Standards to a Fundamentalist

I haven't attempted to point out the principle. But notice have you changed the issue.

You started off saying "if one don't have clear cut Scripture on a matter, then he ought to be silent on it from the pulpit." But you abandoned that when it came to marijuana.

Then you said that we could do it be scriptural principle, even though it is not explicit or clear cut, which was the argument you made for marijuana. But then you reverted to a mix of the previous position on "clear cut Scripture" combined with your own opinion that there is no biblical principle on music.

And I ask, how is that any different than fundamentalists who make proclamations about all manner of standards without the Bible? It's not. You have a legalistic, inadequate, and inconsistent view of the Bible (as you have already demonstrated) combined with asserting that your opinion is the standard everyone else should live by (by saying essentially, "In my opinion the Bible gives no info on music and therefore there's not any.") I just reject all that as way too fundamentalistic for me.

You're right that I haven't pointed out any clear principle on music. But the fact that I haven't pointed it out only means that I haven't pointed it out. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Again, think about what you are saying.

The reality is that there are a lot of scriptural principles involved that lead us in our choice of music. All music is not equal in terms of its communication. I don't have any intention of getting into that argument here because it isn't the forum and I don't have the time, but it is absurd to say that it doesn't matter.

A lot of it deals with second premise arguments that people use all the time, such as your argument on marijuana. But people are often unprepared to deal with second premise arguments thoughtfully.

But let me make just two quick points:

1. Music communicates in and of itself. When you go places, start asking yourself, Why did they choose that music to play here and now? and How would it be different if they played something else? Look at the atmosphere created by music. Imagine an NFL football game that blares out Pachelbel's Canon in D. When you see the absurdity in your mind (and you will), it will be very obvious that the Canon in D doesn't communicate the kind of atmosphere they want at a football game.

2. When you go places, or watch MTV, or something, start looking at how music affects people. I recently watched a PBS special on Jim Harrison and The Doors. It led me to wonder about the the connection between the type of music and the cultural revolution. There are many historians and musicologists who are not Christian who recognize that there is some connection there.

Now, there are clear biblical principles on communication, right? The question is, Are you willing to apply them to all forms of communication?

I think Ken Myer is a good place to start. It's accessible. He is not a raving lunatic fundamentalist. But he has some thoughtful stuff on cultural issues.

I think there is a wide latitude on music, due to culture and congregation. I am pretty eclectic in my music. And I don't think that people need to answer the questions the same way I do to be "right." There are people on both sides of me on this issue. But the questions do need to be asked in a thoughtful way. And they need to be interacted with more seriously than, "The Bible doesn't say anything about it."

That's only true if you are an extreme legalist who thinks that God doesn't expect believers to know what "things like these" belong in the list.

The legalism that you hold about the issue is scarcely better than the legalism anyone else holds.

 

Actually there is; you have just had the misfortune of not being exposed to thoughtful interaction with Scripture and culture.

 

There are scriptural standards which cover every activity and situation, fundamentalist or not:

1 Corinthians 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.​

Romans 14
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.​

1 Peter 2
13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme
14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.​

If, in your faith, you can legally smoke a marijuana cigarette and do it to the glory of God then do so.​

Look in the mirror before going to church. Apply the same principles to your apparel except add the one about offending the brethren.
Is it of faith, does it glorify God, will a brother/sister be offended?​

It's not so difficult. In fact it should become second nature to us at some point in time.​

We are only here for a short time. We should use our liberty wisely as that wisdom will have eternal results.

Galatians 5

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.​

HankD​

 

What about the possibility that someone's faith may be wrong or misplaced?

Quoting Romans 14 is hardly helpful since Romans 14 refers to things that are acceptable and pleasing to God, but some people's conscience forbids them. To these things, faith is an issue.

Romans 14 does not refer to sinful things. No matter your faith, sin is always sin. Even if someone sins "in faith," it it still sin.

 

Then it's either not "faith" or not scriptural "faith".

You are isolating faith from the other elements which I mentioned (legality and being done to the glory of God) and redefining "faith" as it as it is impossible to sin "in faith".

The kind of faith illustrated by Scripture e.g. Hebrews 11.

And in fact Romans 14 does refer to sinful things, specifically - offending my brother:

1 Corinthians 8

10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
​

HankD

 

No, many people believe they are doing something legal to the glory of God when in fact they are sinning against God.

Hebrews 11 contains no examples of that that I know of. Do you have something in mind where someone did something legal believing it was to the glory of God when it fact it wasn't to the glory of God but rather was sinful?

First, you talk about Romans 14 and quote 1 Cor 8. Second, the issue in Romans 14 are things that are good, and that is why each person can be convinced in his own mind. God never allows people to be convinced in their own mind about whether or not something pleases him. That is not an individual issue.

Romans 14 is talking about a person'a conscience, which may be poorly trained leading them to believe that something is sinful when in fact it is pleasing to God. Paul is saying, If your conscience believes that X, which is pleasing to God, is actually sinful, then don't do it. That is the faith part of it .. What a person believes about something that is acceptable to God.

