Baptist Pastor Dismayed by Worldliness of New Calvinist Conferences

You got one thing correct. I presented Scripture that indicated an acceptable worship service. I noted that the Old Testament is a history of the Israelites defying the instructions of God regarding worship and the penalty they paid.

The Church is not to conform to the world which is exactly what it is doing and what you are advocating. God is not the author of confusion. Music that appeals to the salacious appetite can never be pleasing to God, especially when it is supposedly used as a means of worship.

 

You completely missed my point. But to further belabor it would be a waste of my time. God bless.

 

Sounds good on the surface...but there are several issues:

• "Rock music and its derivatives" is completely and totally subjective. What one calls rock, another doesn't. It's impossible to quantify exactly what is and isn't. Is the Twila Paris song "We Bow Down" a rock derivative? One version I hear uses acoustic guitars and acoustic percussion. Another, electric guitars and drums (a fairly tame use of them). Still another, just piano. So...rock, or not?
• "Erotic beat"...Of course, there can be music that is constructed to arouse. But a marching band, keeping time @ 88....is that erotic? All music has a beat (one could argue old plainsong such as Augustus Prudentius' third-century hymn Of the Fathers' Love Begotten doesn't...but you've got to work hard to find that kind of music). This becomes similar, argument-wise, to the "evil-beat" concept promoted by folks such as av1611.org...It certainly stirs folks up; problem is, the argument itself isn't lflawed.

Yes, He did. But parsing genres of music is not the point of the verse. Like I say...we get into completely subjective grounds.

 

I agree. Just because the music does not float OldRegular's boat doesn't make it ungodly. It's getting dangerously close to legalism when we determine which music is acceptable and not acceptable based on opinion rather than the scripture. And, there is no Biblical support for or against having a drum or electric base in the church.

 

I disagree. What constitutes rock music is no more subjective than what constitutes the Hallelujah Chorus of Handel's Messiah. In any event an erotic or salacious beat is an erotic or salacious beat. All you need do is watch the women swishing their hips.

 

There is no Biblical support in the New Testament for any musical instrument in a worship service. In fact in Acts 17:25 Paul reminds the pagans on Mars Hill that God is not worshipped with mens hands.

 

Neither is there any support for a toilet. Boy are you in trouble!:laugh:

 

I haven't seen a "terlit" in a worship service yet but wit the move toward play acting who knows!:BangHead:

By the way is that a two holer or a one holer. Back in the col=al mining camps they all got turned over on Halloween. Wonder if those boys knew that was a worship service.:laugh::laugh:

 

There is no Biblical support in the New Testament for any musical instrument in a worship service. In fact in Acts 17:25 Paul reminds the pagans on Mars Hill that God is not worshipped with mens hands.

So, are you saying that no musical instruments should be used? If not, then I don't get your point. In fact, you are proving mine.

 

I read the article in the OP and enjoyed the chuckle.

Felt a little like we are "better Calvinists" than you.

At this point in my life I'm completely convinced that when God's Spirit is moving and people are making decisions for Jesus, some people will always stand against it.

Worship styles are a pointless argument. Some people will appreciate some styles and not appreciate others. Also, with my younger brethern there is just as much animosity towards traditionalists as with traditionalists towards more progressive forms.

I absolutely enjoy the "New Calvinism" movement and their conferences. I've seen many lives changed through the conferences and events related to it. I'm not a Calvinist, but the response from the younger generation has been outstanding.

 

The one thing that struck me is the idea of "reformed". Years ago a reformed church was not even close in beliefs to a Baptist church and was often pastored by a former Presbyterian and they believed in infant Baptism. It seems strange to me to think of Baptists calling themselves reformed. Isn't that being historically regressive and being closer to Presbyterian rather than separating as a Baptist from things like pedobaptism?

 

John Bunyan was of the same mindset as Piper apparently was/is.

 

If that is true that ought to tell us something about him and his theology.

 

Music?

I have a couple of items I will add to this discussion.

First, I know a man who was saved about ten years ago at an "event" that I would have never recommended anyone attend. He was convicted and accepted Christ while listening to what I would call "hard" rock music (he called it "hard" Christian rock). I would not believe it if I hadn't seen the transformation in him personally. However, and this is a BIG however, he no longers listens to that sort of music, and has no desire for it. He says this is due to the Holy Spirit residing within him who convicts him concerning the type of music he listens to.

And that leads me to my second item. If a person is saved, they should be sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is good with the music you listen to, who am I to tell you otherwise. Personally, I know what the Holy Spirit is comfortable with me listening to, and what He is not. When He convicts me concerning some song (usually Southern Gospel or Contemporary in my case) I turn it off. Simple as that.

PastorMark.

 

And if any of us would allow ANYTHING we listen to to come between us and God, we have a problem. Right on.

 

That is true, God did deal harshly in those who substituted pagan practices for the obligation that God gave the children of Israel through Moses to obey the words of the covenant he gave them at Sinai.

Also that the church is not to conform to the world is another valid point, yet in the history of christian music, even many of the worshipful songs we enjoy now
in the old hymnals were the result of music that was "borrowed" from the music that was sung during that time in the taverns and spirutualized by very God gifted song writers.

I have no problem with drums, guitars, oboes and any other instrument that is used to glorify God in their application to worship.

The only problem i can see in your post is when you comment that God is not the author of confusion. Please be sure that you are not interjecting this thought into it: God is not the author of that which confuses me.

When making statements like this please support your belief with a principle of doctrine and application rather than using a single proof text to bolster your belief.

 

It's difficult to take seriously anyone who uses the word "worldly" in a casual manner, including the OP.

 

If to grow up is to listen to most of the junk being passed on as worship or christian music in the radios and churches today and call it heavenly and spiritual, I'd rather not grow up.

 

Some of what is called spiritual is not but some of what are called hymns of the faith are heretical.

When Isaac Watts wrote many of what we call hymns today were viewed by the church of the time as CCM is by many today.

When Calvin started singing the Psalms many viewed that as CCM is viewed by some today.

The church did not have any music for about 1000 years.

Who is right?