Majesty Music And Getty

[DaveW]

Well I wasn't trying to hide anything if that's what you're trying to say. On your profile, on the right hand side, there's a link that says "Display Name History". Mine's clearly there. And it's "wish2bflying", not "winegrowing".

I figured it was obvious who I was when I continued the topic, especially considering all the previous posts under wish2bflying changed to Micha-el. I can see I assumed too much. When you first register, it uses whatever name you give it initially until you fill in your profile and choose what you want to put in there. When I did that, and put in the avatar graphic (eagle, flying ... get it?), it didn't occur to me to notify everyone. I figured anyone who cared that much could check my profile and look at the "display name history".

Sorry if that was confusing you. No shenanigans were deliberately entered into.

I don'tgo looking at people's profiles, on my phone, the names of the posts have not changed even yet.
The "winegrowing" is an autocorrect issue on the phone.
I unreservedly apologise - it appeared to me "micha-el" was a new poster - the only reason I linked the two names was because of the similarity of attitude.
It was not until that post that I saw you were one and the same.

[John81]

Since the subject has greatly changed, does that mean folks have come to the conclusion that some Getty music is fine if played in accord with the style of music they prefer?

[swathdiver]

Since the subject has greatly changed, does that mean folks have come to the conclusion that some Getty music is fine if played in accord with the style of music they prefer?

 

If they believe that they are in error, ignoring the command to separate from false teachers.

[John81]

If they believe that they are in error, ignoring the command to separate from false teachers.

These are songwriters and singers, not preachers.

 

If we are going to call songwriters and singers "teachers" and declare that if they hold to any beliefs we don't, they are false teachers we must separate from, then we need to rip out many pages of our hymnals for they are filled with songs written by Calvinists, Arminians, Universalists, Unitarians, etc.

 

If that's going to be our standard, and we apply it consistently, fine. Otherwise, something is wrong.

[swathdiver]

These are songwriters and singers, not preachers.

 

If we are going to call songwriters and singers "teachers" and declare that if they hold to any beliefs we don't, they are false teachers we must separate from, then we need to rip out many pages of our hymnals for they are filled with songs written by Calvinists, Arminians, Universalists, Unitarians, etc.

 

If that's going to be our standard, and we apply it consistently, fine. Otherwise, something is wrong.

 

John, you're applying man's reasoning and thoughts on the subject.  Stick with God's Word and stay away, quit listening to, these infidels.

[John81]

John, you're applying man's reasoning and thoughts on the subject.  Stick with God's Word and stay away, quit listening to, these infidels.

I have absolutely no idea what you are meaning here since I asked you for clarification, I didn't put forth anyones reasoning.

 

I also stated that if you were declaring what I asked about to be the standard, I would think such would be fine if it were applied consistently across the board.

 

One consistent standard is the main point we have been discussing and this has thus far remained elusive. Therefore, if what you suggest would be adopted as the one consistent standard for all music then that would be at least a step in the right direction. Is that what you are proposing?

[swathdiver]

Apply the doctrine of separation to these false teachers or entertainers as some call them.  We are called to reprove, rebuke, mark and avoid.  

[John81]

Apply the doctrine of separation to these false teachers or entertainers as some call them.  We are called to reprove, rebuke, mark and avoid.  

In another thread we seemed to come to the conclusion that a false teacher is one who teaches a false Gospel. Not all writers or singers of these songs, past or present, teach a false Gospel. However, contemporary hymn writers and past hymn writers often share much in common with regards to their lives and biblical viewpoints.

[swathdiver]

I don't know much about the dead ones John but I gather this; that today's writers are ashamed of God and Christ because they do not stand up for Him or renounce sin in their presence.  The keep quiet to keep the paychecks coming and are repulsed by the thought of the world not liking them anymore, or worse yet, labeling them an extremist, fundamentalist, etc.  The majority of the old hymn writers I gather did not think that way.  How would Calvin or Luther compare to 10th Avenue North or Amy Grant?  I believe they'd be appalled with each other.

[John81]

I don't know much about the dead ones John but I gather this; that today's writers are ashamed of God and Christ because they do not stand up for Him or renounce sin in their presence.  The keep quiet to keep the paychecks coming and are repulsed by the thought of the world not liking them anymore, or worse yet, labeling them an extremist, fundamentalist, etc.  The majority of the old hymn writers I gather did not think that way.  How would Calvin or Luther compare to 10th Avenue North or Amy Grant?  I believe they'd be appalled with each other.

I believe it was Fanny Crosby that also wrote secular music, some of which was used in berlesque shows. She also was very close with universalists or unitarians and espoused some unbiblical views.

