Why exactly is rock music Satanic?

[Dave-W]

You can also watch this documentary and make up your own mind..

Nothing I have not seen before - decades ago. (1960s)

They were saying similar stuff about big band music back in the 1940s.

 

[Goodbook]

Meh.

I would just say any band that calls themselves spawn of satan or anything like that is likely to be satanic.

But who cares. Their music is rubbish anyway.

 

[Spiritlight]

I cant believe in 2017 anyone still questions this now! I thought this was debunked years ago. Didn't this get thrown out with the notion of backwards masking in the 70's and 80's?

 

[Citanul]

Meh.

I would just say any band that calls themselves spawn of satan or anything like that is likely to be satanic.

But who cares. Their music is rubbish anyway.

I was going to say that there isn't a band called Spawn of Satan, but it turns out there is. However, if you're relying on obscure death metal bands to make your case for you then you don't have a very good one to begin with.

 

[Rahmemhotep]

Guys, let's talk Scripture.

Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

If you are not with Jesus, you are against Him. It doesn't matter where else you try to stand, because if it's not on the Solid Rock you are in peril. Musicians who have not the spirit of God have the spirit of man, or the devil. Man is in subjugation to Satan, because he decided to obey Satan rather than God (Genesis 3) and therefore is fallen and evil in nature.

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Knowing (and believing) these basic facts of reality we can then discern that music that is not Godly music is, well, ungodly. Evil. Not profitable. Stubble that will be burned away. It's not the genre of the music that is bad, it's the spirit behind it (remember that earlier post with the video about Amos 5?)

Now you might be thinking, "I can listen to whatever Satanic thing I want, because Jesus died for that!"

Romans 6 begins What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? (I suggest reading the whole chapter)

We are not under the law's penalty because we are saved by grace through faith. This does not mean we have an excuse to do anything. What it does mean is that if we screw up we have the power, through Christ, to repent of our sins and He will surly forgive us if we ask.

1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

Can you listen to inherently evil music and not instantly be condemned to Hell fire? Absolutely, don't let someone tell you otherwise, BUT it's still not good or profitable. In 1 Corinthians 8 we learn that we can potentially stumble another believer with our actions in our freedom. Like if a believer who's weak in the faith, who was formerly an alcoholic came to your house and you were drinking a beer, that might trigger him to stumble and say, "Well I can do that too!" and off to the bar he goes, yeah?

1 Corithians 8:12 and 13 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

What this really all boils down to after learning all this and applying it is that it comes down to personal convictions that God has given us individually. We need to be mindful of other members of the body and their convictions, but we should never be pushing our personal convictions on others. Our personal convictions do not save people, Jesus saves people.

1 Corinthians 10:31-33 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

 

[Caminator]

"Suicide Solution" is a song about the danger of alcoholism. The word "solution" is intended to be used in the same way you'd describe a chemical solution. It was written about AC/DC singer Bon Scott, who drank himself to death several months before the song was recorded: "Now you live inside a bottle/The reaper's traveling at full throttle/It's catching you but you don't see/The reaper is you and the reaper is me".

I tried to explain this to a brother at church once, because I was trying to explain how Christians can be so stupid sometimes, and bring embarrassment on the rest of us. His response was that Ozzy is a sinner and we should expect that he chose the word 'solution' to deliberately put a double meaning in the song, and that he did intend to promote the idea that suicide with alcohol is an answer to your problems, and we should not give him the benefit of the doubt, or respect that the real meaning is what you said above.

He basically just deliberately chose a totally anti-Christian position against Ozzy by refusing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Concerning rock music in general, and Christian rock in particular, I have observed the debate and read much about it since the '80s, and I have never once come across a biblical or logical argument. Bill Gothard preaches against a syncopated beat, and I think he is completely wrong. Most of the time the argument is that Christian rock is worldly, because rock is of the world. This is a logical fallacy, or pattern of pseudo-reasoning, called begging the question. One should not expect a Pentecostal (or Arminian for that matter) to care one iota about logic or reasoning correctly. I haven't met one yet.

