Thread: The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness

So then you aren't against rap or a hip hop style of music as long as it doesn't serve to alleviate human misery? I agree. The same applies for classical, country, or any other kind.

Originally Posted by TeachingTulip

Originally Posted by AThornquist

Originally Posted by TeachingTulip

Friend,
The "style" of the music causes dependency.
This reality must acknowledged amongst modern man.
Music acts as a drug to multitudes.
And a "drug" is the practice of witchcraft, which is idolatry, if not worse.

I ask this sincerely: do you have any studies or proof to show that the style of a rap song causes more dependency than classical music or another style? Also, would not this music be acceptable then in moderation, much like alcohol? This is where it primarily sounds like legalism. Why condemn it all when only too much is wrong?

I do not condemn music. I condemn human dependance upon music.

Anything, apart from the Word of God, that acts to alleviate human misery, will in the end prove to be false and therefore, a practice of idolatry.

Amen. Wouldn't you say that those who consider hiphop and rock "noise", are dependent on their type of music. That even when the gospel is being faithfully preached, in this type of music they will reject it because of its rythm. Are they also not being dependent on their music?

John Kennedy provides a 19th century conservative Calvinist perspective on the Moody-Sankey introduction of music to further the gospel.

In course of time, musical practicings were added to prayer meetings, as preparation for a revival! From both the addresses and the music much was expected, when evangelistic deputies arrived. What the effect would have been, had the awakened expectancy been left to be operated on by the stated ministrations of the sanctuary, or by extraordinary efforts that introduced no departure from the usual mode of worship, no one can tell; but I cannot refrain from expressing my persuasion, that the result would have been a healthier one than that which new appliances developed. (Hyper-Evangelism: Another Gospel, though a Mighty Power.)

These additions but help to excite a state of feeling which militates against, instead of aiding, that which is produced by the word. An organ may make an impression, but what is it but such as may be made more thoroughly at the opera? It may help to regulate the singing, but does God require this improvement? And whence arises the taste for it? It cannot be from the desire to make the praise more fervent and spiritual, for it only tends to take attention away from the heart, whose melody the Lord requires. It is the craving for pleasurable aesthetics, for the gratification of mere carnal feeling, that desires the thrill of organ sounds, to touch pleasingly the heart that yields no response to what is spiritual. If the argument against the use of the organ, in the service of praise, is good, it is at least equally so against its use in the service of preaching. If anything did "vanish away," it surely is the use of all such accessories in connection with the exhibition of Christ to men. (Ibid.)

I would like to clarify that I am not trying to justify the use of music for the furtherance of the Gospel (nor have I argued for such). I believe in the "Ordinary Means of Grace" alone serve that purpose, as God has intended. I'm simply trying to make the point that a group of musical notes arranged in a certain style/manner cannot be condemned as universally sinful for all people without exception. To imply that certain music is inherently "immoral" is without biblical warrant. As far as I'm concerned the Christian music I listen to is understood by me the same why I understand human composed hymns. They're for my enjoyment and meditation, and that's it.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Originally Posted by louis_jp

Well he says that the musical "forms" are drug-induced, going back to his point that this form of music was created out of the counter-culture.

So then, I guess anytime we have a new musical form of expression introduced should we consider it naturally sinful?

The core issue is dependance.

Much of modern music is reflective of drug, moral, sexual, emotional, spiritual dependance.

IOW's music is a highly addictive drug upon which multitudes are hooked.

The church should be ready and willing to deal with this addiction, while refusing such dependancy within their midst.

The new Calvinists constantly extol the Puritans, but they do not want to worship or live as they did.

I haven't met anyone who lives like the Puritans did.

We learn that when a secular rapper named Curtis Allen was converted, his new-born Christian instinct led him to give up his past life and his singing style. But Pastor Joshua Harris evidently persuaded him not to, so that he could sing for the Lord. New Calvinists do not hesitate to override the instinctual Christian conscience, counselling people to become friends of the world.

How is rap in and of itself worldly? Where is his Scriptural support?

They have no problem with contemporary charismatic-ethos worship, including extreme, heavy-metal forms.

