Thread: Separation from the world

I'm 36 years young....

Rock music is my achilles....I've had no problem shunning the secular (i.e. Van Halen, Foo Fighters, etc.) and I go through periods where I listen to nothing but classical or phil keaggy instrumentals....but after a while I go back to craving the rocking guitars and driving beats of the rock genre, only now I gravitate towards the cleaner and more God-centered lyrics of Switchfoot and Relient K.....but at the end of the day it's probably all the same....when I listen to rock music I am not filled with humility and calm but rather adrenaline. I may feel good about the message but I don't know if the reaction triggered by the music helps my walk with Christ and Christian endeavors rather it probably serves as a barrier and distraction...something I'm wrestling with.....

good topic!

---------- Post added at 10:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 AM ----------

Hi puritanhope,

does the dvd deal with Christian rock too, I was a little hesitant to pick it up...the cover looks a little disturbing...I do own 2 dvd's from the apologetics group and they are excellent...the one on Calvin and 'the real Jesus'

Originally Posted by puritanhope

For those who currently listen to "rock music" you may consider this documentary: Hell's Bells 2: The Spirit of Popular Music. It's done by the same gents that did Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism. It may seem pricey, but keep in mind it's 370 minutes long. Here are the reviews on Amazon, however, in this case it's cheaper to buy directly from the Apologetics Group.

As for me and my house, we are now purged of this god hating, self glorifying filth.

Anthony, I appreciate your insights. I had not considered the residual effects of rock relative to gospel oriented lyrics.

"Worldliness" is simply another term for sin (see 1 John 2:15-17). Sin is, in turn, defined by Scripture and Scripture alone. I fear that many who label certain things like music genres "worldly" do so on the basis of personal opinion or preference rather than grounding their censure in Scripture alone. For a definition of "worldliness" and some practical ramifications, see What In the World Is Worldliness?: Providing Some Biblical Clarity on a Misused Term.

Your servant,

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

"Worldliness" is simply another term for sin (see 1 John 2:15-17). Sin is, in turn, defined by Scripture and Scripture alone. I fear that many who label certain things like music genres "worldly" do so on the basis of personal opinion or preference rather than grounding their censure in Scripture alone. For a definition of "worldliness" and some practical ramifications, see What In the World Is Worldliness?: Providing Some Biblical Clarity on a Misused Term.

Your servant,

Dear Doctor,

Perhaps, at this late entry into this particular discussion, you have not availed yourself of the opportunity to read through the many posts herein. To assume at this juncture that the serious and earnest wrestlings of the participants have muddled on in ignorance of the relevance that worldliness has to Rock Music is unfortunate.

In a related thread I posted the following, added here for your perusal.

Titus 2:12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly (κοσμικας) lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age,

We need to understand “worldly” in context. The Greek word for world κοσμος has many meanings. Pertinent to this discussion I would take Thayers definitions #6 and 7.

The world- κοσμος

6. "the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ" (cf. Winer's Grammar, 26): John 7:7; 14:27 (John 17:27); 15:18f; 16:8,20,33; 17:9, 14f 25; 1 Cor. 1:21; 6:2; 11:32; 2 Cor. 7:10; James 1:27; 1 Pet. 5:9; 2 Pet. 1:4; 2:20; 1 John 3:1,13; 4:5; 5:19; of the aggregate of ungodly and wicked men in O. T. times, Heb. 11:38; in Noah's time, …, John 8:23; 15:19; 17:14, 16; 1 John 4:5;… to speak in accordance with the world's character and mode of thinking, 1 John 4:5; …

7. "worldly affairs; the aggregate of things earthly; the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments, riches, advantages, pleasures, etc., which, although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ": Gal. 6:14; 1 John 2:16f; 3:17; ……..
John 17:16 "They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.

1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

James 4:4 Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

2 Peter 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world -- the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life -- is not of the Father but is of the world.


Now the apostles, when they warned against THE WORLD or WORLDLINESS did not give a lengthy qualification as to which of the many senses that κοσμος they were using it. They fully expected their readers to understand.

