Feeling Grace and His Holy Spirit

[aiki]

Define "unavoidable".

I think you already did that for me in your last post. We hear, smell, taste and touch all the time. We cannot avoid doing so. But we can - and should - avoid becoming the sort of person Paul described in Philippians 3:18-19.

Going back to the OT, there were things people did as "acts of worship" that weren't sin; yet if you were there to witness them, it seems to me by the description of your blog post that you'd likely disagree. (David dancing in front of the ark of the covenant.)

What David did was not prescriptive for the rest of us. That he danced for joy does not obligate anyone else to do the same. Scripture does not anywhere say, "And do thou likewise" regarding David's dancing before the Ark of the Covenant.

People are "emotional". There's just no way around that; and some of the "publicly acceptable display of emotion" is culturally definable. Missionaries run into this all the time. I've seen African "Christian worship services" that look totally pagan to me.

So have I. And I think at least some of the worship services actually are pagan - or, at least, completely contrary to truly spiritual worship. I've explained why in my blog post. I think there is, at times, entirely too much culture and not nearly enough biblical truth in how Christians worship in some corners of the world - even here in North America.

So I guess the real question (beyond what lines up with Scripture) would be; motive? If someone's actions are motivated by wanting to show themselves "more spiritual" than others based on display of emotion; that's obviously a faulty motive.

And if that is simply what you were attempting to point out; then I would agree.

Please read (or re-read) my blog post.

 

[GenemZ]

I think you already did that for me in your last post. We hear, smell, taste and touch all the time. We cannot avoid doing so. But we can - and should - avoid becoming the sort of person Paul described in Philippians 3:18-19.

Interesting that you should bring that passage up.

Verse 19... It says something that if we fail to learn the meaning of how words were used back then we can easily end up thinking these "enemies of the Cross" were always stuffing their faces with food.

19 Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and
their glory is in their shame. Their mind is set on earthly things."​

Back then they used the word "stomach" to also meaning "emotions." Its a word they used to point to their emotions.

The enemies of the Cross? They are driven by how they feel about their experiences. If their emotions get out of control by denying a correction that sound doctrine will teach? We end up with apostasy and their emotions running rampant unchecked.

Show them how their emotional experience contradicts the Bible? Their emotions become their god and they proceed to twist and distort Scripture in their desire to try to save their life they prefer.

There is no sense of need for self denial when shown Scripturally they should drop something. They refuse to take up their own cross in the face of correction... Enemies of the Cross, who's emotions are their god.

Its why Paul warned the church with 'tears.' Its impossible to reason with someone who is ruled by their emotions...

18 For, as I have often told you before and now tell you again
even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ."​

grace and peace

 

[The Righterzpen]

I think you already did that for me in your last post. We hear, smell, taste and touch all the time. We cannot avoid doing so. But we can - and should - avoid becoming the sort of person Paul described in Philippians 3:18-19.

Ironically though; Philippians 3 is addressing the issue of people who believe they are justified by the works of the law. The "pharisees" (the example of the 1st century Judaism / "Judiazers" in 1st century church); if you will. Now we all, in all of our various times and denominations, have our versions of "pharisees". And "pharisee" is defined first by attitude before its defined by action.

For example. I am not particularly "socially refined". My life has been difficult. I've seen a lot, been through a lot, have had a lot of trials. I'm fairly direct, not one to "beat around the bush", not one to sugar coat things and I know I'm capable of communicating quite well in writing and am also fairly articulate orally.

If I have something to say to someone; I will tell them directly. I'm not a gossipy person, nor am I one to play the "social elitist" game. If you are "cultured high society" or a "red neck hick", "off the boat immigrant" who only knows a handful of English words, or someone who's ancestors have been here since the pilgrims landed; I'm going to treat you the same either way.

I have been blessed with a good memory for details (that I remember things people are like - how do you know that?). I do a lot of research, have acquired a fair amount of knowledge on many things (some of which is absolutely useless - LOL), I'm open to learning and researching things I have not throughly "checked out"; and admittedly all these traits together, some people find intimidating.

Consequently, I've been on the receiving end of my fair share of people with their own lists of "this is how Christians should behave". And none of this has anything to do with morality. Externally speaking at least; I've lived my life probably more morally than most Americans of my generation. Never smoked, vaped, done drugs, never been drunk, never voluntarily had sex outside of marriage and given the environment I grew up (and existed) in; (I'm a war veteran) all that is an absolute miracle!