Concerning begging the question, the argument works like this: rock is wrong, and the world plays rock, so when a Christian plays rock it's wrong, because the world plays sinful rock. The definition of begging the question is "Assuming as a premise the conclusion we are trying to prove." So your intended conclusion is the premise of your argument that you base your conclusion on. Pretty stupid. That is the logical form of all claims that Christian rock is wrong because it's worldly.

I believe there is a way to biblically judge music, and by this means it may be found that rock music - or at least some rock music - is wrong. That way is through the philosophical discipline of esthetics, which is the study of beauty. The church sorely needs the study of philosophy, but Christians are in the Dark Ages of Pietism right now, falsely believing that Paul said, in Colossians 2:8, that philosophy is vain. He only made reference to some philosophy being vain, and that we should instead believe only philosophy that is according to Christ.

The problem today is that only the most studious Calvinists study philosophy, and a small percentage of them are familiar with esthetics. The study of esthetics will involve a major focus on musicology, which in turn will major in classical music, which would stand as the epitome of good music by mere example. An objective esthetic criteria would have to be established and codified for others to refer to. By this we could judge all kinds of music. When rock music is measured by this paradigm I suspect that a lot of it will be found wanting, possibly even some that I enjoy. At that point I would be willing to humble myself and listen to those with greater wisdom than I have and admit that some of my music is wrong and I should get rid of it. Also, using this objective criteria, I strongly suspect that Dream Theater will pass the test and be found excellent. They are on par with the best classical music much of the time, and I love their music.

I think everything we have heard in the past from the likes of Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell, Jack Van Impe, and Bill Gothard is utter nonsense and is best forgotten.

 

[davecn]

well said Cam.

 

[Caminator]

Thank you, Dave.

Regarding the point that Christian rock is worldly, and as a Christian who loves a lot of Christian rock bands, I am ashamed of this:

Here is where I would agree that Christian rock is worldly. But here again, is another logical fallacy. The fallacy of generalization. Why should Holy Right represent all of Christian rock? Here is one of the major problems with ministers condemning Christian rock from the pulpit: They would use this image to do so, and then say you should not listen to Petra or the Resurrection Band. The pseudo-reasoning on display in our churches today is laughable.

I haven't heard Holy Right, so I don't know if I would like their music. Some of the '80s style hair metal bands are just too far 'that way' for me. The cheese is just too thick. But if I did like them, I would probably listen to them. Why? Because when I'm listening to the music, I am not listening to their clothes. Same goes for X-Sinner. I think they are worldly. But not because of their music. They are worldly because of their attitude (very flippant) and for their clothes. And also because they use skulls for their visual theme. I wish they would clean up their act. But I still like their music.

My favorite band is probably Deliverance. Here they are in their normal band clothing:

If you saw any of these guys on the street what would you think? Do they look worldly? They look pretty normal to me.

Christians, especially Pentecostals - and Fundamentals - really need to rethink their concept of 'worldly.' But then, this will never happen without another Reformation. Five hundred years ago the Reformation meant a break away from the Roman church. This time it will mean a break from the irrationality of Arminianism, Pentecostalism, and Pietism. Apart from that, I don't know how the church will be delivered from what ails us. The church has become irrelevant in our age because she has become so irrational. The trumpet makes an uncertain sound, and our preachers are full of hot air.

 

[keith99]

Okay, but which bands? Again, you're making these bold claims with no evidence. Yes, there are bands with actual occult links, but they're largely underground metal bands which most people would have never heard of. If we're talking about rock music in general, you're going to have to be a lot more specific than "a lot of bands".

