A question of music and contradictions

[BlackSabb]

Hi everyone. I know this post is about music, but I didn't want to put it into either the secular or Christian music section, as I wanted to hear from older, more conservative Christians. I would tend to get responses from young people in the music forums which I don't particularly want.

My dad is this real old time fundamentalist Christian. And there's numerous things he burns with hatred for. The 60's, The Beatles, the peace movement, hippies etc. He despises secular rock/contemporary music to the core. He's one of these guys who carries on about it being the devil's music, etc. And still talks about The Beatles and their infamous, "we're more famous than Jesus" remark.

No problem, everyone's entitled to their particular beliefs, and I don't have any issue with that. But I have a major issue with someone who despises rock/modern music with it's "devil beat" but then is happy to go to Pentecostal churches with all their rock derived music, filled with modern drum beats, electric guitars etc.

I just think this is ridiculous. How can you listen to rock derivative music in church and have no problem with it, but then carry on about secular modern music? I can't reconcile this at all.

Oh, I hear you say, "the lyrics are different". Problem is my dear old dad, and don't get me wrong, I love him dearly, but says things like "it's wrong for men to have beards because they are a symbol of men in the 60's". I'm not kidding, I'm being honest and serious. Because young men in the 60's starting growing long hair and beards, it's wrong for any man to have likewise, because it's a symbol of that evil generation. Regardess of the reason you grow one. In other words, it's not just what you do that is right or wrong, but where did it originate from?

He carries on about the beat of rock harking back to African roots, and the occult connections with their drumming and religious manifestations, their drums being a prime element of their religious ceremonies.

So even clean rock is wrong because it has this evil root. But where does modern contemporary music in Pentecostal churches come from? It is derived from the secular modern music world. Which has that same supposedly African occult root. How then one be right and the other wrong when both have the same root in essence?

I personally think that anyone involved in Pentecostal churches that happily listens to their contermporary/rock music has forfeited their right to lament about modern secular music. I don't mean particular bands, but just blanket statements and opinions on modern secular music. Surely, if you're listening to that same style of music in your church, you can't be a hypocrite and claim it's the "devil's music" elsewhere, in general. This really does burn me up, as I see it as a convenient and inconsistent double standard.

The only religious people, in my opinion, that can make blanket statements that all modern secular music is wrong and evil etc, are those in very traditional conservative churches that play traditional hymns only. I can't see how you can have your cake and eat it too, play modern secular/rock music in church then go out and condemn all of the secular equivalent. And like I said before, not just particular styles or bands, but whole blanket statements, that it's all wrong, becuase it all is derived from evil African pagan/occultists. I've been to Pentecostal services with some of their songs being very handed on the drums. Does that not have the same root as those African occultists? Regardless of the lyrics?

I've been out of fellowship for about 5 years now, and to be honest, I don't miss it one bit. I don't plan on going back either. Things like this really put me off big time. These total inconsistencies, and made up bits and pieces doctrines. What really burns me up is this. That you can consider something like modern music to be utterly profane and unholy, then go to church and have no problem with it being used to supposedly worship 'God with. That infuriates me like I can't even begin to tell you.

I'll give you an analogy, to explain my anger and why I've posted this. It would be like some older man who is a real old fuddy duddy about women and girls covering themselves up. And this man believes that womens legs should not at all be exposed, and certainly not their bellies, shoulders, arms etc. Women should be covered up from neck to toe, anything else is an abomination unto the Lord.

Then that same man goes into some really trendy church where communion is given by girls dressed in bikinis! And the same man has no problems with that. That is how I feel. In the same way I would be utterly infuriated at how a man can see women in bikinis serving communion and yet everywhere else showing a bit of ankle is a disgrace, I am just as infuriated at anyone going on about all secular music is defiled with its African beat/root and then goes to Pentecostal churches with the same beat, electric guitars, and btw, young men with long hair and beards too. Just to add one more note of infuriation.

He also said to me once, very sternly, "don't ever try drugs, not even one time, because if you do, you can never talk about drungs to anyone else, ever". He says that you have no right to warn someone else about drugs if you tried, because you have no testimony if that person ever asks you, "have you ever tried drugs?" And of course if the answer is "yes", then someone else will see you as hypocritical.

So going by his own logic and reasoning, how can you condemn all modern music as "demonic" and "evil" when you listen to the same style in Pentecostal churches? How can you preach to someone against it? And not only that, not just once or twice, but going to this type of church for years. I just don't get it, and as I say, one of the reasons why I quit fellowship. I just see every man and his dog making up their own rules, and I think, "I've had enough of all this, I'm outta here".

Opinions?

[Father Rick]

You're right... it is a double standard.

However, there isn't much you will be able to do about your father's attitude. So, you can either be bound up by his lack of understanding-- or you can simply live your life in the light of what you know to be true.