So this is why I make definition between judgment based on "doctrine" / "understanding" / "wisdom" as opposed to "external appearance". Do we have the humility to not judge someone else's liberty, if they still line up doctrinally with Scripture; even if their (possibly culturally based) "behavior" doesn't "look right" to us?

What David did was not prescriptive for the rest of us. That he danced for joy does not obligate anyone else to do the same. Scripture does not anywhere say, "And do thou likewise" regarding David's dancing before the Ark of the Covenant.

Yet nowhere in Scripture is anyone told they can't either.

So have I. And I think at least some of the worship services actually are pagan - or, at least, completely contrary to truly spiritual worship. I've explained why in my blog post. I think there is, at times, entirely too much culture and not nearly enough biblical truth in how Christians worship in some corners of the world - even here in North America.

And I agree principally speaking; as much as a practice lines up with Scriptural truth. There is a lot of paganism and there is a lot of false doctrine. Yet if someone isn't doing something that is clearly un-Biblical; it's not up to us to judge their spirituality based on what we see externally and whether or not we are "comfortable" with it. And this is why I said define what would actually be "naturally sensual".

Please read (or re-read) my blog post.

I will go back and read your blog post again. The first couple of times I've read it though; it seems more couched in terms of legalism than liberty and this is why I posed these questions to you about defining "spiritual" against unavoidable life experiences that aren't sin.

 

[aiki]

Ironically though; Philippians 3 is addressing the issue of people who believe they are justified by the works of the law. The "pharisees" (the example of the 1st century Judaism / "Judiazers" in 1st century church); if you will. Now we all, in all of our various times and denominations, have our versions of "pharisees". And "pharisee" is defined first by attitude before its defined by action.

Even granting all that you've written here, my comments about the sort of person described in Philippians 3:18-19 still hold.

Consequently, I've been on the receiving end of my fair share of people with their own lists of "this is how Christians should behave".

Yes, so have I. One can't be a Christian for long without running into a believer who has grown legalistic.

And none of this has anything to do with morality.

Except, of course, if their list is derived from Scripture. The person who wants to tell me that wearing a three-piece suit to Sunday morning worship confirms my salvation is full of baloney and a legalist. But the person who tells me that being drunk is a sin and quotes to me the many verses of Scripture that say so, deserves to be heeded.

So this is why I make definition between judgment based on "doctrine" / "understanding" / "wisdom" as opposed to "external appearance". Do we have the humility to not judge someone else's liberty, if they still line up doctrinally with Scripture; even if their (possibly culturally based) "behavior" doesn't "look right" to us?

Of course - but only to a point. The liberty a believer has in Christ is not to do as they please and the legalist be damned, but to live as a holy, sanctified vessel "meet for the Master's use and prepared unto every good work." Scripture proscribes flesh-centered, worldly, unnecessarily sensual spirituality. When believers stray into such "spirituality," it is not legalistic to say so.

Yet nowhere in Scripture is anyone told they can't either.

I don't know about you, but I have had many believers tell me that what David did is prescriptive for modern-day believers. Of course, it never occurs to them how singular an event David's dancing was. They want to justify sensuality in their worship and will grasp at any scriptural straw to do so, it seems.

Do I see anything, particularly in the New Testament, that urges believers toward the sort of display David made? No. In fact, the New Testament has almost nothing to say about music or its role in Christian living. Interesting, that. Very different than the current mad obsession with worship styles and music in most evangelical churches in the West which is a token, I believe, of how carnal modern western Christianity has become.

Yet if someone isn't doing something that is clearly un-Biblical

Well, it's been my experience that what is clearly unbiblical to one believer is clear as mud to another. The spiritual maturity of a believer has a lot to do with what they see in, and understand of, Scripture. I've seen this disparity in maturity create very serious fractures in churches where the spiritually immature have gained a measure of authority.

it's not up to us to judge their spirituality based on what we see externally and whether or not we are "comfortable" with it.

Um, I'm not sure I can agree with you here. If one's external conduct is not in keeping with the dictates, truth and principles of Scripture I am quite within my God-given responsibilities as a believer to judge them so and to object. I don't have see the heart of the person acting in violation of these things to judge their "externals" as wrong and to understand that, at the very least, their spiritual life is wanting.