I would have to agree that heavy metal (and I even like secular heavy metal music) doesn't belong in worship as it's not understandable/singable to all ppl and can create disorganization/confusion. But he cannot exclude contemporary music just bc it's contemporary. If it's solid, biblical doctrine they are singing, then he has no Scriptural support for excluding it (and I don't like contemporary Christian music really but it has nothing to do with what I like).

4. They hold anti-fourth-commandment views, taking a low view of the Lord’s Day, and so inflicting another blow at a consecrated lifestyle.

I agree this is a problem.

Has this form of Calvinism come to Britain yet? Alas, yes; one only has to look at the ‘blogs’ of some younger reformed pastors who put themselves forward as mentors and advisers of others. When you look at their ‘favourite films’, and ‘favourite music’ you find them unashamedly naming the leading groups, tracks and entertainment of debased culture, and it is clear that the world is still in their hearts. Years ago, such brethren would not have been baptised until they were clear of the world, but now you can go to seminary, no questions asked, and take up a pastorate, with unfought and unsurrendered idols in the throne room of your life. What hope is there for churches that have under-shepherds whose loyalties are so divided and distorted?

So he apparently doesn't like secular music this sounds charismatic to me. If the music doesn't have anything in it breaking God's laws, then making a law against it is a man-made law. Making man-made laws is placing one's self in the position of God....it's legalism. Legalism helps self-righteous ppl to live up to a standard that they think is holy bc they can't live up to God's. One should concentrate on obeying the laws He has set forth instead of making up laws. Obviously, I'm not stating that secular music should be in worship.

I like calm, frozen-chosen, hymnal singing myself, but I cannot tell another person that energetic, biblical singing is morally wrong in the worship service. The path of truth is narrow... go off too far in one direction you stray from RPW....go off too far in the other direction you hit legalism. We should be zealous to keep ourselves and our worship free from sin but also free from person preferences.

Originally Posted by Joshua

I'm simply trying to make the point that a group of musical notes arranged in a certain style/manner cannot be condemned as universally sinful for all people without exception.

I agree, Joshua; but at the point the arranged notes are called a specific genre which reflects a specific culture there are moral associations which cannot be divorced from the music.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Joshua

I'm simply trying to make the point that a group of musical notes arranged in a certain style/manner cannot be condemned as universally sinful for all people without exception.

I agree, Joshua; but at the point the arranged notes are called a specific genre which reflects a specific culture there are moral associations which cannot be divorced from the music.

So you believe it's the person who is able to associate a certain genre of music with sin that makes it sinful? So is this what you are saying?.... person A has a history of sinful living which incorporated a certain genre of music and person B doesn't. Person B can use that same genre of music for worship but person A could not. This is a very isolated example as there would never be a group of only person A or person B....I only use it for example to understand what you are saying.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Joshua

I'm simply trying to make the point that a group of musical notes arranged in a certain style/manner cannot be condemned as universally sinful for all people without exception.

I agree, Joshua; but at the point the arranged notes are called a specific genre which reflects a specific culture there are moral associations which cannot be divorced from the music.

Can the same be said for alcohol? There are obvious moral associations which cannot be divorced from alcohol (which is why we "drink but do not get drunk").

Originally Posted by OPC'n

So you believe it's the person who is able to associate a certain genre of music with sin that makes it sinful? So is this what you are saying?.... person A has a history of sinful living which incorporated a certain genre of music and person B doesn't. Person B can use that same genre of music for worship but person A could not. This is a very isolated example as there would never be a group of only person A or person B....I only use it for example to understand what you are saying.

I don't think it has anything to do with individuals; hence persons A and B are irrelevant to the discussion.

2 Timothy 3:2-5 says, "For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." If this is the culture out of which specific genres of music have arisen then Christians should turn away from such music and not endorse these cultural forms. Take just one example -- "disobedient to parents." Specific musical styles have been marked as encouraging individual expression and showing disrespect to authority. Such a style in and of itself preaches immorality and should be rejected by those who are seeking to adorn the gospel of God their Saviour.

Originally Posted by AThornquist

Can the same be said for alcohol? There are obvious moral associations which cannot be divorced from alcohol (which is why we "drink but do not get drunk").

I am already on record as advocating a cultural abstinence position.