(btw... don't mention to him that the hymn "A Mighty Fortress is our God" was actually a pub/drinking song with the words changed to make it "christian").

[Zecryphon]

Where did you come by your information on "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God"?

[equal eyes]

Can you watch non-christian movies? And if we talk about the origins of things, there's religions older than christianity.

[kasprinkle]

Many of the old hymns of the church took their melodies from the songs of the day, especially pub songs. I was taught that in music history classes at a conservative Bible college.

[JPPT1974]

Well you can't change your dad's attitude
About music as you can only change
Your own attitude. Just leave
It like that.

[JSGuitarist]

I would say your dad would have a legitimate concern if it weren't for the fact he's making an exception for himself (I'm not saying he's right, but considering the decadence long associated with rock and roll - and there has been a lot of it - it's definitely a good idea to ask a few questions).

The African drumbeats shouldn't really be a concern, as tribes used a large variety of rhythm patterns to communicate, and you most likely are hearing a beat quite similar to one of theirs in a song you listen to. Doesn't mean you copied it though. Probability dictates that if you were to come up with a beat on your own, it would sound like one of theirs'.

As for the infamous bar tunes, it's a misconception. The songs were written in bar form, which is a poetic form that consists of three or more stanzas, and was a popular medieval poetic form. It's the form that "A Mighty Fortress is our God" was written in.

Please, don't give up on fellowship. You're going to find people you don't like and make up their own rules wherever you go, but you really need to be connected to a solid body of believers, as it will do so much good for you.

[MikeMcK]

No problem, everyone's entitled to their particular beliefs, and I don't have any issue with that. But I have a major issue with someone who despises rock/modern music with it's "devil beat" but then is happy to go to Pentecostal churches with all their rock derived music, filled with modern drum beats, electric guitars etc.

Wait a second, you just said he's a fundamentalist.

Is he a fundamentalist or a Pentecostal?

I just think this is ridiculous. How can you listen to rock derivative music in church and have no problem with it, but then carry on about secular modern music? I can't reconcile this at all.

Many years ago, I was asked to come and minister in a church that I knew was very aggressive in preaching against the "evils" of rock and country music (especially country, because it was located in a rural area in the south).

As they passed the plate around and the girl played the piano, I started to laugh. I guess I laughed louder than I realized, because after the service, the pastor asked me what I was laughing about.

I explained to him that I thought it was funny that he spends so much time preaching against country music and here was his piano player, playing "There Goes My Everything" while the plate was being passed around (which is kind of funny, in itself).

He said, "Oh, no, that's an old Gospel song called 'I Should Have Been Crucified'".

I told him that I was aware of that song, but that it's melody was taken from the old country song, "There Goes My Everything".

Needless to say, I wasn't invited back.


Oh, I hear you say, "the lyrics are different". Problem is my dear old dad, and don't get me wrong, I love him dearly, but says things like "it's wrong for men to have beards because they are a symbol of men in the 60's".

Interesting. I've never met a fundamentalist who wasn't a huge fan of Charles Spurgeon. I wonder what your father would say about Spurgeon's beard.

Maybe he'd borrow a line from George Carlin and say "No, Karl Marx had a beard. Charles Spurgeon had whiskers. There's a difference."

He carries on about the beat of rock harking back to African roots, and the occult connections with their drumming and religious manifestations, their drums being a prime element of their religious ceremonies.

The only religious people, in my opinion, that can make blanket statements that all modern secular music is wrong and evil etc, are those in very traditional conservative churches that play traditional hymns only.

In all fairness, we only play "traditional hymns" in our church and I was one of the strongest proponents of that position but, outside of church, I listen almost exclusively to secular music.

It isn't a matter of hypocrisy, but one of appropriateness.

I've been out of fellowship for about 5 years now, and to be honest, I don't miss it one bit. I don't plan on going back either.

So what is it that's keeping you from becoming a Christian?

He also said to me once, very sternly, "don't ever try drugs, not even one time, because if you do, you can never talk about drungs to anyone else, ever". He says that you have no right to warn someone else about drugs if you tried, because you have no testimony if that person ever asks you, "have you ever tried drugs?" And of course if the answer is "yes", then someone else will see you as hypocritical.

Well, it depends. Are you being hypocritical?

My older children and I have had the drug talk. I didn't go into details, but I was honest with them about the fact that I used to smoke pot, but that if I had known then what I know now, I wouldn't have done it.

If I had been hypocritical with them, they'd have seen throught hat in a heartbeat. But because I was honest and sincere with them, it actually helped our relationship a lot and I believe that's one reason why they feel so free to tell their mother and me anything.

[Zecryphon]

Many of the old hymns of the church took their melodies from the songs of the day, especially pub songs. I was taught that in music history classes at a conservative Bible college.

