Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Why Not Stick With The Original Melody? Huh?


heartstrings

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I haven't read all the posts in pertaining to the topic of the OP.  However, I got the jist that this is about CCM.  Sadly, where I live, we do not get gospel music on the radio much at all.  The big Christian station, promotes CCM, although they do play some gospel from time to time, especially on Sunday morning, when we are headed to church.   The second Christian station is all talk radio.  They do have programs like "Focus on the Family" and "Moody Bible" though.  Most of the talk is by women, as well.  What has happened to the men?  Although, Dr. Erwin Lutzer preaches from time to time.  Three years ago, I got excited b/c an IFB friend in my area, told me about a new Christian station.  I took down the name, but sadly to my surprise, it was a Catholic station.  I specifically heard them play the Gregorian Chant.  :scratchchin: The station had turned Catholic in a matter of a week.  So, what do I do besides listen to gospel music on DVD?  I have an IPhone now, but don't know how to use many of the features yet.  Downloading some gospel music would be nice.  Any other suggestions suggestions?  BTW, I do have an old hymn's music book, from my church, at home.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I haven't read all the posts in pertaining to the topic of the OP.  However, I got the jist that this is about CCM.  Sadly, where I live, we do not get gospel music on the radio much at all.  The big Christian station, promotes CCM, although they do play some gospel from time to time, especially on Sunday morning, when we are headed to church.   The second Christian station is all talk radio.  They do have programs like "Focus on the Family" and "Moody Bible" though.  Most of the talk is by women, as well.  What has happened to the men?  Although, Dr. Erwin Lutzer preaches from time to time.  Three years ago, I got excited b/c an IFB friend in my area, told me about a new Christian station.  I took down the name, but sadly to my surprise, it was a Catholic station.  I specifically heard them play the Gregorian Chant.  :scratchchin: The station had turned Catholic in a matter of a week.  So, what do I do besides listen to gospel music on DVD?  I have an IPhone now, but don't know how to use many of the features yet.  Downloading some gospel music would be nice.  Any other suggestions suggestions?  BTW, I do have an old hymn's music book, from my church, at home.  

 

We have the same problem with Christian radio were we live.

 

When there's something good to listen to on one of the so called Christian stations, I will listen, if not off goes the radio.

 

Generally on our short drive to church on Sunday morning we listen to a local Baptist pastor on a local station. I like most of what he says, the one thing I do not care for he seems stuck on bringing up his salvation experience. Nothing wrong with that except that he brings it up way to often, & I feel sure like me, everyone in that church has it memorized by now. The Sunday's he does not mention it, he is pretty good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I know first-hand the power of music.  I grew up surrounding myself with music.  I loved it all...from hard rock, rap, to country.  I lived and breathed music for many years.  After being saved music was not one of the first things I was convicted about.

 

I now only listen to hymns and spiritual songs nothing counterfeit.  Satan always has a counterfeit for everything of God.

 

Ephesians 5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; 

 

I have learned music is very powerful.  Some would say it is clearly quite possible satan was  beautiful, covered in precious stones, and a musical angel with tabrets and pipes.  That he even seduced Eve in a musical way to sin in the Garden of Eden.

 

  

Ezekiel 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 

 

Music does matter in living separated for Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

 

 

As for separation, does it mean one specific style of dress? I don't think so-it did for the Jews, but I see nothing of it in the New Testament. Does it mean not to celebrate certain holidays? Well, maybe, maybe not-the Bible DOES say that one holds one day above another, while some hold al days the same, but I think the context there is concerning Jewish holydays and perhaps the Sabbath-can we expand it to so-called Christia holidays? While I obviously hold a pretty specific opinion personally, I have yet to call anyone wrong and wicked if they do. and if I have come across as such, I apologize. Many IFB's celebrate them-I have chosen not to, for the reasons I have given.

 

I DO believe a woman should wear her hair long, as God gave her her long hair as a covering. I believe a separated Christian should be modest in dress and attitude, and should be separated from worldliness, or if you will, a mindset that follows after the fads and fashions of the culture, be it in music, dress, hair, etc, simply because it is all driven by the world and their thinking. This is why I am against CCM, because it IS driven, not by God, but by the secular styles of music-why should we follow them around, copying their styles and fads?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am not convinced that the woman's hair is the covering. Rather, I believe it was given for a covering.

Big difference.

Notice Paul's exhortation...

For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Now, if her hair were the covering, Paul's statement would make no sense. Notice what happens if we change "covered" to "hair":

For if the woman be hairless, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have hair.

