|
Post by pitbull on Nov 3, 2005 13:13:11 GMT -5
Mike, “You also have to look at when it was written and the order.” Exactly. Did it apply to all humanity or just the Patriarchs or just the Hebrews? For example, the law of avoiding the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil really doesn’t apply to us too much today, does it?
“Would you say you are more "old testament" or "new testament" or equal?” As a preacher, I preach the “whole counsel of God”. I believe that all 66 books of the Bible were divinely inspired and have been perfectly preserved for us believers today to be our final authority on all matters of faith and practice. That is why you will find that I site both Old Testament and New Testament verses in my previous posts.
“You hear many churches claim to be a"new testament" church.” They should be that, since that is when the Lord Jesus Christ founded the church.
“When they can not find something to support their belief or interpretation, they reflect back to the old testament.” Hopefully they instead would apply the Bible to create their beliefs and doctrines rather than try to use the Bible to support them.
“If the Holy Spirit is writing through the letters for that time period and announces dress codes and ways of life, then how to you apply them to today’s standards.” When it comes to “dress codes”, I have found that the Bible gives only three basic guidelines for how our outward appearance is to be: 1. Modesty – Psalm 147:10; Isaiah 47:2; 1 Timothy 2:9; 2 Timothy 2:22 2. Gender Specific – Deuteronomy 22:5; 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 3. Identification with the Lord, not the world – 1 Timothy 4:12; Romans 12:1-2; 1 John 2:15-16 Have you found other ones?
“I was bringing up a historical and theological statement to Shane. To make one think about the Bible and the time it was written.” Exactly. That is what I have been trying to do also.
”The reason I keep bringing up the tambourin and timbrel is because it is a form of a percussion or drum. No, our drum sets of today...invented in the late 1800's...were not used in biblical times. There may have been tom-toms or cymbals...but not snare drums.” I have personally seen in museums and archeological magazines where they have recovered percussion instruments that are comparable to snare and bass drums. There were from Biblical [Old Testament] times and were from neighboring nations.
“Do you allow a piano in the Church? Do you consider it a stringed instrument or do you think the bible was stating a string instrument as a guitar or harp?” I consider the piano a cross between a string and a percussion instrument, probably leaning more toward the percussion family. Yes, I attend a church that uses both a piano and an organ.
“I am just trying to get everyone to think as well!” Bravo! Now, lets move them toward the Bible rather than private interpretations and personal opinions.
“We created this website for all the brothers and sisters of Christ to come together and bring joy/fellowship to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and talk about a hobby (powerlifting) that is secondary to our true mission...to Praise and spread the word of our Lord.” I am not Protestant, but I will have to cite Martin Luther on this one – “Unity whenever possible. Truth at all costs.” Amos 3:3 backs that one up. Just a question for you: What do you consider “the word of our Lord”?
|
|
|
Post by Rickey Dale Crain on Nov 3, 2005 18:12:37 GMT -5
NOW BRYAN I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW YOU GET A COMPUTER TO BE AN ACCOUSTIC INSTRUMENT...
YOU ARE STRETCHING ALL OF THIS QUITE A BIT...
RDC
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Nov 4, 2005 7:28:44 GMT -5
RDC, Maybe I missed something in your comments because that last one made no sense to me. Can you better explain yourself? As far as I know, I never said a computer was an accoustic instrument.
|
|
|
Post by Rickey Dale Crain on Nov 4, 2005 11:05:19 GMT -5
you said electronic music should vbe allowed as it was the same as accoustic which is biblically okay....electronics in all instruments and recordings nowdays are nothing but computerized music..
rdc
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Nov 6, 2005 7:58:51 GMT -5
RDC, I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. Maybe you did of me also. I said that electronic music should be treat by the same guidelines as accoustic music. For example, an electric guitar should be treated as any other stringed instrument. An electronic keyboard should be treated as a piano or an organ, depending upon how it is use. I see nothing wrong with using technology. I know one church that uses a laptop and a CD of instrumental hymns since they have no members able to play an instrument. I see nothing wrong with that. Do you have something to dispute that from the Bible?
|
|
|
Post by Rickey Dale Crain on Nov 7, 2005 10:54:18 GMT -5
perhaps......but they are not the same...they are simulating it......the same electronics play a guitar sound from an electric piano is the same one that plays a drum or a horn..etc......
i think we have to be very carfeul about saying what instruments are okay and which are not....
many of the songs we sing that were written in 1700's and 1800's were not originally written as religious/Christian melodies but as secular songs.....yet we sing them in church services.....
God looks at the heart and knows what our intentions are...
rdc
|
|
|
Post by Thane on Nov 7, 2005 11:53:48 GMT -5
We have a set of electric drums, does that count???