That may be true of a lot of Christian hymns, but in the case of A Mighty Fortress is our God, it's not.

http://home.comcast.net/~pjones25/articles/Luther.htm

[Zecryphon]

I've been out of fellowship for about 5 years now, and to be honest, I don't miss it one bit. I don't plan on going back either.
So what is it that's keeping you from becoming a Christian?

What is it that leads you to believe that BlackSabb is not a Christian?

[MikeMcK]

I've been out of fellowship for about 5 years now, and to be honest, I don't miss it one bit. I don't plan on going back either.

What is it that leads you to believe that BlackSabb is not a Christian?

The following statement:

I've been out of fellowship for about 5 years now, and to be honest, I don't miss it one bit. I don't plan on going back either.

One cannot say that they belong to Christ, if they will not belong to a local church.

[MikeMcK]

Many of the old hymns of the church took their melodies from the songs of the day, especially pub songs. I was taught that in music history classes at a conservative Bible college.

A popular myth, but not true.

[Simon_Templar]

BlackSabb,

in short, your father is wrong in some, maybe many of his opinions. You should not, however, allow his mistakes to ruin your relationship with God, or deprive you of true fellowship with the body of Christ.

You are absolutely right about the hypocrisy that angers you. That is one of the problems of legalism, especially in its more unreasonable forms, it is always hypocritical. Its only a matter of to what degree.

On music specifically, Music is not exactly neutral. Different beats have different physiological and different psychological effects on people. They affect mood, they can encourage or discourage feelings, behaviors etc.

I'm not a big fan of the idea of "devil's music" but there is no doubt that some music encourages aggression, rebellion, anger, etc. Other music encourages peace, contemplation, etc. Some music encourages joy, other kinds encourage meloncholy, even depression.

That is before you even begin to consider the lyrics involved. I also would not say that most of these types of music are inherently evil.. but there are differing circumstances in which they are appropriate, or inappropriate.

For example, when I lift weights I don't think there would be anything wrong with listening to metallica or some other metal, it encourages aggression, maybe even anger, determination.. those things are useful when I'm trying to push myself to my phsyical limits.

It would, in my opinion, be inappropriate to listen to those same kinds of music in Church, or when praying, or meditating on God, because the response they encourage in me is not appropriate to those things.

It is also very possible that music could affect different people differently. For example, one guy I know told me he can't listen to Elton John music because it encourages wrong things in him, but I've never noticed that Elton John music encouraged me to anything, or had any significant effect on me.

With music I think its more about whats appropriate to any given circumstance, and also keeping in mind what kind of person you want to be. If you constantly listen to a certain kind of music, it is likely to encourage your growth in the direction that the music encourages. Granted it won't be the sole determining factor, but it does have influence.

Personally I can't stand a lot of praise music, like the old maranatha tapes etc. A lot of it to me is sappy and even depressing. I think that this is because of my associations with it when I was a kid. It reminds me, and makes me feel again, like a kid sitting staring at the wall with nothing to do and no one to talk to, listening to uninteresting, music that was all the same. Other people it might really encourage them positively.

So yea, your dad's attitude on this is wrong, but that doesn't define Christianity, and you shouldn't let it drive you away. There is a lot more to God, and to the Church and its worth pursuing.

[Zecryphon]

The following statement:



One cannot say that they belong to Christ, if they will not belong to a local church.

So membership in a local body of believers is mandatory to being a Christian? Belonging to a church is a work on our part. To say that this work is necessary for being a Christian is to promote the heresy of works-righteousness. If you can not find a church that is Biblically-grounded and is instead engaged in promoting false teaching, it is better that you do not belong to a local church body. Because what benefit is there to being subjected to false teaching week in and week out? It is better to be protected from false teaching by not subjecting yourself to it. Perhaps BlackSabb just hasn't found a church that is suitable yet.

[Lisa0315]

The following statement:



One cannot say that they belong to Christ, if they will not belong to a local church.

I strongly disagree! I was out of fellowship for 23 years, but I can tell you right now that there was not a single day in my life that God did not try to bring me back.

Lisa

[Simon_Templar]

So membership in a local body of believers is mandatory to being a Christian? Belonging to a church is a work on our part. To say that this work is necessary for being a Christian is to promote the heresy of works-righteousness. If you can not find a church that is Biblically-grounded and is instead engaged in promoting false teaching, it is better that you do not belong to a local church body. Because what benefit is there to being subjected to false teaching week in and week out? It is better to be protected from false teaching by not subjecting yourself to it. Perhaps BlackSabb just hasn't found a church that is suitable yet.



The bible teaches that the Church is the fullness of Jesus Christ, it is his body. Membership in the Church is synonymous with membership in Jesus Christ. That is "biblically-grounded".

However, it is possible that there might not be a local church which really is part of the Church.
The reality is, though, that this is usually not the case and those who refuse to be members of any local Church are usually acting out of rebellion and pride.
Don't forget that in the bible, even local Churches with severe problems and comprimises were considered part of the Church by Jesus and the Apostles.