The sin of 1 Cor 8 is about causing a brother to stumble by participating in something that is pleasing to God in such a way that it causes a brother to do something that is against his conscience and thereby is sin for him because he is sinning against his conscience.

This reminds me, along with the conversation with Luke, how much of our Christianity is actually sloganeering. We don't really interact with Scripture on the basis of what the SCriptures actually say. We just make up or repeat slogans similar to what the Corinthians did which Paul addresses by the "Things about which you wrote to me." A common slogan was in 1 Cor 7 where "A man should not touch a woman" was making its way around the Corinthian church and Paul writes to correct the slogan by saying that it is perfectly acceptable for a man to touch a woman provided it is his wife. In fact, it is not only acceptable, it is proper and right and necessary to touch a woman.

We have to get away from sloganeering.

 

Hmmm......................define standards.........define Fundamentalist......When I found this board I thought here is a place I can find like minded believers who edify one another and perhaps engage in meaningful dialouge centered around scripture.............But alas, more bickering.

It's interesting to note five people stated no standards at all, yet they are not being called into question, only those who say standards are necessary (I being one of them).

The Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth which proceedes directly from the Father in Jesus' name to teach us "All Things" (John 14:26), guide us into "All Truth" (John 16:13), and reprove the world of sin (John 16:8). In addition Jesus tells us the world WILL Hate us. (John 15:19).

All I see is an attempt by professing Christians to pacify the world with newer versions of "the Bible" that do not offend them, to entice them to come to church and listen to music that sounds similar to theirs, but with a Christ message, and a "church" that says to them, "don't worry about how you look just come." I will agree a lost person should come as they are, but they should leave different, not continue contentedly in their sinful lifestyle.

The Church, to my understanding, is the body of "believers" coming together to worship Jesus Christ. The Church is to go out and win the unbelieving world to Christ and bring them in to the body of believers. Anytime you have a congregation consisting of a mixture of believers and non-believers eventually the church will slide toward apostasy in an effort to keep the "non-believing" members from leaving.

If you preach the Word, the unbeliever will either become convicted, repent and be saved, or become angry and leave.

The Church is not here to build elaborate buildings, we are here to win the lost to Jesus Christ. In doing so many will be offended, this is testament to the truth.

 

Well since you put it that way, I agree. I believe there has been a disconnect over the term "legal".

My bad, as I failed to mention the leading of the Spirit in the exercise of faith. These legalists are therefore self-deceived.

2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.​

Yes Paul's (Saul's) persecution of Christians ("legal" in the sense that it was permitted by the leading body, the Sanhedrin of which he possessed documents to do this persecution).

Romans 14 and 1 corinthians 8 are related scriptures, specifically to the point I had made - offending one's weaker brother with one's liberty is sinful.

Romans 14

14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.​

1 Corinthians 8
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.​

It is one of the principles in Scripture concerning what is is and what is not sin.

Are we not not allowed the whole counsel of God on every subject?

No disagreement here.

Again, I agree.

Offending a brother by the exercise of my liberty is a sin if it offends him/her. For me as well if I flaunt my liberty.

I agree and that is evident as I put forth no slogan but scripture "slogans" e.g. "do all to the glory of God".

As to "offending the brethren", the scope is wider than just the brethren:

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:​

Obviously we don't have to throw common sense out the window with the concept of non-offense of others or we would have to live in a monastery in solitary confinement.​

Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.​

In summary:

If we are led of the Spirit all that we do will be as a result of our faith and done to the glory of God.

We won't offend our brethren with a deliberate show of our liberty but bear their (brethren) burden of weakness even if it means sacrifice of something innocent.

1 Corinthians 10

23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.​

And, if possible and as much as is within us, everyone else (Jews, Gentiles). The offence of the cross at least one obvious exception.

This whole thread is about "standards" for fundamentalists.
The Scriptures I iterated and the leading of the Spirit are my guide.


HankD

 

Blankstare states: "Hmmm......................define standards.........define Fundamentalist......When I found this board I thought here is a place I can find like minded believers who edify one another and perhaps engage in meaningful dialouge centered around scripture.............But alas, more bickering."

The scriptures doesn't mean too much here, when it interferes with one's theology or doctrinal beliefs. Therefore bickering is the norm. This site is not for the new christian who is seeking help in understanding various topics. However, do not judge all by a few. There are some here who are more than willing to help without tearing someone down. If you are not grounded in the Word, I suggest you try another site which I'm PM you with the info.

 

Wow. That should make for an interesting explanation.

Trying hard to figure out if I'm a bigger apostate for my NIV, or because I (gasp) lead worship from a keyboard (that occasionally uses the evil, African-rooted, Bill Gothard-despised "Drum loop." (heathenus maximus)

 

I must have missed something because I didn't see any one say this. But I imagine I am in good company since I imagine you didn't see anyone say this either. So it makes me wonder why you bring it up.

But let's return to what was said.