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Nov 9, 2005 7:31:53 GMT -5
RDC, You must be careful with this statement: "many of the songs we sing that were written in 1700's and 1800's were not originally written as religious/Christian melodies but as secular songs.....yet we sing them in church services....." That is a myth that is circulating around Christian circles today. It is being used to justify CCM artists playing secular tunes in their concerts and on their recordings as "remakes". Here is an article that deals specificially with two examples from this flawed argument.
DIDN'T MARTIN LUTHER AND GENERAL WILLIAM BOOTH USE BAR TUNES IN THEIR MUSIC? No. This is another excuse the CCMers use to justify their "rock": "Hey, Martin Luther used drinking and bar tunes in his music"? There are two major problems with this "justification":
PROBLEM ONE: It is a lie! It’s amazing how many times I’ve had CCM fans tell me "Martin Luther used drinking and bar tunes in his music". And it’s even more amazing what happens when asked to provide documented evidence to their accusation — it cannot be found! In the many, many times I have asked for documentation to their claim, do you know how many produced any evidence? Exactly zero! Why? Because it is simply not true.
Here are the documented facts: • "Of the melodies to Luther’s 37 chorales, 15 were composed by Luther himself, 13 came from Latin hymns of Latin service music, 4 were derived from German religious folk songs, 2 had originally been religious pilgrims’ songs, 2 are of unknown origin, and one came directly from a secular folk song." (Data compiled from Squire, pp. 446-447; Leupold, ed., Liturgy and Hymns; and Strodach, ed., Works of Martin Luther, VI)
NOTE: The one secular song was from a popular pre-Reformation (not a drinking tune!) secular song, "I Arrived from an Alien Country," and was used as the melody for the Christmas hymn, "From Heaven on High I Come to You", the first stanza Luther patterned after the folk song. (Source: Robert D. Harrell, Martin Luther, His Music, His Message, p. 18) And here's an interesting FACT — not only that, because of it’s worldly association, Luther later changed the tune!
According to historian Paul Nettl, Luther changed the tune because: • "Luther was embarrassed to hear the tune of his Christmas hymn sung in inns and dance halls." (Paul Nettl, Luther and Music, p. 48)
After researching every published work dealing with Luther’s music, Robert Harrell says point-blank: • "None of the works dealing with Luther’s music can trace a single melody of his back to a drinking song." (Robert D. Harrell, Martin Luther, His Music, His Message, p. 34)
Harrell also says: • “It seems obvious to this writer that using Luther’s music as an historical precedent for using rock and other worldly music in our churches today is completely incongruous with the facts of history. Luther did not use the barroom songs of his day, nor did he use even the worldly music of his day. In fact, he was extremely cautious in protecting the Word of God from any admixture of worldly elements. This can be seen in his words: ‘I wish to compose sacred hymns so that the Word of God may dwell among the people also by means of songs.’" (Robert D. Harrell, Martin Luther, His Music, His Message, p. 36)
Furthermore, Martin Luther was very concerned over the words and tunes of his music. • "But I would like to avoid any new words or the language used at court. [Is that ever contrary to the CCMers who imitate the rock world’s slang and lingo; like dcTalk’s "Jesus Freak"] In order to be understood by the people, only the simplest and the most common words should be used for singing; at the same time, however, they should be pure and apt; and further, the sense should be clear and as close as possible to the psalm." (Martin Luther, "To George Spalatin," Letters II, p. 69)
Some of Luther’s most famous chorales are paraphrases of the Psalms, such as "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" (Psalm 46), "From Deep Distress I Cry to Thee" (Psalm 130), and "Ah, God, from Heaven Look Down" (Psalm 12). Is not it amazing how totally different the truth is from the CCMers lie! • "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, . . ." (Romans 1:25)
Another person CCMer's foolishly try to "recruit" to their "worldly" side is General William Booth. To anyone familiar with the ministry and message of General William Booth, the comparison of Christian Rock to General William Booth is too funny for words. General William Booth and the "old-time" Salvation Army [not to be confused with today’s' Salvation Army] carried the message of the blood of Jesus Christ through "the dangers, toils and snares". Booth and his army marched against the "wiles of the wicked one". Here's how the book “Born to Battle: The Salvation Army in America” begins: • "The mob numbered thousands. They hooted, screamed, spit, cursed, threw refuse and brickbats, and charged with what the press described as 'savage ferocity'." The assaulted, marching to council in Sheffield, England, did not retaliate but continued to march forward, drums booming, flags flying, singing about the conquering Son of God. The troops were commanded by General William Booth who, despite taunts of 'Kill 'em!' and 'Down with The Salvation Army! stood riding in a open carriage with Mrs. Booth beside him. Bruised and bleeding, their uniforms muddied, torn and buttonless, the forces arrived at their fort shouting, 'Hallelujah'!" (Sallie Chesham, “Born to Battle: The Salvation Army in America”, p.21)
Only a CCMer could compare the "wordly-carnal-men-pleasing-compromising-positive-feel-good" CCM to the "street-preaching-hated-gospel-bearer-at-any-cost" General William Booth. To show how completely opposite from the "watered-down-partying-feel-good-positive-self-esteem" message of CCM — here's a few quotes by General Booth: • When someone told Booth to "talk about peace". "No!" William replied, "the best preaching is d**nation with the Cross in the middle!" (Ibid p. 37) • "Any profession of Jesus Christ which brings no Cross is all nonsense." (Ibid) • "I do not care how near to the bottmless pit I go in order to save mankind." • "Soul-saving music is the music for me!"