[Zecryphon]

The bible teaches that the Church is the fullness of Jesus Christ, it is his body. Membership in the Church is synonymous with membership in Jesus Christ. That is "biblically-grounded".

What is the church? Is it a physical building where people meet to be instructed in the word of God and receive the sacraments? Or is the church the universal body of all believers who have been saved by faith in Jesus Christ? Membership in the first type of church does not guarantee salvation. Membership in the second type of church does. You're not saved because you've parked your keister in a pew on Sunday morning. You're saved through faith in Christ, which is a gift from God and not the result of anything we do. This too is Biblically-grounded.

However, it is possible that there might not be a local church which really is part of the Church.
The reality is, though, that this is usually not the case and those who refuse to be members of any local Church are usually acting out of rebellion and pride.
Don't forget that in the bible, even local Churches with severe problems and comprimises were considered part of the Church by Jesus and the Apostles.

This is true, and since we do not know the specifics of BlackSabb's situation for someone to declare that BlackSabb cannot be saved because of a statement he made is not only irresponsible on our part as a Christian, it's also a violation of the rules of CF. We can not declare who is and who is not a Christian, based upon what they say. Trust me, I've done it in the past and got busted for it... repeatedly. Now granted, the person I declared to not be a Christian denied that Jesus is God, denied that His sacrifice upon the cross paid for our sins, denied the resurrection and His bodily ascension into Heaven. Certainly, this case is a lot more convincing than someone not going to church for 5 years.

[Simon_Templar]

What is the church? Is it a physical building where people meet to be instructed in the word of God and receive the sacraments? Or is the church the universal body of all believers who have been saved by faith in Jesus Christ? Membership in the first type of church does not guarantee salvation. Membership in the second type of church does. You're not saved because you've parked your keister in a pew on Sunday morning. You're saved through faith in Christ, which is a gift from God and not the result of anything we do. This too is Biblically-grounded..

The Church is invisible, but is must also be visible. The Church is not a building, it is a body, and a body has visible structure and form, its not a loose, shapeless association.
I don't believe that membership in any kind of Church visible or invisible guarentees salvation, but that may be a point upon which we disagree.

I think Jesus' teachings show that people who are legitimately members of the kingdom of God can still not receive salvation.


This is true, and since we do not know the specifics of BlackSabb's situation for someone to declare that BlackSabb cannot be saved because of a statement he made is not only irresponsible on our part as a Christian, it's also a violation of the rules of CF. We can not declare who is and who is not a Christian, based upon what they say. Trust me, I've done it in the past and got busted for it... repeatedly. Now granted, the person I declared to not be a Christian denied that Jesus is God, denied that His sacrifice upon the cross paid for our sins, denied the resurrection and His bodily ascension into Heaven. Certainly, this case is a lot more convincing than someone not going to church for 5 years.

I agree, it doesn't prove he is unsaved, or unchristian. However, I do believe that refusing to fellowship as part of the body has adverse effect.

[Zecryphon]

Simon, I think we agree on what the church is. I think we also agree that we can not say one way or the other what the status of BlackSabb's salvation is. I don't believe that he is out of fellowship with Christians, as he is on this board interacting with Christians and fellowshipping with them. I believe God will lead him back to a local body of believers when God sees fit to do so.

[Teh0bb3s]

3/50

[MikeMcK]

1]So membership in a local body of believers is mandatory to being a Christian? Belonging to a church is a work on our part.[/COLOR]

No. However, one of the hallmarks of someone who has been born again is that they will desire the fellowship of believers or, at the very least, recognize the role of the church in the life of the believer and the role of the believer in the life of the church.

It is utterly foolish to say that one loves Christ, but does not desire to be a part of that body that He founded, gave His life for, and is coming again for. It seems a little disingenuous to say that one does not wish to be a part of the church now, but does wish to be a part of the church when Jesus returns for it.

If you can not find a church that is Biblically-grounded and is instead engaged in promoting false teaching, it is better that you do not belong to a local church body.

Read his post. He did not abandon the body because he could not fins a Biblically based local assembly of believers, but because he did not want to be held accountable to their standard.

Tell me what town he lives in and I'll gaurantee I can find him a dozen or more Biblically based churches.

Because what benefit is there to being subjected to false teaching week in and week out? It is better to be protected from false teaching by not subjecting yourself to it.

What false teaching?

[MikeMcK]

I strongly disagree! I was out of fellowship for 23 years, but I can tell you right now that there was not a single day in my life that God did not try to bring me back.

Lisa

"Back"? If you were not apart from the body of Christ, then there was no reason to bring you "back" now, was there?

[Lisa0315]

"Back"? If you were not apart from the body of Christ, then there was no reason to bring you "back" now, was there?

That makes no sense to me. Besides, you shouldn't tell *me* what happened to *me*. I think I am a little bit better judge of that, don't you think? As is BlackSabb...