On the matter of being comfortable, it does not always fall to the one who is made uncomfortable by the worship of another to put up with it. The accommodation ought to flow in both directions, both believers in love doing what they can to accommodate each other. Too often these days, however, the person who is not comfortable with the frenzied, sensual antics of modern worship is made to feel in the wrong, a legalistic oppressor of joy and love. He must bend as far as his detractors demand concerning worship or be guilty of lovelessness and unreasonable stuffiness, and perhaps even be thought not to be saved. Never is the wild, hip-swinging gyrations of modern worship and the deafening volume at which it often occurs ever questioned or toned down for the sake of those uncomfortable with it. "Don't tread on my liberty!" is the prime truth in today's worship culture, not "In love, serve one another."

I will go back and read your blog post again. The first couple of times I've read it though; it seems more couched in terms of legalism than liberty and this is why I posed these questions to you about defining "spiritual" against unavoidable life experiences that aren't sin.

Well, you might have some ground for thinking me legalistic if I didn't anchor all of my contentions in Scripture and hadn't avoided making any specific rules about what a Christian should or should not say or do. No where do I say, "Don't listen to such-and-such music," or "Don't wear such-and-such clothing," or "You must attend church so many times a week," or "Christians only eat this kind of food." Instead, I stay pretty general and non-specific, except where Scripture gives me grounds to be more particular in my remarks.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Well, you might have some ground for thinking me legalistic if I didn't anchor all of my contentions in Scripture and hadn't avoided making any specific rules about what a Christian should or should not say or do.

The question is not about things that are clearly sin in the Scripture. Or even practices sprung out of false doctrine. (Like being "slain in the spirit".)

You claim on one hand that you are not talking about that; yet, then you speak of questioning the role of music? Do you believe people in the early church didn't sing, (or didn't use instruments)? Some people do. Some people think musical instruments (or certain musical instruments) are wrong. Should worship never use musical instruments and if they are allowed; is a pipe organ "more spiritual" than an electric guitar?

Which again goes back to motive; because we are not defined "spirituality" by the "sensuality" of our existence. Does the style of music really matter? (Although I am the first to admit certain styles of music drive me crazy. But hey, if you can Rap out the gospel; more power be unto God!)

Which also; if you believe this gospel is to be proclaimed to all humanity and is suppose to cross cultural boundaries; than yes, you would expect worship would not be homogeneous.

I have a 17 year old; (a very ill 17 year old) who likes the Christian rock band Skillet. Now they are not exactly my preferred style of music; but I have listened to their lyrics and I can see based on what I know of my son; why theses songs help him. When you're 17 years old and are constantly confronted by your mortality, sometimes you just need to "scream back" at your epilepsy (unto God) "No! I'm not going to die tonight!"

The Church through history:

And the very real battle with sin:

The gospel goes into all the word!

 

[aiki]

You claim on one hand that you are not talking about that; yet, then you speak of questioning the role of music? Do you believe people in the early church didn't sing, (or didn't use instruments)? Some people do. Some people think musical instruments (or certain musical instruments) are wrong. Should worship never use musical instruments and if they are allowed; is a pipe organ "more spiritual" than an electric guitar?

Questioning the role or priority of music in the meeting together of the saints is not legalism.

I'm sure the believers in the Early Church sang psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs when they met together. Did they do so to the degree that we see today? I very much doubt it. Musical worship now is an industry, a profit-making thing; it's purpose is to generate income for musicians/performers, and music moguls, not simply praise and glorify God. I recall Jesus getting rather wound-up about the Jews making God's house a place of commerce and the warnings of Paul concerning false teachers who would make merchandise of believers. I suspect Jesus and Paul would be horrified by the way modern Christians have turned the praise of God into an industry.

I have no problem with musical instruments being used in worship of God. I do, though, have a BIG problem with them being played at such volume that one cannot hear one's self sing. Instruments, as far as I'm concerned, are to enhance, to accompany, the praise of the saints, not dominate and drown it out.

A musical instrument has no moral or spiritual quality.

Which again goes back to motive; because we are not defined "spirituality" by the "sensuality" of our existence. Does the style of music really matter?

Yes, I think the style of music does matter. Worship music that induces a strong physical response conflicts with the spiritual purpose of worship. As I wrote in my blog, Scripture indicates that the more sensually and physically oriented my worship is, the less spiritual it is. I am to be still and know God (Psalms 46:10), not thrash about in a frenzy of worship like a priest of Baal. The flesh wars against the Spirit, Paul wrote to the Galatian Christians (Galatians 5:17), and since this is so, I ought to act in worship as much as possible in a manner that does not stimulate my flesh.