That's where most of these "associations" come from: absolutely unfounded accusations. You can point at any song with the word "hell" in the title and scream "Satanism!", but it doesn't change the fact that the song could not even be about Hell, the devil or the occult. You could point to a band like KISS and claim their makeup is Satanic, but that doesn't change the fact that none of their songs are about religion or Satan. If someone is going to claim that Satanists are rampant in rock music, the least they could do is actually name some.

Like this one?

 

[Caminator]

Some further points...
I have listened to secular rock radio stations (Detroit) at work for the past 30 years, and I have no regret about that. I still do it today. I really have no conviction against it. I like most of the music (How can you not like Rush?), but I get bored with the same old 2000 songs very quickly, and I don't like hearing songs about drunkenness and sexual sin. It really grieves me inside. I have one of those Chrysler hard drive radios in my van, and it's full of Christian rock, as well as Dream Theater. DT is not Christian, but their music is more for intelligent people, and they never sing about drunkenness or sexual sin. They are too sophisticated for that. Their lyrics are for thinkers. Check out 'In the Name of God', 'Honor Thy Father', 'Rite of Passage', or 'The Great Debate' (anti-abortion song) on Youtube. The hard drive is full of Rez Band, whose music always edifies me. A lot of their songs bring me to tears or put me under conviction for my sin many times, even today, and I've been listening to them since I was 14.

Considering who the condemnation comes from, I shouldn't expect any of them to be rational, but I often wonder, "If you don't want me to listen to 12 Stones, Decyfer Down, or Deliverance, what music do you want me to listen to?" I don't want to listen to secular rock. Oh, you want me to listen to Chris Tomlin and Jeremy Camp! Not gonna happen!! I only listen to that stuff for the sake of others, when I'm not alone, and I can only take so much because it really bores me.

As usual, irrational people complain about a 'problem', but won't provide a solution. Another problem I have with these irrational Christians is that the range between Chris Tomlin and Deliverance is very broad, and no one I have ever heard of has ever attempted to chart that range and plot where the line is. If Michael Card includes an electric guitar in a song, is that okay? Is the electric guitar evil? Is the way the electric guitar played sometimes evil? Is there a demon in the distortion pedal? No one ever cares to explain themselves. They just point and say "That music is satanic!"

There is a strong inclination towards mysticism in the church today. Pentecostals think that if you open your heart to the Holy Spirit, He will tell you what music is good and which is bad, and if I walk closely enough with God, He will reveal to me the same things He supposedly revealed to them, and then we will all be in agreement because we are all open to the Spirit. So forget about what was established in the Reformation, and forget about an objective, revealed Revelation - the Word of God. Now we have knowledge from the Holy Spirit! It's not objectively verifiable, like biblical doctrine, but never mind. Just drink this Kool-Aid, and we'll all walk in fellowship together.

God is rational, as is made clear in His Word. Anti-rock Christians are not rational; therefore their message is not from God.

 

[Rahmemhotep]

The problem today is that only the most studious Calvinists study philosophy, and a small percentage of them are familiar with esthetics. The study of esthetics will involve a major focus on musicology, which in turn will major in classical music, which would stand as the epitome of good music by mere example. An objective esthetic criteria would have to be established and codified for others to refer to. By this we could judge all kinds of music. When rock music is measured by this paradigm I suspect that a lot of it will be found wanting, possibly even some that I enjoy. At that point I would be willing to humble myself and listen to those with greater wisdom than I have and admit that some of my music is wrong and I should get rid of it. Also, using this objective criteria, I strongly suspect that Dream Theater will pass the test and be found excellent. They are on par with the best classical music much of the time, and I love their music.

Esthetics... Judge music by esthetics... Hey, I've got a great idea, let's judge Lucifer by his esthetic.

Objective beauty is not equivalent with godliness, no not in this fallen world. Sin looks good and it can feel really good, but in the end it is of no benefit and only lasts for a season. It's not a smart thing for me to do to trust my heart to decide what is good, as you are suggesting. How many verses are there about the deceitfulness and evil of man's heart?