Lisa

[MikeMcK]

That makes no sense to me. Besides, you shouldn't tell *me* what happened to *me*. I think I am a little bit better judge of that, don't you think? As is BlackSabb...

Lisa

I'm not telling you what happened to you. I'm looking at what you say happened to you and comparing it to what the Bible tells us the relationship between the believer and the church should be.

If you were able to go 23 years without any desire for fellowship with God's people and without any conviction for forsaking the assembly of believers, by all Biblical accounts, that's a good indication that you weren't a Christian.

I also think that the statement you made, "God tried to bring me back" is more Freudian than you realize.

Well, first of all Freud's theories are not as respected as they once were, but anyway, you could ask me what I meant...

That's called a "figure of speech".

I hated Christians and I hated the organized church.

So, you hated the church but you want to turn around and claim that you were a Christian? How can you claim to belong to Christ, but hate His bride? How can you claim to belong to Christ, but hate that which He gave established, gave His life for, and is returning for?



God does not chastise those who do not belong to Him.

And those who belong to Him do not hate His church.

So, get off your high horse, please. I know what happened to *me*. By saying what you are saying, you are actually taking the glory from God for what He did for me.

No, I'm not taking glory away from God. I'm just pointing out that your claim is inconsistent with the Bible and that your behavior was inconsistent with that of somebody who's been born again.

Now, if you want to claim that you were a Christian during this time, then, of course, there's nothing I can do to stop you.

However, I'm hoping that you'll look at what the Bible has to say about the relationship between the Christian and the church and take the time to do some serious heart examination about this.

[Lisa0315]

I'm not telling you what happened to you. I'm looking at what you say happened to you and comparing it to what the Bible tells us the relationship between the believer and the church should be.

If you were able to go 23 years without any desire for fellowship with God's people and without any conviction for forsaking the assembly of believers, by all Biblical accounts, that's a good indication that you weren't a Christian.

I also think that the statement you made, "God tried to bring me back" is more Freudian than you realize.

Well, first of all Freud's theories are not as respected as they once were, but anyway, you could ask me what I meant...

I hated Christians and I hated the organized church. That does not mean that God did not speak to me every day telling me I was wrong. God does not chastise those who do not belong to Him. So, get off your high horse, please. I know what happened to *me*. By saying what you are saying, you are actually taking the glory from God for what He did for me.

Lisa

[Zecryphon]

I'm not telling you what happened to you. I'm looking at what you say happened to you and comparing it to what the Bible tells us the relationship between the believer and the church should be.

If you were able to go 23 years without any desire for fellowship with God's people and without any conviction for forsaking the assembly of believers, by all Biblical accounts, that's a good indication that you weren't a Christian.

I also think that the statement you made, "God tried to bring me back" is more Freudian than you realize.



That's called a "figure of speech".



So, you hated the church but you want to turn around and claim that you were a Christian? How can you claim to belong to Christ, but hate His bride? How can you claim to belong to Christ, but hate that which He gave established, gave His life for, and is returning for?





And those who belong to Him do not hate His church.



No, I'm not taking glory away from God. I'm just pointing out that your claim is inconsistent with the Bible and that your behavior was inconsistent with that of somebody who's been born again.

Now, if you want to claim that you were a Christian during this time, then, of course, there's nothing I can do to stop you.

However, I'm hoping that you'll look at what the Bible has to say about the relationship between the Christian and the church and take the time to do some serious heart examination about this.

There are a lot of Christians who take issue with what the church has become. It isn't the same institutuion that Christ set up, where His followers proudly proclaimed the law and gospel message and suffered persecution and paid for their testimony with their lives. The church today has watered-down the gospel message, has pushed the Christian to the side and has said that the needs of the seekers are more important than the needs of the saved.

It's not the same church anymore, now it seems to be largely focused on the unsaved and getting them into the church, by any means necessary. But what does the church do once these people are in there? Do they tell them they're sinners who have broken God's law and deserve to go to Hell? No! That wouldn't be "loving", that's just "mean and judgmental." So instead the church tells them, how much God loves them just the way they are, and how much God wants to have a loving relationship with them if they'll just choose to make Jesus their savior. Now, any thinking person would wonder, 'why do I need a savior, when you just told me I'm a good person? What do I need to be saved from?'

The modern church today fails at delivering a law and gospel message. Today it's all about finding your Purpose, and Living Your Best Life Now. People don't want to hear that they're sinners who are going to Hell if they step out of this world without Christ as their savior. They want to hear how God will bless them and give them whatever they want and be their life coach and their best friend so they're no longer lonely.