Similarly we need to understand which sense applies to the discussion at hand. The Scriptures plainly warn us against the world and worldliness. There is obviously an objective, recognizable content to the thing which we are warned to shun.

I have stated in the post on Separation from the World :

Should we be comfortable (not to mention take pleasure) in a setting
• Where the philosophy, and thus the lyrics, of the artists use God and our Redeemer’s name as a swear word
• where the world-view of the artists and fans is opposed to God and His law
• where fornication, adultery, drug abuse are celebrated
• where the God ordained standards of family, selfless love, and self control are notoriously absent
• where women are degraded as objects for throw away pleasures

Where in all of this are the called out people of God? Where the new nature? Where the conformity to Christ? Where the Sanctifying power of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit? Where are the New Creations in Christ?
The worldliness of which the Scripture warns is patently part and parcel in the “world of Rock n’ Roll.

To deny this is to be disingenuous.

And from post #72 in this thread you might consider the following:

J.C. Ryle in his classic work HOLINESS says

“There are many real children of God who appear to know far more than they live up to, and see far more than they practice, and yet continue in this state for many years. …

These are they who get the notion into their minds, that it is impossible for all believers to be so very holy and very spiritual! They allow that eminent holiness is a beautiful thing. They like to read about it in books, and even to see it occasionally in others. But they do not think that all are meant to aim at so high a standard. At any rate, they seem to make up their minds it is beyond their reach. …

These are they who are always trying to keep in with the world. They are ingenious in discovering reasons for not separating decidedly, and in framing plausible excuses for attending questionable amusements, and keeping up questionable friendships.”


I believe that Ryle, here, expresses a kindred spirit with the Puritans.

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

He was indeed an observer to the culture that was going on about Him, but he was not a part of 1st century AD "pop culture". He was drawing souls out of it, but he was not part and parcel of it as a participant. So much of the simple act of participation in the popular culture is completely counter-Christian, I don't know how someone can ever get their head around "going with the flow" as harmless.

Was there was such a thing as "pop culture" back then? I would distinguish both folk culture and high culture from "pop culture", and it's difficult to imagine "pop culture" without capitalism and a certain level of technology; or perhaps it's just that "pop culture" from every epoch is the most ephemeral production, and therefore, until our days, the least likely to be preserved. Anyway, I don't mean to disrail the thread - just wondering if "pop culture" really has an analogue in the distant past (though I suppose paid but essentially shallow performers and producers are pretty much a constant of city life).

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Should we be comfortable (not to mention take pleasure) in a setting
• Where the philosophy, and thus the lyrics, of the artists use God and our Redeemer’s name as a swear word
• where the world-view of the artists and fans is opposed to God and His law
• where fornication, adultery, drug abuse are celebrated
• where the God ordained standards of family, selfless love, and self control are notoriously absent
• where women are degraded as objects for throw away pleasures

But once again, this only represents a segment of "rock music."

Was there was such a thing as "pop culture" back then? I would distinguish both folk culture and high culture from "pop culture", and it's difficult to imagine "pop culture" without capitalism and a certain level of technology; or perhaps it's just that "pop culture" from every epoch is the most ephemeral production, and therefore, until our days, the least likely to be preserved. Anyway, I don't mean to disrail the thread - just wondering if "pop culture" really has an analogue in the distant past (though I suppose paid but essentially shallow performers and producers are pretty much a constant of city life).

I guess by 'pop culture' I am referring as much to the general entertainment/gossip/accepted norms of the day as anything else. For instance, I recall hearing that while Shakespeare was alive, and his plays were being performed at the Globe theatre in London, the most popular entertainment of the day was still bear-baiting. The bear-baiting I would thus count as part of the 'pop culture' of that day, but would likely also throw Shakespeare's plays into the mix. Whatever makes up the secular distraction mosaic of the day for the common man, would, under this definition, be considered part of the 'pop culture'.

It has dawned to me after reading Col. 3 that the key to fighting worldliness is to set our affections on the Lord Himself, but more importantly to give thanks to everything that God have given to us.