Do you typically hear the music accompanying, say, a horror movie played during a love scene? No. Why don't screeching violins, and pounding drums, and crashing cymbals serve as the background music to a children's comedy? There are certain sounds, certain kinds of music, that evoke certain emotions and physical responses from us. The movie and advertising industries, in particular, use this fact to powerful effect in their films and commercials. Consequently, it always puzzles me that some Christians want to argue that music is entirely neutral in its effects and that any sort of music is perfectly fine for Christian consumption and association with God and worship of Him. I would resist very stridently the use of Death Metal or Screamo music in the worship of God. These kinds of music are not at all evocative of the holiness, peace, gentleness, kindness and love of God.

Which also; if you believe this gospel is to be proclaimed to all humanity and is suppose to cross cultural boundaries; than yes, you would expect worship would not be homogeneous.

But the Gospel does not change from culture to culture. It is very homogeneous, very exclusivistic, very narrow. And the other truths and principles of God's word are likewise constraining and narrow. Does God say in His word that He is working to make us all unique individuals? Or does He tell us that His aim is make us all like Christ? We are all, by the Holy Spirit, being conformed to Jesus, the Bible says, which, it seems to me, will have a very homogenizing effect upon genuine followers of Christ.

I have a 17 year old; (a very ill 17 year old) who likes the Christian rock band Skillet. Now they are not exactly my preferred style of music; but I have listened to their lyrics and I can see based on what I know of my son; why theses songs help him. When you're 17 years old and are constantly confronted by your mortality, sometimes you just need to "scream back" at your epilepsy (unto God) "No! I'm not going to die tonight!"

Does he really need to "scream back" at his epilepsy? Or does God urge all of us to a different response to our afflictions? Is death a bad thing for a born-again believer - even a 17-year-old one? No. We aren't made for time, but for eternity. The seventy years or so we spend on this planet are less than the blink of an eye in the context of the eternity that awaits us. And we will see our Maker and Saviour face-to-face on the other side of the grave! Where's the downside in this? Forget Skillet; trust in God, wait patiently and humbly upon Him; live in joyful, loving surrender to Him.

I listened to about half way through the last Skillet music video you posted entitled "Battle Cry" and was deeply saddened by how unbiblical the lyrics were. How badly misled are the Christian teens who listen to this stuff! At first look, the lyrics seems harmless enough, but they place far too great an emphasis upon the individual believer's feelings, and resolve and faith. A believer who thinks after the manner of the Skillet song is bound for spiritual frustration, confusion and eventual collapse. Children of God are not to puff out their chests, grit their teeth, and shake their fist in the face of life's storms. No, they are to resort to God in their weakness and trouble, finding in Him the strength they need to weather the storms of life.

"It's my faith, it's my life!
This is our battle cry."

The believer's faith is not their own. It has been imparted to them from God. (Romans 12:3) And the believer's faith is not the crucial thing but the object of their faith, Jesus Christ. It is his faith given to the believer in the Person of the Holy Spirit, anchored in him, in his power and perfection, that is vital, not what belief the individual believer can muster from within himself. The believer's life, too, is not their own. Every born-again Christian has been bought with a price (1 Corinthians 6:20) and has become a "slave of righteousness" unto God (Romans 6:17-22), a vessel for His use (2 Timothy 2:21). Does the Skillet song acknowledge this? Not a bit. Instead, it orients the listener upon him/herself and their determination and resolve to stand their ground. If there is one thing, though, that the Bible makes crystal clear it is that we are weak - very, very weak - totally incapable, really, of doing anything apart from Christ (John 15:5). This would be a far, far better message for Skillet to purvey than giving the impression in their song "Battle Cry" that the Christian has something to contribute to the work God is doing (Philippians 1:6; 2:13) in and through them.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I am to be still and know God (Psalms 46:10), not thrash about in a frenzy of worship like a priest of Baal.

Is worship of God only confined to sitting in a church service? "Be still and know that I am God...." does not apply literally if you are running across a battlefield.

The flesh wars against the Spirit, Paul wrote to the Galatian Christians (Galatians 5:17), and since this is so, I ought to act in worship as much as possible in a manner that does not stimulate my flesh.

Again, what ultimately defines "worship" and where does that happen?

We are all, by the Holy Spirit, being conformed to Jesus, the Bible says, which, it seems to me, will have a very homogenizing effect upon genuine followers of Christ.