It is not the same church, the modern-day church stands in direct opposition to the teachings and truths of the Bible and this is the reason that people often walk away from it. But it's also the reason a lot of people run towards it too. I too became disgusted with the social club it's become and actually desired a real relationship with God. So I went seeking a place where I would receive sound Biblical teaching and could receieve the sacraments as instituted by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

[Simon_Templar]

why don't we try to keep the focus on BlackSabb and his questions. We can debate ecclesiology and soteriology elsewhere

[Lisa0315]

why don't we try to keep the focus on BlackSabb and his questions. We can debate ecclesiology and soteriology elsewhere

Uhm, yeah, that would be nice. I think folks are just trying to get the judging to stop as only God can know the hearts of men.

Lisa

[Zecryphon]

why don't we try to keep the focus on BlackSabb and his questions. We can debate ecclesiology and soteriology elsewhere

Agreed. I apologize for venting about my personal frustrations in this thread.

[MikeMcK]

47150835]There are a lot of Christians who take issue with what the church has become. It isn't the same institutuion that Christ set up, where His followers proudly proclaimed the law and gospel message and suffered persecution and paid for their testimony with their lives. The church today has watered-down the gospel message, has pushed the Christian to the side and has said that the needs of the seekers are more important than the needs of the saved. [/COLOR]

Tell me what town you live in and I'll guarantee I can find you a dozen or more churches that are preaching the Gospel faithfully and are not seeker sensitive.


It's not the same church anymore, now it seems to be largely focused on the unsaved and getting them into the church, by any means necessary. But what does the church do once these people are in there? Do they tell them they're sinners who have broken God's law and deserve to go to Hell? No! That wouldn't be "loving", that's just "mean and judgmental." So instead the church tells them, how much God loves them just the way they are, and how much God wants to have a loving relationship with them if they'll just choose to make Jesus their savior. Now, any thinking person would wonder, 'why do I need a savior, when you just told me I'm a good person? What do I need to be saved from?'

The modern church today fails at delivering a law and gospel message. Today it's all about finding your Purpose, and Living Your Best Life Now. People don't want to hear that they're sinners who are going to Hell if they step out of this world without Christ as their savior. They want to hear how God will bless them and give them whatever they want and be their life coach and their best friend so they're no longer lonely.

It is not the same church, the modern-day church stands in direct opposition to the teachings and truths of the Bible and this is the reason that people often walk away from it. But it's also the reason a lot of people run towards it too. I too became disgusted with the social club it's become and actually desired a real relationship with God. So I went seeking a place where I would receive sound Biblical teaching and could receieve the sacraments as instituted by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

That's a problem with the individual church. There are still many more church preaching the Gospel faithfully and carrying out the Biblical model of the church.

It's a cop out.

[MikeMcK]

Uhm, yeah, that would be nice. I think folks are just trying to get the judging to stop as only God can know the hearts of men.

Lisa

Jesus said that we can know what is in the heart by examining the behavior.

[Lisa0315]

Jesus said that we can know what is in the heart by examining the behavior.

Uhm, no, he said we could know "them" by their fruits. Them can either be believer or non-believer, but fruits is WELL defined. We know NOTHING about hearts. I am saying that when it comes to a backslid Christian, it is wise to let God handle that person.

Lisa

[Zecryphon]

I'm in Phoenix, AZ and attend St. Mark Lutheran Church which is LCMS. But just out of curiosity, PM me the churches you think are Biblical and not seeker-sensitive and I'll see if I visited any of them, after I stopped attending Scottsdale Bible Church, three years ago.

[MikeMcK]

Uhm, no

Uhm, yes.

Go ahead and complete this verse:

"Out of the abundance of the _____ the mouth speaks".

I am saying that when it comes to a backslid Christian, it is wise to let God handle that person.

Twenty-three years is not "backslidden". That's somebody who never slid forward in the first place.

[Lisa0315]

Uhm, yes.

Go ahead and complete this verse:

"Out of the abundance of the _____ the mouth speaks".



Twenty-three years is not "backslidden". That's somebody who never slid forward in the first place.

That is absolutely not true. You do not know what you are talking about. Stop judging me!

[Zecryphon]

How is Lisa's past relevant to the topic of this thread? :confused:

[MikeMcK]

I'm in Phoenix, AZ and attend St. Mark Lutheran Church which is LCMS. But just out of curiosity, PM me the churches you think are Biblical and not seeker-sensitive and I'll see if I visited any of them, after I stopped attending Scottsdale Bible Church, three years ago.

1. Freeway Baptist Church
2. 1st Reformed Presbyterian Church
3. Calvin Orthodox Presbyterian Church
4. Northwest Valley Baptist Church
5. Phoenix Free Presbyterian Church

[Zecryphon]

Nope didn't attend any of those as I believe some of the teachings of the Baptist and Presbyterian denominations are not in line with the scriptures.

[MN John]

Here are some personal thuoghts about music. Not necessarily with much biblical basis:

1) The sound of the music tends to produce a feeling in me. Some music gives me a good feeling like drawing me closer to God. Some music gives me a sick feeling like darkness and slime. This is how I decide whather I think it is good music or bad music. I call this phenomenon "liking this music" or "not liking this music".