There are too many things today where we take for granted. Many of us remember to give thanks to God before we eat. But how about extending it to other areas - be it work, leisure, spouse, children, friends, or anything? And it's not just paying lip service by saying "thanks". If we truly appreciate and are thankful to whatever God has given to us, we will treasure it and use them more wisely without setting our affection on them, knowing that the same God who gave us these gifts may take them away anytime and that He has a purpose for giving them to us.

Thanksgiving reminds us who is really in charge of our life and is thus a very powerful weapon against worldliness, and pride of Man - the root of worldliness. I believe we should think of this when we talk about "separation".

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

"Worldliness" is simply another term for sin (see 1 John 2:15-17). Sin is, in turn, defined by Scripture and Scripture alone. I fear that many who label certain things like music genres "worldly" do so on the basis of personal opinion or preference rather than grounding their censure in Scripture alone. For a definition of "worldliness" and some practical ramifications, see What In the World Is Worldliness?: Providing Some Biblical Clarity on a Misused Term.

Your servant,

Hi Dr Bob,

Could you then provide some clear guidelines on what kind of biblical separation you would prescribe to your churchmen? Does it purely take place at the heart level and should a young believer be given the liberty to enjoy any aspect of pop culture he likes as long as he attempts to do so with God in mind regardless of how spiritually insensitive and undiscerning he is?

You have pretty much written off Ps Peter Masters as promoting unbiblical legalism on the basis of your different understand of biblical separation from him without actually giving a full treatment on why your form of biblical separation differs from his. If you would be willing to give an article treating what biblical separation really means from your perspective, then the true differences between those whom you deem to be "fundamentalist" and "legalistic" and those as yourself may then be made much clearer.

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

Was there was such a thing as "pop culture" back then? I would distinguish both folk culture and high culture from "pop culture", and it's difficult to imagine "pop culture" without capitalism and a certain level of technology; or perhaps it's just that "pop culture" from every epoch is the most ephemeral production, and therefore, until our days, the least likely to be preserved. Anyway, I don't mean to disrail the thread - just wondering if "pop culture" really has an analogue in the distant past (though I suppose paid but essentially shallow performers and producers are pretty much a constant of city life).

I guess by 'pop culture' I am referring as much to the general entertainment/gossip/accepted norms of the day as anything else. For instance, I recall hearing that while Shakespeare was alive, and his plays were being performed at the Globe theatre in London, the most popular entertainment of the day was still bear-baiting. The bear-baiting I would thus count as part of the 'pop culture' of that day, but would likely also throw Shakespeare's plays into the mix. Whatever makes up the secular distraction mosaic of the day for the common man, would, under this definition, be considered part of the 'pop culture'.

That effectively blurs any distinction between various forms of culture, and so makes the "pop" prefix rather unnecessary.

That effectively blurs any distinction between various forms of culture, and so makes the "pop" prefix rather unnecessary.

I used the example of the bear-baiting/Shakespeare because the common man participated in both. The pit at the Globe was filled with 'groundlings', common folk who paid a penny to participate in otherwise high-brow Shakespearean plays. It was a 'popular' distraction for all classes.

Thus I'm not sure if I am guilty of superfluousness or imprecision (or both), but if we use this as a general idea of pop culture...

Popular culture (commonly known as pop culture) is the totality of ideas, perspectives, attitudes, memes,[1] images and other phenomena that are deemed preferred per an informal consensus within the mainstream of a given culture, specifically Western culture of the early to mid 20th century and the emerging global mainstream of the late 20th to 21st century. Heavily influenced by mass media, this collection of ideas permeates the everyday lives of the society. By contrast, folklore refers to the cultural mainstream of more local or pre-industrial societies.

...then I guess I'm off. But the concept still stands. Christ lived as a Jew, that much is true, but followed the Law as it should be followed, not following it as a Pharisaical Jew. Thus I think an argument can still be made for Christ living outside of Jewish culture on several levels - and that was His own culture, never mind Roman or Greek. We simply don't see Him 'in the trenches' of secular society - He was above that, and went into the World to redeem and witness, not to hang out.