Yet note Jesus's behavior in the context of His own culture. Did He always do things in the temple that were considered appropriate? Did He always do things in context of Judaism that were considered "appropriate worship"?

The obvious answer here is "no".

So what homogenizing effect would the gospel have on believers though it crosses cultural boundaries? Would that not have more to do with understanding and living out moral and just truth than someone judging something they object to that is not clearly sin?

"It's my faith, it's my life!
This is our battle cry."

Yet "claiming" the faith as our own is a very real experience. If you are in a war and fighting for your life; that does not mean you sit back and let the enemy slay you. We all have a point and purpose in this life as to what God has called us to do; so we strive to that end. We seek to run the good race and fight the good fight. That is part of the life we are called to.

That's what that song is about. That song is about not giving up; because reality of the truth is - Life is hard.

I, my son, or his doctors have no ultimate control over whether his epilepsy kills him. Yet we are not called to do what ever we can to hasten our own deaths. "Fighting for life" is inherent in the human struggle because God is the God of the living.

So yes, there is a time for "war" and a time for "peace".

 

[GenemZ]

some confuse "morality" for Christianity.

Morality is prescribed for both believer and unbeliever alike. Its not spiritual by default. Its for the spiritual, but is not spirituality in itself. Virtue (being Spirit controlled and guided) is for only the believer, to be manifested more and more as he matures... as God desires him to.

Morality is simply the toilet training phase for new believers who just came out of a licentious life style.

 

[aiki]

Is worship of God only confined to sitting in a church service?

No.

"Be still and know that I am God...." does not apply literally if you are running across a battlefield.

Did you think it did? Are you suggesting that being still and knowing God can be ignored because it can't always be done?

Again, what ultimately defines "worship" and where does that happen?

I thought it was pretty obvious that the worship I was speaking of was the musical kind that dominates most Sunday morning worship services in North America these days. Christian worship is not confined to this sort of worship only but includes the entirety of a believer's life lived in glory to God (1 Corinthians 10:31)

Yet note Jesus's behavior in the context of His own culture. Did He always do things in the temple that were considered appropriate?

Except for the throwing out of the money changers thing, I can't think of an instance where Christ defied the typical Jewish temple culture of his time. Even the business with the money-changers was an attempt to return the temple to what it should have been: a place of prayer. Was there another instance where Jesus flouted the etiquette and norms of the temple? He taught things that were contrary to what was usually taught, but I don't recall him acting disrespectfully or disparagingly when he was in a temple or synagogue.

Did He always do things in context of Judaism that were considered "appropriate worship"?

The obvious answer here is "no".

Did he always act contrary to OT Judaism, then? No. Scripture tells us he fulfilled the law - perfectly. What, then, of the idea that he was throwing off all conformity to past norms of Jewish worship? He most certainly wasn't.

So what homogenizing effect would the gospel have on believers though it crosses cultural boundaries?

It is the same Gospel regardless of where it is preached; it is the same "narrow way"; it is the same Saviour and the same call to repentance and faith in him. And for those who are saved, God's fundamental desire for us is that we all be conformed to the image of His Son (Romans 8:29). This all seems pretty homogeneous to me.

Would that not have more to do with understanding and living out moral and just truth than someone judging something they object to that is not clearly sin?

Well, who's doing this? I'm not - though you seem to want imply otherwise.

Yet "claiming" the faith as our own is a very real experience.

Did I say it wasn't? No. I only pointed out that our faith comes from God and is important only insofar as its object is concerned.

If you are in a war and fighting for your life; that does not mean you sit back and let the enemy slay you.

Not sure why you're making this rather obvious remark...

We all have a point and purpose in this life as to what God has called us to do; so we strive to that end. We seek to run the good race and fight the good fight. That is part of the life we are called to.

Yes. But it is God who gives to us both the desire and ability to do His will. (Philippians 2:13) He is the Power Source of the Christian's life. (John 15:5) We can only run and fight because He has first worked in us to make it possible for us to do so.

That's what that song is about. That song is about not giving up; because reality of the truth is - Life is hard.

The song could communicate this a whole lot better, a whole lot more biblically, than it does.

I, my son, or his doctors have no ultimate control over whether his epilepsy kills him. Yet we are not called to do what ever we can to hasten our own deaths.

Who is suggesting you ought to? I'm most certainly not!

"Fighting for life" is inherent in the human struggle because God is the God of the living.

Yes, God has given us a very strong survival instinct. But this does not mean we should look upon death only as curse or enemy. It is the doorway to eternity with our Maker!