2) Songs - Music with words - can be uplifting and God-glorifying or not, based on the message in the words. There are styles of music I like and styles I don't like (see #1). Good words on music I don't like usually can't overcome my dislike of the music. Bad words on music I like can spoil otherwise likable music. So first choice: Good words, Second Choice: No words, third choice: bad words.

3) Lyrics - If I can't figure out what the words are saying --- then I can't consider the words to be good words and the song would not be in my first choice category.

[MikeMcK]

Zecryphon;47152078]Nope didn't attend any of those as I believe some of the teachings of the Baptist and Presbyterian denominations are not in line with the scriptures.[/color]

I have examined those churches and their teachings. I know their pastors.

There is nothing there that does not line up with scripture.

So, you've never been to these churches, show no indication that you're familiar with them or their pastors, and yet, you say they're teaching heresy. I believe you're making it clear that no matter what church I give you, you're just going to come up with some cop out or another.

Please tell me what these churches or their pastors have taught that is Unbiblical.

[Zecryphon]

It is a known fact that both the Baptists and Presbyterian churches believe that the sacraments of Baptism and The Lord's Supper are symbolic only and are something we do for God as opposed to being something God does for us. That is enough of a reason for me to avoid the Presbyterian and Baptist churches.

Here is what Freeway Baptist Church states about Baptism on their own website:

8. Ordinances
We believe that there are two ordinances delivered to the church: Baptism and The Lords Supper. Baptism is the immersion of the believer in water, and symbolizes our identification with Christ in His substitutionary death burial and resurrection. The Lords Supper is the churchs commemoration of the Lords death until He comes. Neither ordinance is efficacious, but symbolic.

Do you have an address for 1st Reformed Presbyterian? There are a few churches with that name in Phoenix.

Now 1st Reformed Presbyterian church looks pretty good, but I have a problem with their stance on The Lord's Supper. From their website:

Christ has established his church, and particular churches, to gather and perfect his people, by means of the ministry of the Word, the sacraments of baptism (which is to be administered to the children of believers, as well as believers) and the Lord's Supper (in which the body and blood of Christ are spiritually present to the faith of believers), and the disciplining of members found delinquent in doctrine or life. Christians assemble on the Lord's Day to worship God by praying, hearing the Word of God read and preached, singing psalms and hymns, and receiving the sacraments.

Christ said that the bread and wine are His body and blood. As Lutherans we take Christ at His word and do not attempt to explain how He is present in the sacrament. I actually have driven by this church a few times. But I found it after I had become a Lutheran.

Now can we get back to the topic at hand, which is BlackSabb and his father's hypocrisy?

[MikeMcK]

It is a known fact that both the Baptists and Presbyterian churches believe that the sacraments of Baptism and The Lord's Supper are symbolic only and are something we do for God as opposed to being something God does for us. That is enough of a reason for me to avoid the Presbyterian and Baptist churches. Now can we get back to the topic at hand, which is BlackSabb and his father's hypocrisy?

That's not heresy, though, and that's not an excuse to forsake the assembly of believers.

[Zecryphon]

Denying that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ and are symbols only is heresy. Deal with it. Denying the real presence of Christ in the waters of Baptism is heresy. Deal with that too. Teaching that Baptism must be by immersion is not found in the scriptures. All of these are perfectly good reasons to avoid a church and to forsake assembling with the people who do believe and promote those heresies.

Now, I know you just love to accuse people of forsaking the assembling of believers because they don't go to a church that you like or that your friends happen to be the pastor of, but I have not forsaken the assembly of believers as I am a member of St. Mark Lutheran Church in Phoenix, AZ.


Now, are you going to continue to derail this thread by promoting the churches of your friends, the first of which IO have shown from their own website, DOES promote heresy and denies the teaching of Jesus Christ? Are you going to continue to decide who is and is not a Christian? Or are you going to get back to the topic of the OP and leave your personal rants and personal judgments of others out of this thread? They serve no purpose here other than to divide and create needless debate.

[T3h0bb3s]

Where Is Your God Now?

[MikeMcK]

Zecryphon;47152750]Denying that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ and are symbols only is heresy. Deal with it.[/COLOR] Denying the real presence of Christ in the waters of Baptism is heresy. Deal with that too.

Actually, those aren't heresies. They're just things you disagree with.

Teaching that Baptism must be by immersion is not found in the scriptures.

You're right.

Although the Biblical model is one of immersion and we prefer immersion, the Bible does not specifically say that it must be by immersion. That's why both we and the Presbyterians do not mandate that one be baptised by immersion.

All of these are perfectly good reasons to avoid a church and to forsake assembling with the people who do believe and promote those heresies.

Actually, they're not good reasons. In fact, the Bible calls it a sin to seperate from brothers and sisters in Christ because of non-essentials and adiapheron.