For instance, though we never see Christ eating 'unclean' animals, we see a vision to Peter that made it clear that this element of Jewish culture was not necessary. Thus I would say we can tie this to Christ being outside of the prevailing culture even on this level. He ate with Zaccheus, who had just climbed a tree whose fruit was fed to pigs, and was thus ceremonially unclean (and was a tax collector anyway). Were he living as per the accepted culture of his day, he would not have done so. These are just a couple of aspects of the argument (among others), but I think that we can safely say that He divorced Himself from the prevailing culture.

Originally Posted by Kiffin

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Should we be comfortable (not to mention take pleasure) in a setting
• Where the philosophy, and thus the lyrics, of the artists use God and our Redeemer’s name as a swear word
• where the world-view of the artists and fans is opposed to God and His law
• where fornication, adultery, drug abuse are celebrated
• where the God ordained standards of family, selfless love, and self control are notoriously absent
• where women are degraded as objects for throw away pleasures

But once again, this only represents a segment of "rock music."

My brief descriptives are, as a rule, intrinsic to Rock as a genre. There can be exceptions. But it is of the very nature of exceptions to stand out from the general rule.

After reading the thread on legalism and gaining a better understanding of it, I am convinced there should not be any charges of legalism being laid in this thread when many of us express our views against pop culture and rock music. It's never about binding anyone's conscience, but rather honouring God in the best way that we understand scriptures command us to. Ultimately, it's a doctrinal issue with regards to the application of biblical separation and there's little agreement between the two sides on how exactly biblical separation from the world ought to take place.

Here's an idea, let’s not only avoid rock concerts, let’s not listen to any music unless it is K-Love, let’s not read any literature unless it is the Bible, let’s not watch any films unless it is Fireproof, let’s not watch any television unless it is Gospel-cartoons, let’s not play any games unless it is Bible trivia, let’s not drink anything unless it is unfermented, let’s not chew or smoke anything unless it is nicotine free, let’s not eat anything unless it is healthy…on second thought, let’s just live in monasteries.

The whole issue is really quite simple. If it is going to bother your conscience to attend a rock concert, then don’t go, but do not start binding the consciences of others (who do not share the same convictions) with man made boundaries. Should we encourage others Christians to be careful and discerning and reflective when working through these types of issues? Of course. Do many Christians haphazardly approach these issues and abuse their freedom as Christians? Of course. But that doesn’t mean we can begin declaring law where God has not. Love God and do as you please.

In Christ,
Brady

Originally Posted by BradyC

Here's an idea, let’s not only avoid rock concerts, let’s not listen to any music unless it is K-Love, let’s not read any literature unless it is the Bible, let’s not watch any films unless it is Fireproof, let’s not watch any television unless it is Gospel-cartoons, let’s not play any games unless it is Bible trivia, let’s not drink anything unless it is unfermented, let’s not chew or smoke anything unless it is nicotine free, let’s not eat anything unless it is healthy…on second thought, let’s just live in monasteries.

The whole issue is really quite simple. If it is going to bother your conscience to attend a rock concert, then don’t go, but do not start binding the consciences of others (who do not share the same convictions) with man made boundaries. Should we encourage others Christians to be careful and discerning and reflective when working through these types of issues? Of course. Do many Christians haphazardly approach these issues and abuse their freedom as Christians? Of course. But that doesn’t mean we can begin declaring law where God has not. Love God and do as you please.

In Christ,
Brady

Brady,
Brother I must say that such a response is indicative of a naiveté in regards to both one's own heart as well as the responsibility of the body of Christ to one another.

Love God and do as you please !?!

Proverbs 28:26 26 He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, But whoever walks wisely will be delivered.

And what of the imperatives in the NT telling Christians to help one another in the way of holiness?

Hebrews 10:23-25 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.

Romans 15:14 Now I myself am confident concerning you, my brethren, that you also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.

Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

Hebrews 3:13 but exhort one another daily, while it is called "Today," lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

Brady,
Brother I must say that such a response is indicative of a naiveté in regards to both one's own heart as well as the responsibility of the body of Christ to one another.

I am sorry that you feel my response is naïve. I assure you I know the nature of my own heart’s wickedness and the specific areas that are difficult for me, hence the reason I create boundaries for myself as well. However, I do not force them on other believers who do not struggle with those temptations. My responsibility to the body of Christ is to help them grow in holiness which may include helping others set certain boundaries in areas where they are weak…however my responsibility is not to dictate what is law and what is not.