If she have no hair, let her be shorn? Really?

For this reason, I cannot agree that the hair itself was the covering Paul was speaking of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

 

It seems clear, short hair for men, long hair for women, is God's wishes. Her long hair is her glory, & if its short, she has not that glory.

 

1Co 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

 

Short hair is a shame on a woman, so let her be covered by having a head full of hair. How do we know its a shame, read 1 Corinthians 11:15, its her glory, she had not that glory if she keeps cutting off her hair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Separation from the world doesn't mean to refrain from earthly activity.  It means to raise our consciousness to oneness with God unlike the world.  So why can't God use CCM to reach someone?  

 

God won't use evil to reach someone.  He'll use Holy means.  The scriptures teach that we're to separate from the likes of CCM because of their false doctrines, wrong associations, the words and the sounds.

 

Now that is the nonjudgmental, loving a way a Christian should respond to another Christian.  Thank you John81.

 

We're not supposed be non-judgemental Ma'am.  How else can we reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering without judging?

 

I'm living proof that one can be saved and follow Christ using a MV. I was saved and used the NIV for the first couple years of my Christian life. Don't get me wrong, I believe the King James Bible is the only Bible without any errors in English. That being said the MV versions do still contain the gospel.

 

The Lord saved me without a bible.  Then I wasted a couple of years with an NIV, those MVs certainly stunt the growth of a Christian and deceive many others, never allowing them to really know Christ as Lord and Savior.

 

Some, including Pentecostals, Freewill Baptists and the  "Limited Atonement" folks, present another Jesus with a King James Bible, But this topic is about turning a good old hymn into CCM.

 

It's wrong to turn a hymn into a rock song.  Ever hear of Elvis or some secular band do it?  If you haven't, don't, it sounds awful and reeks of rebellion and evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

God won't use evil to reach someone.  He'll use Holy means.  The scriptures teach that we're to separate from the likes of CCM because of their false doctrines, wrong associations, the words and the sounds.

 

 

We're not supposed be non-judgemental Ma'am.  How else can we reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering without judging?

 

 

The Lord saved me without a bible.  Then I wasted a couple of years with an NIV, those MVs certainly stunt the growth of a Christian and deceive many others, never allowing them to really know Christ as Lord and Savior.

 

 

It's wrong to turn a hymn into a rock song.  Ever hear of Elvis or some secular band do it?  If you haven't, don't, it sounds awful and reeks of rebellion and evil.

If your first point is true then we best rip many hymns out of our hymnals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Her hair being her glory, I can agree with. Her hair a covering, I cannot for the reason stated above. If she have no hair, let her be shorn or shaven.

What are they going to shave if she has no hair?

The point being, a woman is not covered if her hair is worn short like a man's, not if she has NO hair. You're throwing in a assumption here.

 

A man, when his hair is short, ie, obviously not long like a woman's, is uncovered. He still has hair, it is just a proper length. If a woman wears her hair in that style, she is considered uncovered as well, like the man. If she is to be such, it's a shame to her, and so let her be seen then completely shaven or shorn, ie, a bit of stubble, that her shame might be fully known.

 

Now, please understand when I say this, that I am not trying to pick a fight, not to insult you, but you accuse people of ignoring the plain context and scripture and of reading into it what isn't there, (as in tithing, wherein I agree with you). In this case, it is what you are doing: the subject here is a covering-should women be covered, and Paul says the woman's long hair is a glory to her because it is given her for a covering. How can it be any plainer? Then entire context of the covering speaks all about hair and proper length, never once about a piece of cloth on a woman's head. Men have invented that about this. And while it was probably exactly what the disciples were seeking clarification about, Paul tells them plainly that a woman who is adorned with the covering that God gave her: her long hair, then she is appropriately covered.

 

A man with long, woman-like hair is shameful, because he is covered like a woman, and as such, is not fit to either pray nor prophecy/preach. When his hair is long, like a woman, he is showing himself to be as one under the authority of a man, as a husband. It's shameful. But when a WOMAN has long hair, she is showing her subjection to God's directed order: Father, Son, Husband, Wife. While covered, ie, having long hair, she is appropriately prepared to both preach, (no, not pastor, but as in giving the gospel or speaking the things of God as Priscilla did), and pray. If her hair is short, like a man's she is not fit to do anything for the Lord-its shameful.  