Now, I know you just love to accuse people of forsaking the assembling of believers because they don't go to a church that you like or that your friends happen to be the pastor of, but I have not forsaken the assembly of believers as I am a member of St. Mark Lutheran Church in Phoenix, AZ.

No, actually, I don't, nor does it have anything to do with my liking a church or my friends being pastors.

I'm not friends with any of the pastors of the churches I listed, nor do I have a stake in whether or not you go to those churches.

You just challenged me to list churches that preach the Gospel faithfully and are not seeker sensitive. That's all I did.

Then, you decided to move the goalposts and say that it's no longer about being faithful to the Gospel or seeker sensitive, but it's now about transsubstantiation and method of baptism.

So like I said, it really doesn't matter what church I cite, you're just going to dismiss it in order to justify your disobedience.

Now, are you going to continue to derail this thread by promoting the churches of your friends

Actually, I haven't said anything about my friends' churches.

the first of which IO have shown from their own website, DOES promote heresy and denies the teaching of Jesus Christ?

That's a pretty serious accusation. Are you prepared to back that up?

Are you going to continue to decide who is and is not a Christian?

In order for me to "continue" to do it, I would have had to do it in the first place. I did not.

[T3h0bb3s]

The bible is a lie, along with the cake. ZOMG WALLHAX.

[Zecryphon]

Transubstantation is a Catholic teaching only and has nothing to do with any branch of Lutheranism. Denying Christ's declaration that the bread and wine are His body and blood is heresy. I have already backed up my accusation about the first church on your list promoting heresy and denying Christ's own teaching about His body and blood in the Last Supper by posting what they said on their own website. Can't get much better proof about what they believe and proclaim than that. This is my absolute last post to you. If you can get back on topic maybe I will post to you again. If not, oh well.

[MikeMcK]

Transubstantation is a Catholic teaching only and has nothing to do with any branch of Lutheranism. Denying Christ's declaration that the bread and wine are His body and blood is heresy.

Actually, it isn't heresy at all. It's just something you disagree with. There's a big difference.

[desmalia]

Very interesting discussion.

I think everyone here has made some really good points. (haha, don't that sound like I'm sittin on the fence! lol)

First, regarding the music issues, yes, it does sound like your dad has a double standard. I understand about his oversion to "all things '60's". My mother has struggled with that as well because of the things she was into back then. It's a kind of overcompensation. I think in those situations it is important to have patience and compassion with fellow believers over these things. It's a sensitive area for them. However, that he excuses it as long as it's in a "church" setting, that is a bit strange. And it sounds like something he needs to face for himself at some point. That doesn't need to have any bearing on you though. Your faith is not based on your father's attitudes or contradictions. And we're all human, after all.

As for the whole issue with not going to church, that is very troubling. We are called to fellowship with one another and if we have the Holy Spirit residing in us, we will know that call and want to fellowship. No one who is saved hates his or her brothers and sisters in Christ.

Now, I say that as someone who didn't go to church regularly for several years in my mid 20's. I had been badly hurt by a number of people in the church and it affected me deeply. While I never questioned who God was, I was very disheartened and wary of people in the church on the whole. Yet I still longed for fellowship, even while I shut myself off from them. It was a very dark time for me. Was I an unbeliever then? Well, I don't think so, but I'm not afraid to explore the possibility that I was. Looking over that time I can see how God so meticulously and patiently worked in me. Even in my state of anger and hurt and disobedience, He still drove me to seek His will over my own. I think that's more than God calling someone who is lost. Maybe I'm wrong. That's OK too. What I know is that I am His, and that is what matters.

Mike, I found your comments to Zec about finding five good churches in his area very interesting. Of course he lives in a large US city, so that helps a lot. But ya wouldn't be able to find more than one in my city (I researched it before we moved here). And the one that is somewhat OK is even now becoming more and more drawn into the seeker sensitive garbage every day. Only the senior pastor seems to have any concern about that, and I am deeply concerned that he will lose that battle with the rest of them. So, what do we do? We go anyway because it is important to fellowship. And we have a small group of us that meets weekly for Bible study with a wonderful pastor from another city who drives two hours each way to lead us. In many ways that group feels more like a church as we strive to be the church as laid out in Scripture instead of all this modern man-focused stuff.

Anyway, my point is that I sympathize with those who are struggling with the modern church. There are some serious problems with it. People are going in all sorts of pagan directions, not living as God has called us to in Scripture, hurting each other, etc. etc. Makes it very hard sometimes. Even now, I struggle to let my guard down and become more active in my local church. I'm half waiting for it to fall apart (split, shut down, whatever) the same way others have that I've attended. But we must continue to strive for fellowship if we're going to be living as He intended and doing His will. We must.

[JPPT1974]

People from the old-school way
Like the hymns and worship
While people that are in
Generation X & Y like
The contemporary kind of way!