Love God and do as you please !?!

Proverbs 28:26 26 He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, But whoever walks wisely will be delivered.

I am not sure exactly what you are inferring from Augustine’s statement, but by your bolding his statement, excessive use of exclamation marks and proof-texting a verse, I surmise it is something negative.

And what of the imperatives in the NT telling Christians to help one another in the way of holiness?

Hebrews 10:23-25 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.

Romans 15:14 Now I myself am confident concerning you, my brethren, that you also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.

Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

Hebrews 3:13 but exhort one another daily, while it is called "Today," lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

Bob, I am glad that you are pursuing personal holiness, and that you are creating boundaries for yourself and are sensitive to those boundaries. If they are helping you grow in the knowledge of the Lord and keeping you from temptation than I am grateful and would encourage you to keep doing so. However, just realize that not everyone shares the same convictions over these matters.

Originally Posted by BradyC

Here's an idea, let’s not only avoid rock concerts, let’s not listen to any music unless it is K-Love, let’s not read any literature unless it is the Bible, let’s not watch any films unless it is Fireproof, let’s not watch any television unless it is Gospel-cartoons, let’s not play any games unless it is Bible trivia, let’s not drink anything unless it is unfermented, let’s not chew or smoke anything unless it is nicotine free, let’s not eat anything unless it is healthy…on second thought, let’s just live in monasteries.

The whole issue is really quite simple. If it is going to bother your conscience to attend a rock concert, then don’t go, but do not start binding the consciences of others (who do not share the same convictions) with man made boundaries. Should we encourage others Christians to be careful and discerning and reflective when working through these types of issues? Of course. Do many Christians haphazardly approach these issues and abuse their freedom as Christians? Of course. But that doesn’t mean we can begin declaring law where God has not. Love God and do as you please.

In Christ,
Brady

Brady, perhaps you would like to take a closer look at the responses first. This is a caricature of our position.

Bob and Jason,

I'm afraid I find myself if agreement with Brady. He hit the nail on the head, and I've yet to hear a persuasive rebuttal to his remarks. In reply to Bob's comments:

(1) I don't deny that the lyrics and lifestyle of many rock-n-roll musicians is sub-biblical and, therefore, not commendable. However, the lyrics and lifestyle of many Christian artists who employ the rock genre are biblical and commendable. Consequently, to censure unqualifiedly the rock genre as "worldly" is a genetic fallacy and betrays a tenuous "guilt by association" argument.

(2) Even if one grants that the lyrics and lifestyle of much rock-n-roll music is sub- or anti-Christian, that doesn't necessitate complete isolation. A strong case could be made that the vast majority of TV shows and movies are sub- or anti-biblical (indeed, one might legitimately argue that TV has ruined more lives than music), but I rarely hear Reformed pastors demanding that their congregations jettison their TV sets in order to practice "biblical separation." Biblical discernment, not isolationism, is what's needed.

(3) Weaker brothers may, because of a scrupulous conscience or because of the lack of spiritual maturity, need to avoid certain activities that would become stumbling blocks to them. Accordingly, they are free to formulate "personal standards," which may be provisional and circumstantial. But to universalize one's personal standards in order to bind the consciences of all other believers violates biblical principle and is a form of legalism and man-made religion.

(4) I once worshiped at the idol of Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, and Van Halen. I how see these bands for what they are. I reject much of the philosophy behind their lyrics. But the doctrine of the imago Dei and common grace has helped me appreciate the musical talent in secular bands. Consequently, I now can enjoy the music of Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and even Jimmy Hendrix much like I enjoy what's commendable in Star Wars while rejecting what's anti-Christian. I don't buy into the the sinful philosophy of these rock bands anymore than I endorse "the force." But I think I'm mature enough to separate the chaff from the wheat. If you guys feel you lack that maturity, then by all means play it safe and refrain. But don't erect your extra-biblical fence in your neighbor's backyard. Before his Master he will stand or fall.