 

I did some certain amount of study on this very subject. and found, historically, that during this particular time this subject was in the current examination of the world and the churches. Women, particularly in Roman centers, like Corinth, were leaving behind the head scarves and cloths, and were instead adorning themselves with often complicated and ornate hair styles. Sometimes these could take 8 hours to build, and the women would literally sleep upright, or on special neck pedestals to keep from ruining their hair for weeks on end. In fact, Paul deals with this issue of the crazy, ornate hair styles, by speaking about the plaiting of hair and such as being immodest.   So, since, in the world, women were leaving behind the cloth covering or veils, the church at Corinth apparently asked about it, (1Cor 7:1 seems to indicate that Paul was going to begin addressing some questions from them), and this was Paul's answer to the particular question of whether or not female believers should could leave behind the covering as well. Pauls answer was clear: if women wear their hair long as God gave her, then she IS properly covered. I imagine this is the very covering the Lord gave Eve in the garden-she probably didn't have to wear a banana leaf on her head to be covered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The point being, a woman is not covered if her hair is worn short like a man's, not if she has NO hair. You're throwing in a assumption here.

 

A man, when his hair is short, ie, obviously not long like a woman's, is uncovered. He still has hair, it is just a proper length. If a woman wears her hair in that style, she is considered uncovered as well, like the man. If she is to be such, it's a shame to her, and so let her be seen then completely shaven or shorn, ie, a bit of stubble, that her shame might be fully known.

 

Now, please understand when I say this, that I am not trying to pick a fight, not to insult you, but you accuse people of ignoring the plain context and scripture and of reading into it what isn't there, (as in tithing, wherein I agree with you). In this case, it is what you are doing: the subject here is a covering-should women be covered, and Paul says the woman's long hair is a glory to her because it is given her for a covering. How can it be any plainer? Then entire context of the covering speaks all about hair and proper length, never once about a piece of cloth on a woman's head. Men have invented that about this. And while it was probably exactly what the disciples were seeking clarification about, Paul tells them plainly that a woman who is adorned with the covering that God gave her: her long hair, then she is appropriately covered.

 

A man with long, woman-like hair is shameful, because he is covered like a woman, and as such, is not fit to either pray nor prophecy/preach. When his hair is long, like a woman, he is showing himself to be as one under the authority of a man, as a husband. It's shameful. But when a WOMAN has long hair, she is showing her subjection to God's directed order: Father, Son, Husband, Wife. While covered, ie, having long hair, she is appropriately prepared to both preach, (no, not pastor, but as in giving the gospel or speaking the things of God as Priscilla did), and pray. If her hair is short, like a man's she is not fit to do anything for the Lord-its shameful.  

 

I did some certain amount of study on this very subject. and found, historically, that during this particular time this subject was in the current examination of the world and the churches. Women, particularly in Roman centers, like Corinth, were leaving behind the head scarves and cloths, and were instead adorning themselves with often complicated and ornate hair styles. Sometimes these could take 8 hours to build, and the women would literally sleep upright, or on special neck pedestals to keep from ruining their hair for weeks on end. In fact, Paul deals with this issue of the crazy, ornate hair styles, by speaking about the plaiting of hair and such as being immodest.   So, since, in the world, women were leaving behind the cloth covering or veils, the church at Corinth apparently asked about it, (1Cor 7:1 seems to indicate that Paul was going to begin addressing some questions from them), and this was Paul's answer to the particular question of whether or not female believers should could leave behind the covering as well. Pauls answer was clear: if women wear their hair long as God gave her, then she IS properly covered. I imagine this is the very covering the Lord gave Eve in the garden-she probably didn't have to wear a banana leaf on her head to be covered.

Does this mean many of our women, including many pastor's wives, in our IFB churches are in violation of Scripture because they have short hair and they wear no covering on their heads in church?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Aren't you throwing in an assumption when you say no covering meant short hair, or little covering?

Paul did not say, if her hair be short. He said "If she have NO COVERING. No covering does not mean little covering. It means no

covering at all..

The word "uncovered" in verse five is translated from the Greek "akatakaluptos." The word does not mean hair, it means "veil," or "covering."

Likewise, in verse 15' the word "covering" is translated from the Greek "peribolaion," it means, "mantle," "veil," "covering," "vesture." "Peribolaion" is speaking of a type of garment, specifically, a hair covering. TheGreek word used for covering in verse 15 is found only one other time in the Bible... in relation to a garment! Hebrews 1:12. The context reveals the it is speaking of a garment.

The woman was to have her hair covered when she prayed or prophesied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...