So yes, there is a time for "war" and a time for "peace".

I don't recall saying otherwise... But, what did Paul write? "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." (Philippians 1:21) A very different tune than the one Skillet is promoting in its song.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Are you suggesting that being still and knowing God can be ignored because it can't always be done?

"Being still" is an internal thing, not necessarily an external thing. That is part of my point about judging someone's external behavior when what they are doing is not outright sin.

Christian worship is not confined to this sort of worship only but includes the entirety of a believer's life lived in glory to God (1 Corinthians 10:31)

Yet the point I'm making is that you still object to something for your dislike of its style. It can't be worship music because it does not fit your definition of worship music.

Was there another instance where Jesus flouted the etiquette and norms of the temple? He taught things that were contrary to what was usually taught, but I don't recall him acting disrespectfully or disparagingly when he was in a temple or synagogue.

He healed on the sabbath, yelled at leaders of the nation, interacted with and gave assistance to the gentiles. He even granted requests for healing of people who had no intention of becoming part of the Jewish religious system (like Roman soldiers and Greek women). He talked to strange women at wells. He let a "prostitute" kiss His feet; (although today we'd probably more refer to Mary's particular situation as being more a victim of human trafficking). There are even times He yelled at His own disciples. He pointed out people's own cultural taboos to them. None of this was acceptable in "polite Jewish society".

Did he always act contrary to OT Judaism, then? No. Scripture tells us he fulfilled the law - perfectly. What, then, of the idea that he was throwing off all conformity to past norms of Jewish worship? He most certainly wasn't.

His actions proved that being holy is not based on someone's preconceived social norms.

It is the same Gospel regardless of where it is preached; it is the same "narrow way"; it is the same Saviour and the same call to repentance and faith in him. And for those who are saved, God's fundamental desire for us is that we all be conformed to the image of His Son (Romans 8:29). This all seems pretty homogeneous to me.

And none of that has any relevance to preference of style of music, food, clothing or anything else culturally defined that's not clearly sin.

Well, who's doing this? I'm not - though you seem to want imply otherwise.

Your main objection to certain styles of music being used in worship is that you don't like it. So yes, you are "doing otherwise".

Did I say it wasn't? No. I only pointed out that our faith comes from God and is important only insofar as its object is concerned.

So then you agree with me. It doesn't matter if someone writes classical music about Christ; heavy metal or rap.

Not sure why you're making this rather obvious remark...

Because you stated that this certain style of music that gets a teenager through rough times dealing with a chronic and potentially fatal medical issue is not Godly.

Yes. But it is God who gives to us both the desire and ability to do His will. (Philippians 2:13) He is the Power Source of the Christian's life. (John 15:5) We can only run and fight because He has first worked in us to make it possible for us to do so.

And again, the style of music one may have a preference for has no bearing on that.

The song could communicate this a whole lot better, a whole lot more biblically, than it does.

Beethoven could have communicated the message more Biblically than he did. You as one sinner have no right to tell another sinner that their liberty of something that isn't actually sin; is, just because you don't like it. Unless you're admitting that you are weak in the faith and if that's the case; then I won't post any more Skillet songs for you. We are to be considerate of the weaker brother, not the legalistic one. I got friends who are in AA. When they come over to my house, I don't break out the beer. That's the kind of thing of what it means by our liberty not being a stumbling block to someone else. Even if they aren't Christian. I've had friends that were Jewish, Muslim and vegetarians. So, I don't break out the pork chops when they come over to my house.

Who is suggesting you ought to? I'm most certainly not!

Yet when I brought up my son's epilepsy and why Skillet songs just happened to help the kid not give up; you quoted all these verses about how death is preferable to life. (Note example below.)

Yes, God has given us a very strong survival instinct. But this does not mean we should look upon death only as curse or enemy. It is the doorway to eternity with our Maker!

Yet if you want to be useful to your Maker in this life than how do you reconcile that?

I don't recall saying otherwise... But, what did Paul write? "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." (Philippians 1:21) A very different tune than the one Skillet is promoting in its song.

I think you are really missing the points I'm trying to make. So, I'll just leave it right here.

 

[The Righterzpen]

some confuse "morality" for Christianity.

Morality is prescribed for both believer and unbeliever alike. Its not spiritual by default. Its for the spiritual, but is not spirituality in itself. Virtue (being Spirit controlled and guided) is for only the believer, to be manifested more and more as he matures... as God desires him to.