Cordially,

Here's an idea, let’s not only avoid rock concerts, let’s not listen to any music unless it is K-Love, let’s not read any literature unless it is the Bible, let’s not watch any films unless it is Fireproof, let’s not watch any television unless it is Gospel-cartoons, let’s not play any games unless it is Bible trivia, let’s not drink anything unless it is unfermented, let’s not chew or smoke anything unless it is nicotine free, let’s not eat anything unless it is healthy…on second thought, let’s just live in monasteries.

That's not it at all. Living in a monastery prevents you from fulfilling the great commission. As a community of believers, no one is advocating that. But give me Christ, not culture. Show me where Christ partook of the culture in a purely recreational way. Can you? I don't think it's there. We go into the World to witness, not to hang out. Whether you like to admit it or not, your interaction with the World in terms of the music/TV/movies you partake of leave you "spotted", a la James 1:27. Yes, it is just a little at a time, you probably don't even notice it. But in doing so, you are likely standing in the slippery places, though you do not know it. Such a position needs only your own weight to bring you down. Think well on it, and accept this advice not as binding your conscience to control you, but to warn you in brotherly love; that's all it is. Those who take up the opposite position to you are not trying to put you on a diet of Mournful Oatmeal (Calvinism in a Box) and take all fun from your life. No, we've instead seen the devil and want you to know that he's right behind the next song/film and he will take you down if you aren't careful.

We weaker brothers must be waded through on your way to the misty mountain top. It might serve to stop to listen every once in a while, though...

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Bob and Jason,

I'm afraid I find myself if agreement with Brady. He hit the nail on the head, and I've yet to hear a persuasive rebuttal to his remarks. In reply to Bob's comments:

(1) I don't deny that the lyrics and lifestyle of many rock-n-roll musicians is sub-biblical and, therefore, not commendable. However, the lyrics and lifestyle of many Christian artists who employ the rock genre are biblical and commendable. Consequently, to censure unqualifiedly the rock genre as "worldly" is a genetic fallacy and betrays a tenuous "guilt by association" argument.

(2) Even if one grants that the lyrics and lifestyle of much rock-n-roll music is sub- or anti-Christian, that doesn't necessitate complete isolation. A strong case could be made that the vast majority of TV shows and movies are sub- or anti-biblical (indeed, one might legitimately argue that TV has ruined more lives than music), but I rarely hear Reformed pastors demanding that their congregations jettison their TV sets in order to practice "biblical separation." Biblical discernment, not isolationism, is what's needed.

(3) Weaker brothers may, because of a scrupulous conscience or because of the lack of spiritual maturity, need to avoid certain activities that would become stumbling blocks to them. Accordingly, they are free to formulate "personal standards," which may be provisional and circumstantial. But to universalize one's personal standards in order to bind the consciences of all other believers violates biblical principle and is a form of legalism and man-made religion.

(4) I once worshiped at the idol of Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, and Van Halen. I how see these bands for what they are. I reject much of the philosophy behind their lyrics. But the doctrine of the imago Dei and common grace has helped me appreciate the musical talent in secular bands. Consequently, I now can enjoy the music of Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and even Jimmy Hendrix much like I enjoy what's commendable in Star Wars while rejecting what's anti-Christian. I don't buy into the the sinful philosophy of these rock bands anymore than I endorse "the force." But I think I'm mature enough to separate the chaff from the wheat. If you guys feel you lack that maturity, then by all means play it safe and refrain. But don't erect your extra-biblical fence in your neighbor's backyard. Before his Master he will stand or fall.

Cordially,

Hi Dr Bob,

We are all presenting the same arguments over and over again and what you've added is pretty much also similar. Biblical separation as defined by one side is condemned by the other as legalism, conscience-binding and man-made laws, while the biblical separation advocated by the other side is deemed by the former to be dangerous and carnal. The Puritans are not infallible, but I do think that they have it more right than many others in their battles for holiness. Perhaps we should rest our respective cases in this thread and let the hearers be prayerfully convicted of what the truth is by themselves.

Originally Posted by jayce475

Perhaps we should rest our respective cases in this thread and let the hearers be prayerfully convicted of what the truth is by themselves.

I agree

This thread has gone the way of all things.