-
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!
Why I'm thankful God convicted about Rock'nRoll
- Thread starter lilrabbi
- Start date
Are you all saying that lilrabbi is lying? That God didn't really convict him concerning rock music?
Or are you saying he's weak, i.e. ignorant and superstitious, like the new converts in the Early Church who had a conscience toward meat, and that he's merely confusing his "personal" feelings with God's will?
Then it would behoove you to present your Scriptural case that God really does seek those to worship Him with rock music.
Or are you saying he's weak, i.e. ignorant and superstitious, like the new converts in the Early Church who had a conscience toward meat, and that he's merely confusing his "personal" feelings with God's will?
Then it would behoove you to present your Scriptural case that God really does seek those to worship Him with rock music.
If there were title lines for our posts, I would title this, The Subtext of Contempt.
Folks in this thread have on the surface of their words, feigned tolerance of lilrabbi's view, but in the substance of their words actually mocked and ridiculed him.
So, despite all your pretenses of tolerance, you really have no tolerance of lilrabbi's view. Won't even let it in the door.
And the Traditionalists are the one's painting their convictions onto the rest of the world?
Folks in this thread have on the surface of their words, feigned tolerance of lilrabbi's view, but in the substance of their words actually mocked and ridiculed him.
Convictions concerning rock music are not really from God, but from men, and not honorable men, but men who personify the charicatures we draw of Fundamentalists not worthy of serious consideration.
Despite the obvious oxymoron, "personal conviction," the point here is that lilrabbi's conviction concerning rock music is as foolish and baseless as feeling that Chinese food is of the devil.Trotter:
It's calledersonal conviction" for a reason...it is personal.
I can be convicted that Chinese food is of the devil, but that would be my personal convictions (even though my wife would agree).
So, despite all your pretenses of tolerance, you really have no tolerance of lilrabbi's view. Won't even let it in the door.
And the Traditionalists are the one's painting their convictions onto the rest of the world?
I'm your huckleberry.
Proverbs says that God hates a proud look. Could you point me to the passage that describes what a "proud look" looks like so that we could avoid it?
Oh, wait! You can't! That means that your hermeneutic is really just an arbitrary assumption dreamed up in the vanity of your own imagination!
No "subtext of contempt" from me. My contempt for your view is right there on the surface!
Since you're so tuned to God's will, maybe you can show us where it is stated that God wants to be worshipped with all kinds of music, like Nebuchadnezzar's worship of his golden idol. (Dan. 3:5)
No. But that God convicted him, for reasons internal to him. We must no projrct this onto everyone else.
For then, that would be new revelation (which fundies always condemn in charismatics, Catholics and others).
Or how about that all but the KJV are from the devil.
So are you insinuating that just because someone says that God convicted them of something; well, it can't be "personal", so therefore; this is some commandment God is giving to everyone; and it's just that everyone else is not listening, and lying, spiritually "weak", etc. You are approaching this from the angle of not "insulting" someone; but you end up simply insulting the other side. But then that's what the anti-CCM crowd always does anyone. They can dish criticism out, but can't take it.
You have always thrown this out like it is some proof of your view; but this says nothing of any "music style". It is a very remote comparison of "principle"; but you have not been able to establish any definition that proves that any of the elements of the music in question are things that are condemned by scripture. So then it just gets back into the whole behavioral "effects-association-morality" vicious cycle (which it always inevitably does)that is the real basis for the teaching.
So then does this give us license to just make up new definitions of what is sinful, and the Bible does not even have to teach it?
And you have got to show the correlation that all rock is like that, and only classical is what God wants to be worshipped to. You are accusing them of making a presumption on what God wants, and His will, but it is really you.
Yes; and as we see; trying to throw the charge back on the ther side only makes it all the more come back on you!
guitarpreacher
New Member
There's a great hymn that starts out "We Praise Thee O God Our Redeemer, Creator. In Grateful Devotion Our Tribute We Bring" The original song that this hymn borrowed the tune from went "I Once Met A Girl And Her Name Was Matilda. She Hugged Like A Bear And She Looked Like One Too".
What today is considered traditional was once cutting edge, and what some call sacred was once considered evil. There is no such thing as Christian music or non-Christian music, only the lyrics reveal the heart of of the composer.
What today is considered traditional was once cutting edge, and what some call sacred was once considered evil. There is no such thing as Christian music or non-Christian music, only the lyrics reveal the heart of of the composer.
Sorry, but Garlock & Woetzel's teachings are based largely on the whole "science studies and natural/bahavioral effects" stuff. (and then fellow BJU'er Richard Peck comes and criticizes a focus on "natural effects" instead of "God's holiness"! It's his side that keeps mentioning effects!) So no real proof, and not scriptural.
You can see the fallacies these people use answered at
http://members.aol.com/etb700/ccm.html#summary
You can see the fallacies these people use answered at
http://members.aol.com/etb700/ccm.html#summary
Ishouldbhappy
New Member
mountainrun, thank you so much for what you said. I love rock music. I love to listen to Christian rock.
Kristen
Kristen
No. But that God convicted him, for reasons internal to him. We must no projrct this onto everyone else.
For then, that would be new revelation (which fundies always condemn in charismatics, Catholics and others).</font>[/QUOTE]You don't get to argue that. This thinking inevitably stems from a misunderstanding of passages like Romans 14 (eating meat vs not eating meat, etc.) If one has a conscience toward something as evil when it really isn't evil, it is not because of the Spirit of God, Who always judges according to truth, but because of his own ignorance and superstition.
Or how about that all but the KJV are from the devil.