You should judge music by it's spirit, not it's beauty. The things you are saying are nonsensical from a Biblical standpoint.

1 Corinthians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

1 John 4:1-6 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

 

[Citanul]

What I don't like about the "avoid things that are of the world" argument is that it's selectively applied.

As an example, mathematics predates Christianity, so therefore the people who developed it weren't Christians and so not "with Jesus". This means that they have to be against Jesus, and so therefore maths is "of the world". But if Christians are supposed to avoid things of the world then why are there no protests about them doing maths?

 

[Rahmemhotep]

What I don't like about the "avoid things that are of the world" argument is that it's selectively applied.

As an example, mathematics predates Christianity, so therefore the people who developed it weren't Christians and so not "with Jesus". This means that they have to be against Jesus, and so therefore maths is "of the world". But if Christians are supposed to avoid things of the world then why are there no protests about them doing maths?

Do you believe that math is evil by nature? If you don't, why even bring this up?

 

[Citanul]

(How can you not like Rush?)

Amen to that!

DT is not Christian

Although both John Petrucci and John Myung are.

'The Great Debate' (anti-abortion song)

The Great Debate isn't an anti-abortion song. It's a song about the debate around embryonic stem cell research and the goal of the song is to try to not come down on one side or the other. And I could be wrong, but apparently stem cells aren't collected from aborted foetuses as by that stage it's too late.

 

[Citanul]

Do you believe that math is evil by nature? If you don't, why even bring this up?

I don't believe that it's evil, but it does meet the definition of "of the world" as it was something that wasn't developed by Christians. So if Christians are suppsoed to avoid "things of the world" like music/movies/TV/books then why not maths?

 

[Caminator]

Esthetics... Judge music by esthetics... Hey, I've got a great idea, let's judge Lucifer by his esthetic.

Objective beauty is not equivalent with godliness, no not in this fallen world. Sin looks good and it can feel really good, but in the end it is of no benefit and only lasts for a season. It's not a smart thing for me to do to trust my heart to decide what is good, as you are suggesting. How many verses are there about the deceitfulness and evil of man's heart?

You should judge music by it's spirit, not it's beauty. The things you are saying are nonsensical from a Biblical standpoint.

You don't make any sense from a biblical standpoint. Have you never read Philippians 4:8? The Bible has a standard of beauty, and we have a responsibility to know it. I did not suggest the application of a subjective standard of beauty. I am suggesting a biblical standard. Your standard of judging music 'by the spirit' is the nonsense I have referred to. There is no precedent in Scripture of judging music by the spirit. That is just subjective, mystical nonsense.

 

[Caminator]

Amen to that!



Although both John Petrucci and John Myung are.



The Great Debate isn't an anti-abortion song. It's a song about the debate around embryonic stem cell research and the goal of the song is to try to not come down on one side or the other. And I could be wrong, but apparently stem cells aren't collected from aborted foetuses as by that stage it's too late.

The bridge in the song is "Are you justified... to take life to save life?" It's pretty clear. Yes, it is about stem cell research, but it's about using aborted foetuses for that research.

And to repeat, I resolutely DO NOT agree with judging music 'by the spirit.' That is Pentecostal stupidity. We need an objective criteria based in Scripture, and the only way we will get that is by the study of esthetics on biblical premises. Pentecostals do not have the answer.

 

[Caminator]

If two carpenters are debating about the length of a board and whether it will fit where they intend, one of them can measure it with a tape measure. There is no argument then. Both of the carpenters can look at the tape measure and they must submit their opinions to the objective criteria that it represents.

This same criteria was established in the Protestant Reformation, with the Bible being the 'ruler.' The Bible is the objective standard to which we must all submit our opinions.