 

Wesley believed in infant baptism. If anything is a false gospel, it's telling someone that having a baby batpised means they are saved.

 

I don't know much about all that's lumped together as CCM today. I've tried looking stuff up on some of them online and I've found writings and interviews for some and some of them have a clear, biblical testimony of salvation and the present the biblical Gospel. Beyond that, it seems as with the rest of Christianity in general, they run the track with regards to denominations and various views on differing matters outside of salvation.

 

In any event, the point being, that either we establish one consistent standard for all music, past, present and future, or we have no real standard. Right now, we have no real standard.

 

The music battle has gone on for centuries. For hundreds of years only Psalms from Scripture were accepted in churches. There was huge division when some started accepting contemporary hymns. When Moodly and Sanky were going about with their music the conservative churches objected to the "worldliness" of the music and hymns. Today most of them are accepted.

 

Only during the time when only Psalms were accepted in the churches has there been little trouble with regards to music in the churches. From the time of the acceptance of contemporary hymns onward there have been battles over what songs are or aren't acceptable, battles over what (if any) musical instruments are accepted or not (the piano and organ were once both declared to be of the world and unacceptable for church).

 

The battles over music today are a continuation of this hundreds of years battle. The music we have in our churches today, a couple hundred years ago the churches would have condemned most or all of it as too worldly.

[DaveW]

I don't know much about the dead ones John but I gather this; that today's writers are ashamed of God and Christ because they do not stand up for Him or renounce sin in their presence. The keep quiet to keep the paychecks coming and are repulsed by the thought of the world not liking them anymore, or worse yet, labeling them an extremist, fundamentalist, etc. The majority of the old hymn writers I gather did not think that way. How would Calvin or Luther compare to 10th Avenue North or Amy Grant? I believe they'd be appalled with each other.

You have to be very careful when making sweeping generalisations like this.

[swathdiver]

 Right now, we have no real standard.

 

Who's we?  I, my family, my church and close church families share the same standards generally.  I've mentioned them here before, many agree but you never do, always saying there's no standard when it's you who does not seem to want one.  Go ahead and have the last word here too; it seems you and I will never agree in this life about Godly music.

 

 

You have to be very careful when making sweeping generalisations like this.

 

Yes Preacher, one does have to be careful.

[John81]

Who's we?  I, my family, my church and close church families share the same standards generally.  I've mentioned them here before, many agree but you never do, always saying there's no standard when it's you who does not seem to want one.  Go ahead and have the last word here too; it seems you and I will never agree in this life about Godly music.

 

 

 

Yes Preacher, one does have to be careful.

"We" is referring to IFB, Baptists or Christians in general. There is no set, consistent standard among them. Even if we narrow it down to just IFB, the standards for music can vary greatly from one IFB church to another.

 

As Jerry and some others have pointed out, each church is indpendent and should set standards of music for their own church. The problem comes in when one church denounces or attacks other churches who hold to different standards. Then we end up with one church trying to impose their standards upon someone elses church. Many go along with this.

 

My point is, either we need to tend to our own churches on this matter and involve ourselves in what other churches are doing, or if we think all churches should be in agreement on music, we need to come up with one consistent standard for all of us.

 

As you say, you and your family, as well as your church have your standards for music, as does mine, as does others. Are we going to accept that some will be more similar than others while some will be different and not launch attacks at one another over this, or do we think we need to get together and work out one consistent set of standards for us all to go by?

[swathdiver]

Are we going to accept that some will be more similar than others while some will be different and not launch attacks at one another over this, or do we think we need to get together and work out one consistent set of standards for us all to go by?

 

The consistent set of standards already exists in the Bible, John.

[John81]

The consistent set of standards already exists in the Bible, John.

Please post them specifically because thus far millions of Christians over the centuries have been unable to come to this conclusion. This is why one Baptist church has an organ, another only uses piano, the next uses both, another down the street allows accoustic guitars, the next also allows electric guitars, yet another sometimes uses drums, there's one that has a band, another with a full orchestra, and yet a few that don't use instruments. Each of these site Scripture for why they are biblically correct and others are wrong.

 

The same holds true for the songs used themselves. A few still hold to singing psalms only, some use one set of hymns, another a different set of hymns, those use this hymnal and they use a different hymnal, some use selected newer songs to their own music, some use selected newer songs with its original music, some use a lot of newer songs, some use any newer song, some Baptist churches reject certain song writers music while other Baptist churches accept them, etc. Each sites Scripture to show why they are right and others are wrong.

 

What verses specifically say what musical instruments are and aren't acceptable in church? What verses specifically say what music styles are and are not acceptable? What verses specifically put forth the qualifications for an acceptable song writer? What verses define the area of preference?