So are you insinuating that just because someone says that God convicted them of something; well, it can't be "personal", so therefore; this is some commandment God is giving to everyone; and it's just that everyone else is not listening, and lying, spiritually "weak", etc. You are approaching this from the angle of not "insulting" someone; but you end up simply insulting the other side. But then that's what the anti-CCM crowd always does anyone. They can dish criticism out, but can't take it.</font>[/QUOTE]I'm saying what I said before. You don't get to agree that God convicted him for personal reasons. God judges according to truth, and truth is universal.
You have always thrown this out like it is some proof of your view;</font>[/QUOTE]No, I have always used it to rebut the arbitrary assumption that the Word of Righteousness will always spell everything out as to a child. And it's quite an effective rebuttal at that.
I wasn't arguing about a musical style at this point. I was arguing about certain invalid assumptions.
And you have got to show the correlation that all rock is like that, and only classical is what God wants to be worshipped to. You are accusing them of making a presumption on what God wants, and His will, but it is really you.</font>[/QUOTE]No I don't, not at this point in the discussion. Trotter was implying that all styles are acceptable, and basing that on his arbitrary assumption. Besides, I have never—NEVER—said that God only wants classical music.
T
Travelsong
Guest
Sin may be an action, or sin may be a thought. Sin may be a deep subconcious desire. Sin is always an action of the heart.
A materialist or a naturalist may assert a belief in only the temporal world, but they can never reconcile human morality with the nature of the universe and natural sciences.
What makes us happiest in life is what runs so contrary to our natural desires.
The deepest, hardest truths to accept are always the simplest ones to understand through the experience of being human, but it always takes a measure of illumination not of ourselves to grasp.
Yes a personal conviction IS because of the Spirit of God. He deals with us based on our internal issues (wich you are assuming are just "ignorance and superstition"). Some thought that all meats were good; some thought that only some were good (for one of two reasons), and some thought that no meat was good. The same with religious days. (Theis now parallels the debate I am having with some sabbatarians on "Other religions". They too brush aside this chapter, and others that refutes their judging over OT practices. But at least the OT did command the practices they are arguing for! The argument is whether they carry into the NT; but this music issue is foind NOWHERE in either testament!).
Paul does not call any of what he is discussing "superstition and ignorance". He does call it "waek conscience"; but you sometimes seem to take that as as much of an insult as "superstition and ignorance".
But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If we accept your reasoning here; then we should be able to dismiss this person's conviction about rock music as ignorance and superstition. As I show on my page; much of it IS (and also mixed in with racism). But I try to give individual people like this the benefit of the doubt, and say that perhaps they have a problem with it; and that is why they feel convicted. Now, if YOU want to call that "ignorance and superstition"; then once again, this charge you level at us comes right back to you. But whatever their conviction is; you cannot project it onto us as some hidden "universal" commandment of God; and judge us as simply never listening to this conviction [that He apparently 'must be' giving to us too].
So what is happening is that you keep stepping away from the music argument to try to prove some OTHER point. But proving that other point does not prove your point on music. But you then throw these responses up there like it did prove it. This is where the discussion on music always goes (and then dies down); and you should just admit that you do not have any scriptural or conscientious proof for a universal ban by God on a style or beat of music. It AT MOST is hypothetically possible. But not PROVEN. Something like that, a person should just keep as his own conviction. But just like the sabbatarians; what good is my conviction from God if I can't judge everyone else with it?
But given the criterion that has been laid down; including by these people's "convictions"; that is all that would be left. Just think: What kind of music do these people with these convictions listen to? (keep in mind; the traditional old hymn style is basically a form of "classical", and most people who listen to one accept the other, and what they listen to they think is approved by God).
[ March 29, 2005, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]
You have tried to argue this in the past, but have failed miserably. Sin is not always an action of the heart. The Bible clearly defines sin in 1John 3:4, as "a transgression of the law," whether or not the heart is involved. Speeding is sin, whether or not you are aware you are doing it. You will still get a ticket for it. You have violated the law--whether or not you realized it. The heart has nothing to do with it, in many cases. Your modifier "always" makes your statement false.
DHK
T
Travelsong
Guest
Where there is the law, there is sin. Where one transgresses the law, one has failed to obey God's commandments. When one fails to obey God's commandments, it is because he has not loved the Lord God with all his heart, soul, and mind.
All sin is an action of the heart.
All sin is an action of the heart.
No, your logic is flawed. Man sins all the time. And the reason is not because he does not love the Lord God with all his heart, soul and mind. That has nothing to do with many sins. Unsaved man sins also. The unsaved man lives in a state of constant condemnation. The wrath of God continues to abide upon him. And yet he still sins. That has nothing to do with loving God, for he cannot love God. Sin is a transgression of the law; whether or not you love God, whether or not the heart is involved. Sin is a transgression of the law; not of the heart. Define sin as the Bible defines it; not as you define it. Don't redefine sin.
DHK
DHK
T
Travelsong
Guest
You're asserting exactly what I am except that you claim it contradicts the truth. The only difference is that you remove the heart.
Man's natural state is that he cannot desire to love the Lord God with all his heart soul and mind. He turns his reverence from the proper object of worship (God) to something else.
Remember the history of events in this argument.
You first asserted that sins of omission were not actions of the heart because they were unintentional.
I reasoned that a man is accountable for a sin of omission because he failed to do what he ought to do: obey the commandments that God commanded him to obey. I then gave dozens of verses as evidence to support that the Israelites disobeyed God's commandments because they did not love Him with all their hearts.
You and Scott claimed my position was unorthadox so I appealed to the authority of C.H. Spurgeon who concluded exactly as I did.
You abandoned that argument and went to traffic tickets.
Now I know you are the kind of person who will never give in to reason, but I want to be sure that the record is straight here.