One quote of General Booths that CCMers "use" to justify their carnal-love for rock music is Booth's "If standing on my head and beating a tamborine with my toes will win a soul for Jesus, I will do it." The big difference between Booth and CCM is — General Booth meant it! CCMers just quote it to justify their "love" for rock music. As we have documented in several articles most CCMer's hide, disguise or refuse to even name the name of Jesus!
Would General William Booth agree with the CCMer's use of worldy rock music? Not on your life! Here's a quote from General Booth: • "May none of our musicians ever ape [copy] the skill of the world in the production of merely pretty sounds, not only disconnected with the quickening truth of God but often almost inaudible [perfect description of CCM rock] to those whose hearts they ought to stir. (Ibid, p. 188)"
Fanny Crosby, the greatest hymn writer that ever lived, would not make a very good CCMer: Here's what the greatest hymn writer that ever lived said about mixing Christian with worldy music: • "Sometimes I need to reject the music propsed for my songs because the musicians misunderstand that the Fanny Crosby who once wrote for the people in the saloons has merely changed the lyrics. Oh my no. The church must never sing it's songs to the melodies of the world." (Danny Castle, video "What's Wrong with Christian Rock")
PROBLEM TWO: Besides being a flat-out lie — the second problem with the "Hey, Martin Luther used drinking and bar tunes in his music" reasoning is even more serious — It goes completely against the clear teaching of the Word of God: (as does most of CCM)
One way the world justifies their "sin" is “well, everyone else does it” or “so and so does it, so it must be alright.” Hey — "if he can do it – I can do it!" But the Bible clearly teaches us not to compare "ourselves one with another".
"For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise." 2 Cor. 10:12
After the resurrection, in John 21, Peter looked at John and asked the Lord Jesus: • "Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?" John 21:21
Notice what the Lord Jesus told Peter: • "Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me." John 21:22 The Lord Jesus told Peter, do not worry about John — you just "follow thou me". Get your eyes off of other men — "follow thou me".
While we think a lot of Martin Luther and his role in church history, we would never "follow" Martin Luther — except where Martin followed the Lord Jesus Christ. Either for good or bad, Martin Luther is just another man, an unrighteous sinner who had to be saved by Christ. Again it should be emphasized — Martin Luther did not use bar tunes in his music — but even if he did, that would not make it right! We are to follow only the Lord Jesus Christ. • "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Matthew 16:24:
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Nov 9, 2005 7:34:07 GMT -5
Thane, Just like RDC and I have been discussing - be careful about electric and electronic instruments, but also be even more careful about using drums. If you church does use drums, they should make sure to use a march rhythm rather than the fleshly rhythm that is used by secular styles/formats of music [e.g. rap, rock, country, jazz, etc.].
|
|
|
Post by Rickey Dale Crain on Nov 9, 2005 18:05:22 GMT -5
bryan
i agree to an extent....check the following article and see where it came from...the website and the book is at the top of the article..then go to the book and see it's bibliography and you can find vefification that some religious songs from the 15-9th century had some of there roots on secular songs....
i will get a list of a few if you wish....
rdc
|
|
|
Post by Shane Gaydon on Nov 9, 2005 20:01:18 GMT -5
Bryan, I have been reading your posts about the drums and I was wondering what you thought of the Cathedrals and other Southern Gospel Quartets who use drums in their songs. They are not secular in the least bit in my opinion but they do use drums sometimes. I just can't believe that this type of music can be harmful.
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Nov 14, 2005 7:44:21 GMT -5
Shane, I don't listen to or support Southern Gospel music for that and other reasons. Here is something to consider. Of course, being a country/farm boy, this may make more sense to me!! LOL!!
I remember buying rat poison for some of the local farmers growing up. They would hire me to do this as well as other chores. Did you know that less than 10% of rat poison is actually poison? The rest of it was usually a ground up grain. It was so that the rat would WANT to eat it and not realize they were eating the poison.
The same is true about many of the so-called "Christian" music in churches today. 90-95% of it may be okay, but the little bit of poison is what is harming our spiritual health. It is that 5-10% that is bad and it poisons the entire "meal".
|
|