Morality is simply the toilet training phase for new believers who just came out of a licentious life style.

True! Everyone is called to be moral.

 

[aiki]

"Being still" is an internal thing, not necessarily an external thing.

In the verse I quoted, the sense is not confined to inner stillness. And I did not indicate the stillness I was referring to was necessarily external.

That is part of my point about judging someone's external behavior when what they are doing is not outright sin.

This is akin to watching a baby reach for a red-hot stove element and thinking: The baby's not yet done anything outright hurtful to itself, he hasn't yet touched the element, so I won't bother to say or do anything about it.

It is the foolish and unloving Christian who, fearful of being called a legalist or judgmental, looks at the conduct of a fellow believer that is not yet "outright sin" but leading clearly and inevitably to it and says nothing.

Yet the point I'm making is that you still object to something for your dislike of its style. It can't be worship music because it does not fit your definition of worship music.

What is wrong with objecting to something that I don't like? We all do this. You're doing this very thing with me in this thread!

As for worship music, well, I have put forward plenty of Scripture in support of my views. None of which you've actually defeated from Scripture.

He healed on the sabbath, yelled at leaders of the nation, interacted with and gave assistance to the gentiles.

In the temples and synagogues?

He even granted requests for healing of people who had no intention of becoming part of the Jewish religious system (like Roman soldiers and Greek women). He talked to strange women at wells. He let a "prostitute" kiss His feet; (although today we'd probably more refer to Mary's particular situation as being more a victim of human trafficking). There are even times He yelled at His own disciples. He pointed out people's own cultural taboos to them. None of this was acceptable in "polite Jewish society".

I'm well aware of what Jesus did as he traveled around Galilee and Jerusalem. My observations and questions to which you are answering here were specifically in regards to his behaviour in Jewish temples/synagogues.

You wrote: "Did He always do things in the temple that were considered appropriate?"

I replied: Except for the throwing out of the money changers thing, I can't think of an instance where Christ defied the typical Jewish temple culture of his time. Even the business with the money-changers was an attempt to return the temple to what it should have been: a place of prayer. Was there another instance where Jesus flouted the etiquette and norms of the temple? He taught things that were contrary to what was usually taught, but I don't recall him acting disrespectfully or disparagingly when he was in a temple or synagogue.

Clearly, my comments were directed very specifically to Jesus's actions in the temple which your reply above completely ignores.

His actions proved that being holy is not based on someone's preconceived social norms.

What has this to do with my comments about sensual Christianity? I have grounded my views very thoroughly in Scripture and you have yet to show that the Scripture I've offered I have misunderstood.

And none of that has any relevance to preference of style of music, food, clothing or anything else culturally defined that's not clearly sin.

You asked: "So what homogenizing effect would the gospel have on believers though it crosses cultural boundaries?"

I replied: "It is the same Gospel regardless of where it is preached; it is the same "narrow way"; it is the same Saviour and the same call to repentance and faith in him. And for those who are saved, God's fundamental desire for us is that we all be conformed to the image of His Son (Romans 8:29). This all seems pretty homogeneous to me."

You see here, then, that you did not stipulate that you were looking particularly for "relevance to preference of style of music, food, clothing," etc. Are you playing games? It's starting to seem like it.

As I pointed out in the quotation above, the Gospel does have a homogenizing effect upon what people think and believe, regardless of culture, which in turn shapes their behaviour. You have refused to acknowledge this but have slipped around having to do so by moving the goalposts of your question. You do this a lot.

Your main objection to certain styles of music being used in worship is that you don't like it. So yes, you are "doing otherwise".

No, this is not my "main objection." It is your Strawman version of my objections.

So then you agree with me. It doesn't matter if someone writes classical music about Christ; heavy metal or rap.

"Doesn't matter" to what? I see you ignore in your responses much of what I write. I'm going to assume that is because you have no good answer to the observations and points I've made that you've ignored.

Because you stated that this certain style of music that gets a teenager through rough times dealing with a chronic and potentially fatal medical issue is not Godly.

I said it wasn't biblical. That is, the message it conveyed was not in keeping with the counsel and truth of Scripture. And you have offered nothing from God's word to show that the observations I made about the song were in error.

And again, the style of music one may have a preference for has no bearing on that.

I never said the verse in question did have a bearing on the style of music. My point to which you are responding here was about the lyrics of the song. Are you taking the time to actually understand what I'm writing? It doesn't seem like it...

Beethoven could have communicated the message more Biblically than he did.