The fact is that music communicates right? (No one denies this, so don't be the first, please.)

And there are biblical principles about communication right? (Again, no one denies this, so don't be the first, please).

So we have two undeniable facts. The only question is whether or not you will connect them and apply them.

 

Tantalizing the flesh and tickling the ear. It's not really a (gasp) surprise as it is just sad.............:tear:

 

Reading your comments here, it is doubtful that you ever thought like me. In fact, you don't even know how I think because I have said anything beyond two undeniable principles, and you seem to want to avoid actually talking about the issue. You just want to repeat your slogans. I can assure you that your sloganeering here is nowhere close to what I believe about communication in music.

Neither did he condemn marijuana.

See above and below.

He did make extraordinarily clear that there are biblical principles of communication. What good would it have done to identify a style of music? What music they used 2000-4000 years ago we have no way of hearing to know what it sounds like. Had he said something about music today, it would have been meaningless to anyone except those living in the last couple of decades. So rather than go down that road, God gave us clear principles about communication. And he expects us to not be legalists like you are being. You can't simply appeal to the naked law and claim you can do anything that's not specifically condemned. That's legalism. You have to actually know what the "things like these" are.

It strikes me how absurd this conversation would have been to first century Christians. They didn't even have the NT and yet they still managed to know, and they were admonished when they did not know. Now we have a generation of baby feeders who can't put two and two together from the Scripture and life. They want it spoon fed to them so they don't have to think.

So you don't think communication is a big deal to God? Then why did he say so much about it?

I haven't made a big deal about it. You clearly are not reading what I have and you certainly don't know me because I am anything but one who makes a big deal about it.

He did warn us about communication so as his ambassadors we can make an issues about to the degree that he did in his word.

It strikes me that people do not know how to plug Scripture into culture. Perhaps in a more productive stream, you could outline for us how you go about using the Scripture to inform your life in this world.

 

Thank you, oh Assistant to the Holy Spirit.

You might want to check with Him first before condemning something He doesn't.

If you're not on the same page, my money's with "not you." :thumbs:

 

You have yet to even engage the argument. You will notice that you are the one who has brought up the idea of music communicating evil. I didn't say that. So you are clearly not understanding what I am saying, and you are not understanding my point.

Are you actually disagreeing that the Bible talks about communication? Please tell me you are not, because if you are, we are carrying on this conversation are a far higher level than you are ready for.

Clearly, you don't understand my philosophy. Of course, we already established that when you said you used to believe like I do, when in fact you don't even know what I believe. The Scripture is the foundation. Whatever we preach and say must be founded in Scripture. You don't get to preach your own ideas as God's truth, which is why you should not say that music doesn't matter. That is clearly not God's idea. You will find nowhere to preach that from Scripture.

I know you said that, but it appears you don't believe it because you seem to be wanting to pick and choose which scriptural principles you use. You appear to use them only when they are convenient for you, when they address something you want addressed (marijuana). And you ignore them when they address something you don't want to address (communication).

Notice your complete lack of interaction. You are unwilling, it seems, to even admit the most obvious claim that Scripture addresses communication. I can't imagine that is actually even debated. But that's where you want to go???? Wow is all I can say. And you claim fundamentalists have a problem.

I agree. That's why it is wrong to claim that music does not communicate. It is willy nilly. No one in Scripture or culture believes that except for you and very confused people who haven't given it much thought.

Take the idea of "evil" out of it for a minute and ask yourself (as I said before I think) to consider why certain kinds of music are used in certain venues.

Take a few examples, and try to interact instead of just giving silly retorts.

1. Imagine Queen's "We Are the Champions" being played at a wedding processional.
2. Imagine Pachelbel's "Canon in D" being played after a team has won a championship.
3. Imagine an NFL football game where the music played during a timeout is Puccini's "Nessun Dorma."
4. Imagine a nightclub that is playing Bach's "Adagio in G Minor."

These should make you laugh because of the absurdity right? If you don't see how that is absurd, then you aren't thinking. This is prima facie. You don't need Scripture to tell you that certain kinds of music work in certain kinds of atmospheres and don't work in others. You don't need Scripture to tell you that music creates atmospheres, which is precisely why sports teams pump up the crowds with certain kinds of music during time-outs, and mothers put their infants to bed with completely different kinds music. It is because music itself, without any words, communicates. This is where and how the image of God works. God expects us to use his image to understand these basic and obvious things about his creation. I can only imagine God saying, "Why would I have to tell you that? It's obvious." God doesn't expect us to check our brains at the door, and take Luke's word for it just because Luke repeats something he heard someone else say without giving it much thought.

It you see how absurd these examples are, then you recognize that music communicates. And you have the basics of my point.

From there, we must begin to ask how music communicates, and why certain forms of music are appropriate at certain times (e.g., timeout at an NFL game vs. bedtime for a three month old infant). And then use biblical principles of communication to discern why and how music affects, creates, hampers, or destroys worship for believers.

 

smoewhat, I'm going with smoewhat