Ccm Being Used By Temple Baptist Church Powell, Tn (Pastor Clarence Sexton)

[mkrishna]

Can you prove any of this through Scripture?? especially in the NT?? you do realize it is basically the IFB which holds the KJVO position, right??

so are you saying that only God is working through the IFB only?

No. I believe God is working through churches who may have a different name but hold to similar standards as the IFB.

[swathdiver]

Can you prove any of this through Scripture?? especially in the NT?? you do realize it is basically the IFB which holds the KJVO position, right??

so are you saying that only God is working through the IFB only?

 

I doubt it:

 

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Corinthians 2:14

 

Noah was the only one who believed a flood was coming.  Yes, most "Christians" haven't a clue about the origins of their Egyptian bibles and that includes their rock-n-roll pastor. 

 

So, this is pretty clearly not JUSt separation of heart, but of body, as well. And this is where we must consider influences, fruits and fellowship of the things we do. This includes, yes, alcohol, tobbacco, music, etc. Even Bible versions.

 

In the accounts I gave in an earlier post, we see that the Lord gave very specifically THINGS from which to separate, again, to teach us how to discern good from evil, and holy from profane. This way, now that we are under grace, not law, and have liberty, not bondage, we should hearken back to the lessons learned in those times to seek how to best discern what is neither edifying, nor expedient, even though lawful. Because we CAN do it doesn't mean we SHOULD.

 

The associations of rock music and its children, as well as predecessors, like Jazz and Blues, even country, have wicked associations, a wicked history and wicked fruits. It has been associated with loose morals, violence, rebellion, it is anti-authority, anti-God, pro-drugs, pro-drunkenness, pro-occultism, etc.

 

So, why would we want to associate anything of God with such wicked roots? How can we have communion between light and darkness, an accord between Christ and Belial? CCM is just that. Not that every song is bad in and of itself, but the general style, the overall intention to sound and look like the secular music and performers. It seeks to conform to the world, rather to be transformed by the Spirit of God.

 

 

Amen! Amen! Amen Brother Mike!      

[Ukulelemike]

Can you prove any of this through Scripture?? especially in the NT?? you do realize it is basically the IFB which holds the KJVO position, right??

so are you saying that only God is working through the IFB only?

PLease define, "KJVO", Jeffrey. You Do know there is more than one KJVO positions, right?

 

And no, God doesn't only work through IFB churches-remember, the Lord even used a dumb ass, (quote) to speak to a disobedient prophet, used a great fish for another one, and Jesus told the Pharisees that if the people of Jerusalem held their peace, the stones themselves would cry out. So the Lord can use about what He chooses. However, that doesn't mean we should be seeking God's truth and direction from asses, fish OR stones.

[dtill359]

Some of the newer hymns which came out in the late 1800s into the early 1900s were denounced as being too worldly, too emotional, not fit for church and outright improper; yet those hymns are today in our hymnals and the "conservatives" and "fundamentalists" accept and sing them even though their predecessors denounced them.

 

Similar arguments occurred way back when hymns first began being used in some churches. The "old guard" denounced them as being worldly and declared only biblical psalms were proper for Christians. We know how that fight went also.

 

CCM has only been around for about a half-century and already most churches which once opposed this now embrace such. Even among IFBs CCM is now being used in many churches; and listened to by many IFBs outside of church.

 

As Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun.

It's interesting how we are not as imaginative as we might think; as you quoted from Solomon, "There is no new thing under the sun."

 

This issue that you mentioned above reminds me of the account of Lot when he first moved his family to the plains of Jordan. While living in that area was not inherently sinful, he made the choice to go there without consulting God, and it eventually lead him to Sodom - and ultimately to the loss and moral and spiritual perversion of his family.

 

Men can and do often overreact to things. I'm not saying our predecessors were wrong for accepting all the music they did, but neither am I saying they were right. There were undoubtedly many reactionaries that shied away from "new music" in the 18 and 1900's because they were suspicious of anything that was new. Being cautious is nothing to scoff at - as I'm sure you realize - but neither is examining and accepting that which is truly of God.

 

I would say the same of the ones you've referred to as the "old guard." I have no doubt that there were a good amount of reactionaries involved there as well and again, I'm not saying that they were wrong to accept all the music they did, but neither am I saying they were right.

 

The same applies to today. There are many reactionaries who are simply "reacting" to CCM because it is "new." They don't have any other reason for opposing it other than that it is "new." That is a faulty base premise for rejecting something - which you obviously understand.