I see. Thank you.

Originally Posted by AThornquist

Can the same be said for alcohol? There are obvious moral associations which cannot be divorced from alcohol (which is why we "drink but do not get drunk").

I am aware I am not being paid much attention to . . .so I will repeat:

The core issue being discussed is dependance.

Music is not unlawful and alcohol is not unlawful. The problem is when people become dependant upon either, in order to function and be happy.

Many people depend daily upon music filling their consciousness, and many people depend upon drugs and/or alcohol to fill their consciousness, and many people are addicted to sex to fill their conscious hours of every day.

Are these dependancies to be allowed to affect church worship?

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Joshua

I'm simply trying to make the point that a group of musical notes arranged in a certain style/manner cannot be condemned as universally sinful for all people without exception.

I agree, Joshua; but at the point the arranged notes are called a specific genre which reflects a specific culture there are moral associations which cannot be divorced from the music.

Respectfully considered, Friend. Thank You.

Admin Note:

I'm shutting this thread down in approximately 5 minutes. I believe its life expectancy has drawn to a close.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by OPC'n

So you believe it's the person who is able to associate a certain genre of music with sin that makes it sinful? So is this what you are saying?.... person A has a history of sinful living which incorporated a certain genre of music and person B doesn't. Person B can use that same genre of music for worship but person A could not. This is a very isolated example as there would never be a group of only person A or person B....I only use it for example to understand what you are saying.

I don't think it has anything to do with individuals; hence persons A and B are irrelevant to the discussion.

2 Timothy 3:2-5 says, "For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." If this is the culture out of which specific genres of music have arisen then Christians should turn away from such music and not endorse these cultural forms. Take just one example -- "disobedient to parents." Specific musical styles have been marked as encouraging individual expression and showing disrespect to authority. Such a style in and of itself preaches immorality and should be rejected by those who are seeking to adorn the gospel of God their Saviour.

Then my example of person A and person B would apply bc that's not what I get from even secular music. Growing up I was taught that secular music had hidden messages luring kids to do satanic acts etc. I wasn't taught that it promoted "disobedience to parents" so I don't have that associate with secular music whereas you do. So again it's subjective. It sounds like what you're saying is that music is bad based off of personal sinful experience and not on the actual sinfulness of the music i.e. the lyrics actually promoting disobedience to parents. There are songs which are sinful but it's the words which make them so. A beat or tone isn't sinful whereas words can be.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by AThornquist

Can the same be said for alcohol? There are obvious moral associations which cannot be divorced from alcohol (which is why we "drink but do not get drunk").

I am already on record as advocating a cultural abstinence position.

Brother I find your consistency honorable. I do not currently hold to the cultural abstinence position and I am often very flustered by the inconsistency amongst those who hold said position.

Originally Posted by TeachingTulip

Originally Posted by AThornquist

Can the same be said for alcohol? There are obvious moral associations which cannot be divorced from alcohol (which is why we "drink but do not get drunk").

I am aware I am not being paid much attention to . . .so I will repeat:

The core issue being discussed is dependance.

Music is not unlawful and alcohol is not unlawful. The problem is when people become dependant upon either, in order to function and be happy.

Many people depend daily upon music filling their consciousness, and many people depend upon drugs and/or alcohol to fill their consciousness, and many people are addicted to sex to fill their conscious hours of every day.

Are these dependancies to be allowed into or to dictate modern church worship?

Thank you. Although let me assure you that I have read your posts and I agree with you. I truly enjoy Christian rap and am greatly edified by it. However, I would be very uncomfortable about another person listening to Christian rap "just because" they were dependent on that style of music, and I don't think dependencies should dictate worship in any sense. My question you quoted was directed to Mr. Winzer in particular because his argumentation (a cultural abstinence position) is not necessarily what you are advocating here, if I am understanding you correctly. I apologize that you felt ignored.

All, when a Moderator or an Admin makes a decision to close a thread or otherwise moderate it, please don't take it personally (unless said Mod or Admin makes a personal statement about). The place to discuss Admin or Mod decisions is *NOT* in the thread. Just because an Admin or Mod closes a thread doesn't mean that someone has done something wrong. Thank you. Good night.