I have been a part of the Pentecostal - or full gospel - movement within Christianity for 30 years and to this day I have never met a Christian in this context who gave a second thought about church history, or the Reformation specifically. I have never heard any kind of Pentecostal or full gospel teaching that came close to the above mentioned Reformation principle. For 30 years, every time the subject of music came up, all I ever heard was that we should judge music 'by the spirit.' This is completely foreign to biblical theology and to church history. We do not obtain an objective criteria by judging music 'by the spirit.' It is like a man saying he sees a ghost while another standing next to him sees nothing. How can I judge a brother's claim that he has judged something 'by the spirit' and found it good or bad? What if I also 'judge by the spirit' and we come to different conclusions? Has the Holy Spirit spoken one thing to me and something contradictory to my brother? Is the Holy Spirit schizophrenic? Can I hold a tape measure to my brother's head to judge whether he has heard from God? If I judge his claim by Scripture, then why did we not just do that from the start? What is the purpose of judging 'by the spirit' if I can judge the claim by Scripture? If I can judge such things by Scripture, then I don't need to discern 'by the spirit.' I can just judge by the Bible.

We need to do away with this mystical nonsense and get back to Reformation principles. What was taught in the Reformation needs to be taught in our pulpits - Pentecostal, Reformed, Fundamentalist, whatever - once again. That in itself is getting back to the Bible.

Judging 'by the spirit' is tantamount to holding oneself up as god. If you think you have judged 'by the spirit', how do you know you have heard from God? How do you know that what you feel is not just a result of something you ate? Maybe you are just light-headed from second-hand smoke. Maybe it's gas. You just need to fart and it will go away.

If you insist on 'judging by the spirit', Scripture is not your authority. You are your own authority. You judge for yourself what is of God and what is not. You don't need the Bible because you are a god unto yourself.

Jim Jones came out of the Pentecostal movement. When you think you can 'judge by the spirit' instead of submit to the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura, it is no wonder that Pentecostalism was the ideal soil from which Jones' could rise.

Jim Jones and the History of Peoples Temple

 

[Citanul]

The bridge in the song is "Are you justified... to take life to save life?" It's pretty clear. Yes, it is about stem cell research, but it's about using aborted foetuses for that research.

That's what the song's about, but it definitely puts forward both sides of the argument. So while the bridge possibly pushes the song more into opposing it, it's still not a clear-cut anti-stem cell research song. But we are going off topic by discussing the song, and the main point is that Dream Theater aren't singing about all those things which people claim that rock music glorifies.

 

[Caminator]

But we are going off topic by discussing the song, and the main point is that Dream Theater aren't singing about all those things which people claim that rock music glorifies.

Correct. The guys in DT have brains. The guys in Van Halen do not. Talk about 'judging by the spirit', when I hear VH it grieves my spirit. I feel like I'm at a party with drunks and loose women. Mindless men singing about a base, empty life. Whoever wrote DT's songs, I could sit with them and talk about the Bible and life for 3 hours, and I know they would be respectful and honorable towards good things. Heck, Jesus Himself would be blessed to sit with them. Even when they drop an f-bomb, like in 'Honor Thy Father', they are showing an appreciation for honor and righteousness, and what it means to be a good parent.

When I talk about judging music by esthetics, I mean that the real value in music is in its architecture and arrangement, like you see in Beethoven. By this standard, some classical music would fail, and a lot of rock would fail, but passing or failing the standard would have nothing to do with being rock or not rock. DT would pass with flying colors, as would most of prog, and Rush and Kansas. And Yes too. Rock isn't the issue. The issue is the quality of the music itself. Present a song to a professor of music at a university for his academic opinion and you're off to a good start.

If a person can't agree with that, then we cannot have a discussion. As it so often is with irrational Christians, the discussion is doomed before it begins, because they think discernment is non-intellectual, and all 'by the spirit.' Christianity has fallen from the holy heights she enjoyed in the 1600s, when the gospel spread through Europe like wildfire.

Here is an explication of true Christianity, and progress in understanding will not begin as long as we do not hold this front and center in our understanding of faith:

What is Faith, by J. Gresham Machen