 

My point is that music's "newness" or "oldness" is not a relevant reason for using or not using it - in the church, or in our personal lives. The age of the music does come in to play when understanding the historical influences of the period the writer(s) lived in, but it is not a sound method for final-decision-making.

 

Simply because music has been accepted "for years," or is "traditionally appropriate," doesn't validate its use. Yes, our predecessors may have accepted a song one hundred, two hundred, twenty, or two years ago... and if they used their own judgement to accept it, they may have been wrong. The true test for music is to be God's Word, not man's:

 

I Thessalonians 5:21: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

Romans 12:1-2: "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.  And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

 

thank you for clarifying

i guess my point is what is Godly music look/sound like? does it comedown to personal conviction? taste? as compared to worldly.

I know I have been somewhat of a rebel here on this board, but my questions here are sincere. Im in noway a musician and don't understand music theory.

You're welcome.

 

Well, fortunately for the vast portion of Christians, you don't have to be a "musician" to understand what Godly music is - you don't even have to know anything about music theory. If we really want to know the truth about what God wants, He will guide us to that truth:

 

John 16: 13: "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."

 

II Peter 1:2-4: "Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."

 

I think the best way I know of to explain what God-honouring music "looks" like is to take you back to the basic definition of music - the one I've set forth: "An expression of the inner man."

 

As you know, no man can please God in and of himself - it's against his nature.

 

Jeremiah 17:9-10: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings."

 

Genesis 8:21: "And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done."

 

Romans 3:9-11: "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

 

When a person is "saved" the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in him and that person receives a "new nature" - his inner man is changed.

 

Colossians 3:8-10 (really the rest of the chapter, but I'll not post the whole thing for sake of space): "But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

 

That new nature manifests itself in many ways:

 

Galatians 5:22-23: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."

 

James 3:17-18: "But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace."

 

Romans 12:1-2 (and the rest of chapter 12): "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

 

The inner man houses our beliefs - about God, life, ourselves, everything really. When a man's view/belief of God is skewed, the way he expresses his inner man will naturally reflect that problem - rather like having a crooked foundation for a building.

 

So, to answer your question, Godly music is produced by an inner man that knows God and seeks to follow and obey Him the way God instructs him to in His Word. How is that seen by a layman? By looking at the beliefs and life/lives of the one(s) whose inner man/men produced the music.

 

Matthew 7:15-23: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

[Jeffrey]

No. I believe God is working through churches who may have a different name but hold to similar standards as the IFB.

.
So you think "standards are important"? How concerned was Jesus with standards? And what is more important? Standards or The Gospel?

[Ukulelemike]

.
So you think "standards are important"? How concerned was Jesus with standards? And what is more important? Standards or The Gospel?

Actually, Jesus was about the law, because He was born under the law. However, I'm sure you might find Him a bit hard on things, since He said that just to look on a woman to lust after her was to be guilty of adultery in their heart. Why, THAT wasn't even in the law! He went well beyond that which was written in His expectations of His people. The Law said it was alright to avenge yourself, but Jesus said you weren't to do so. David prayed for the destruction of his enemies but Jesus said to love your enemies. So, in your thinking., Jesus was overly legalistic in expecting people to live well beyond that which was written, to seek the spirit rather than the letter.

[Jeffrey]

PLease define, "KJVO", Jeffrey. You Do know there is more than one KJVO positions, right?
 

I do, When I say KJVO, that the KJVO is the only bible
Meant for the English speaking people, a other translations are currpupt!
Are
You a fan of Peter Ruckman?

[Salyan]

Ruckman is one KJVO position - and an extreme one. There're others who might call themselves KJVO, but are really more TR only (like me), who might just consider that any version based off the TR and translated in an acceptable fashion (i.e. no dynamic equivalency, etc.) would be acceptable, but that the KJV is probably the best translation of that family (being the most recent and culminate of all previous TR-English translations). I tend to avoid the KJVO reference to avoid connection with Ruckman, but there are others on here who would repudiate Ruckman's stance but still call themselves KJVO - so you see the need for clarification.

[Jeffrey]

Actually, Jesus was about the law, because He was born under the law. However, I'm sure you might find Him a bit hard on things, since He said that just to look on a woman to lust after her was to be guilty of adultery in their heart. Why, THAT wasn't even in the law! He went well beyond that which was written in His expectations of His people. The Law said it was alright to avenge yourself, but Jesus said you weren't to do so. David prayed for the destruction of his enemies but Jesus said to love your enemies. So, in your thinking., Jesus was overly legalistic in expecting people to live well beyond that which was written, to seek the spirit rather than the letter.

