthday and holiday celebrations can accuse us of "focusing on what God allows, rather than pleasing Him" when we quote this and other scriptures regarding our "liberty" in response to them. Also, taking the opposite attitude of supposedly "trying to stay as far away from sin as possible" so much that we make certain presumptions of what God doesn't allow to be safe is precisely what the Pharisees and rabbinical Judaism after them had done. It becomes actually a haven of sin, because once one thinks he is doing so good, (so far from sin) not only does he become self-righteous but he tends to begin to slide in certain areas, especially ones he does not focus on (e.g. sins he's not even aware of— such as the mean-spiritedness of many critics, for instance)

True, and the key word with me is "exact delineation".

BTW, Thanx alot for getting this out of "Baptists Only"

[ March 11, 2003, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

Still, this does not tell us which of TODAY's styles fall into those categories, nor does it address accents and syncopation. This is why it is not a good proof text for this issue.

that's what is usualy assumed to be the "good" acceptable style.
Oooo! Using that ungodly rap slang, just like bad' ol. DC talk! According to Terry Watkins (av1611.org), not only are you practicing wickedness, but you "can't spell either!" (see how ridiculous the critics get )

 

Okay PTW, The scriptures on withcraft are about drug usage. Because the original word for witchcraft was pharmacia... pharmacy, drugs?

Furthermore, I have posted that I respectfully disagreed with your viewpoint on the topic of music being inherantly sinful.

I never at any time treated you as a self righteous legalist or said that you were spiritually immature. You may have assumed that the Bible scriptures I posted were directed at you personally, but that was not my intention.

As to the assumption that I have flaunted my freedom about listening to music, I could not have. I don't listen to most music because it aggitates my nervous system. So you see, I'm the weaker Christian where music is concerned.

Is it the Bibles description of Christian liberty in Romans 14 that with which you have taken offense? I understand that if something is a stumbling block to my walk with Christ than I am a weaker Christian than those who have no problem in this area. I understand that it is the human variable that determins whether something is a sin to a person or not. I have never agreed to the lists of don'ts that my church has. Do I go to bars and drink in hopes that it won't cause me to sin? No. Do I think that alcohol on a shelf is sinful? No. I think that without the person, it is just an innanimate object. Just like that chocolate cake. Just like that pack of cigarettes. Just like that woman or man that is available for an adulterous relationship. Without the person wantonly using these things to stray from their own godliness, there is no act of sin.

Because each person's walk with God is a never ending search for understanding on many different levels on many different subjects. Are we not all "the weaker Christian" in some way or another? Do we not all lack some maturity no matter how far along we are in the journey of understanding God?

Laurenda

[ March 11, 2003, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Wisdom Seeker ]

 

Laurenda, I just want to point this out real quick. I reread part of my post and see where I should have been more specific.

When I mentioned Romans 14 and said, "...like Laurenda...", I only meant that you mentioned the Romans 14 aspect. That is where the similarities ended.

I did not mean to imply that you were saying I am a legalist, self-righteous, etc.

I make no assumptions on your beliefs other than my disagreement over whether music belongs in Romans 14 or not.

 

Aha! That happens to me too.

Just wanted you to know that I don't think of you that way. Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding.

Laurenda

 

Ok, so here's what I got for answers from 5 pages of posts(I used direct quotes in all but Aaron's, because he didn't really come right out and say it):
</font>

• 1. some love contemporary music so much they're willing to sin in their defense of it.(Direct quote: Timothy)
  
  2. Rock music is sensual according to a Scriptural definition, and as such it is sinful. (Aaron)
  
  3. The sin is listening to music that is outside of God-given parameters (Direct quote: PTW)
  
  4. if, because of our culture, certain styles of music are considered rebellious, angry, or satanic by the general public, it is a sin to be associated with it since we must avoid the appearance of sin. (Direct quote: Timothy)
  
  5. anything that separates us from god, or the kind of people he wants us to be, is sinful. (Direct quote: Timothy)
  
  6. Just as abortion is murder, so your music is false worship (Direct quote: PTW)</font>

Did I miss anything? Some stuff people said I didn't include just because it really didn't answer the question, like using Eph 5:19 without telling how it means TravelSong is sinning. LMK if I missed anything so I can update this.

 

Just a final note to say I have appreciated all that I have read on this subject "WHAT IS MY SIN".IT has been interesting to see all the different points of view and stuck my nose in a couple of times.
Having been involved in the leadership of a VERY FUNDAMENTAL CHURCH ,KJV only,NO PANTS ON WOMEN,NO TV,ABSOLUTELY NO CROSSING OF DENOMINATIONAL LINES,ETC,Questions like this one posted by TRAVELSONG were constantly coming before us from members of the church and our neighbourhood.
Back on page 2 Su Wei responded to my reply saying "IF ITS THE KJV YOU ARE HOLDING ITS THE SAME BIBLE AS MINE SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT".
My only responce to that is to say that some of the biggest disagreenents i've ever seen between brothers in the LORD came as a result of each trying to prove his interpertation of scripture slinging KJV bible back and forth.
I think I see what your after TRAVELSONG,been there and did it.Its easy to say one is sinning,It takes true grit to name it "A".
Just a new member to the board sticking in my nose ER

 

thank you sooooo much, Aaron! i feel so absolved!

 

.

 

As promised, this thread is closed, but let's end on a rational note.

The "lusts of the flesh" mentioned in Rom. 13:14 are not limited to those particular works in the preceding verses. There is a nice list of them in Galatians, too. And remember, when Christ was tempted with the lusts of the flesh, it was to turn stones into bread, not babes.

[ March 11, 2003, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]