The message of what, exactly? Was he writing lyrics in praise and worship of God? If so, which of those lyrics departed from Scripture?

You as one sinner have no right to tell another sinner that their liberty of something that isn't actually sin; is, just because you don't like it.

I haven't. Please show where, exactly, I say anything like what you have said here that I have.

Unless you're admitting that you are weak in the faith and if that's the case; then I won't post any more Skillet songs for you.

Now you're just being silly.

We are to be considerate of the weaker brother, not the legalistic one.

A legalistic brother is a weaker brother. It's why he is legalistic.

I got friends who are in AA. When they come over to my house, I don't break out the beer.

I should hope not!

That's the kind of thing of what it means by our liberty not being a stumbling block to someone else.

Among other things, yes.

Yet when I brought up my son's epilepsy and why Skillet songs just happened to help the kid not give up; you quoted all these verses about how death is preferable to life. (Note example below.)

For the Christian, eternal life after death is preferable! Do you not believe this? If not, why, then, are you a Christian?

Yet if you want to be useful to your Maker in this life than how do you reconcile that?

Do you know what a false dichotomy is? You're implying one here. The only two choices aren't love death and be useless to God or love life and be useful to Him. Paul the apostle showed how to love the prospect of eternity with God more than his earthly existence while still remaining God's useful servant while on this side of the grave.

I think you are really missing the points I'm trying to make. So, I'll just leave it right here.

This appears to be a two-way street, Righterzpen.

 

[The Righterzpen]

What is wrong with objecting to something that I don't like? We all do this. You're doing this very thing with me in this thread!

Yet I'm not stating that my dislike is a mandate from God for other believers to follow. That's the difference.

I'm going to assume that is because you have no good answer to the observations and points I've made that you've ignored.

No, it's because I've now come to the conclusion that you are indeed a legalist.

This appears to be a two-way street, Righterzpen.

Well, thanks for sharing. I think we're done here!

Or maybe I should state it more directly. I'm done with you here!

 

[aiki]

Yet I'm not stating that my dislike is a mandate from God for other believers to follow.

Actually, you are. Your exchange with me has been one long expression of your dislike of my views with the intent that I should conform to your perspective.

No, it's because I've now come to the conclusion that you are indeed a legalist.

Well, fortunately, your belief that I am doesn't really have any bearing upon whether or not I actually am a legalist. In fact, your rigid opposition to my views smacks very much of a legalistic attitude. Funny how a person can be so militant in championing liberty that they become just like a legalist.

Well, thanks for sharing. I think we're done here!

Yup. I figured you were pretty much out of gas in your objections to my posts.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Funny how a person can be so militant in championing liberty that they become just like a legalist.

Not sure how championing liberty makes one a legalist?



But believe what ever you want (about me or your own positions) I'm not going to answer to you in the end and I firmly don't believe God has an issue with my son listening to Skillet.

 

[aiki]

Not sure how championing liberty makes one a legalist?

See, here's another example of you not understanding what I wrote. I didn't say "championing liberty makes one a legalist." You will find no such statement in my last post.

But believe what ever you want (about me or your own positions) I'm not going to answer to you in the end and I firmly don't believe God has an issue with my son listening to Skillet.

This is always the final refuge of the legalistic libertarian: "Stuff you. I'm going to do whatever I please. I don't answer to you."

The Legalist And The Libertarian. | Christian Forums

 

[The Righterzpen]

See, here's another example of you not understanding what I wrote. I didn't say "championing liberty makes one a legalist." You will find no such statement in my last post.

This is always the final refuge of the legalistic libertarian: "Stuff you. I'm going to do whatever I please. I don't answer to you."

The Legalist And The Libertarian. | Christian Forums

Sorry, but I fail to see where any of your arguments pertain to my kid listening to Skillet music.

This is always the final refuge of the legalistic libertarian: "Stuff you. I'm going to do whatever I please. I don't answer to you."

You deny of what you said to me; yet right here you just called me a legalist; so you prove my point.

And also the truth of the matter is - I don't answer to you.



Your responses to me have only demonstrated arrogance; which (let's wait and see your response - I "prophesy" (and predict) that you will just turn around and accuse me of arrogance, because that's what legalists do. They accuse others of what they are themselves. So.... let us wait and see that you will actually prove me right on this point too!

Either way; I'm confident in God's sovereignty in salvation; if you are indeed one of the elect; I'm confident He will lead you out of your legalism.