Wow, Jesus was hard on things? He fulfilled the law, called out a bunch of religious hypocrites (for burdening the people with extra laws, who showed little mercy, looking for perfection who also denied the the very Lord because the kept the law)
Then He was scacrificed for us on a cross, bled for the remission of my sins, rose three days later for my justification!
Doesn't seem to hard on things for me !!
Let me ask you, who did He have a bigger problem with sinners who came to Him? Or the religious crowd of the day who knew the law inside out?

[DaveW]

Wow, Jesus was hard on things? He fulfilled the law, called out a bunch of religious hypocrites (for burdening the people with extra laws, who showed little mercy, looking for perfection who also denied the the very Lord because the kept the law)
Then He was scacrificed for us on a cross, bled for the remission of my sins, rose three days later for my justification!
Doesn't seem to hard on things for me !!
Let me ask you, who did He have a bigger problem with sinners who came to Him? Or the religious crowd of the day who knew the law inside out?

That is a leading question Jeff.

Your question inherently carries the assumption that Jesus was harsher on one group of people than the other, which is just not true.
He spoke as was necessary to whomever He had the opportunity, in the best way to reveal their need of the Saviour.

There are examples of "harsh" speech to both Pharisees (and scribes and Saducees by the way) and "harsh" speech to blatant sinners, just as there was gentle speech to both groups.

[Ukulelemike]

I do, When I say KJVO, that the KJVO is the only bible
Meant for the English speaking people, a other translations are currpupt!
Are
You a fan of Peter Ruckman?

I disagree with Ruckman's version of KJVO. I believe the KJV is preserved by God and is inerrent because of that. Ruckman, on the other hand, believes the KJV is an re-inspiration of the scriptures that can actually correct the originals, (if they existed any more), and that if one wants the true word, they must learn to read it in the English. I don't hold to that. But I DO believe, no, I KNOW the other versions are corrupted, and are from a completely different set of manuscripts than the KJV and all the previous English and hundreds of earlier and later translations in other languages, some dating to before the Alexandrian texts were written, which are the texts behind Westcott's and Hort's corrupted Revised Greek Text, which were used for the modern versions.

 

So, different manuscripts, saying different things, thus, they can't be the same. Hence, corrupt.

[John81]

I had to do some driving today so I found a Christian station that plays CCM on the radio so I could find out what that music sounds like these days. From what I heard today it sure doesn't sound like the worldly music I used to listen to. Every song I heard was clearly Christian and none of them made me think of any secular music.

 

No doubt since CCM is such a large umbrella there are some CCM songs out there that would be unacceptable, but they apparently don't play those on the radio, or at least the radio station I heard.

 

Something happened to the Bluegrass Gospel station I used to listen to. The only other Bluegrass Gospel station anywhere nearby doesn't come in unless I'm driving south. Most of the time I'm driving east or west so that doesn't help me much.

 

The Old Time Southern Gospel station no longer comes in around here.

 

I don't care for a lot of the newer Southern Gospel as they seem to have followed a similar path secular country music (was Country & Western when I was a child) has followed, making it closer to a pop or rock style at times.

 

Anyway, just thought I would share that. I turned the radio off for the drive home. It's nice to have some quiet time to think, praise and pray.

[Jeffrey]

That's right.  And some dude who reads Egyptian bibles, brinks booze, gets tattoos, etc. is someone me, my family and congregation will separate from if they don't get right with the Lord.

Is 19:23 In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians. 24 In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: 25 whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.

[Jeffrey]

That is a leading question Jeff.

Your question inherently carries the assumption that Jesus was harsher on one group of people than the other, which is just not true.
He spoke as was necessary to whomever He had the opportunity, in the best way to reveal their need of the Saviour. He chased out the money changers, I agree. but what i am looking for was when did Jesus get into it with people other than the Pharisees and yes scribes and saducees?

There are examples of "harsh" speech to both Pharisees (and scribes and Saducees by the way) and "harsh" speech to blatant sinners, just as there was gentle speech to both groups.

[Jeffrey]

So, different manuscripts, saying different things, thus, they can't be the same. Hence, corrupt.

I have come to understand that what makes a text currupt would be spelling errors, translation errors and so forth, so since all translation had some mistakes to it, the all had some corrupt issues of some sort