Theology Questions

Once I've studied music (after nationals) I'll let you know what I come up with. And I would like to make something clear. I do not listen to that music because to me that is sin...but to others it isn't. The music may not be bad but it is something I don't listen to.

I wasn't talking to you, Carissa. I was talking to Dani. I know you don't say that it's sinful; just unpleasant.

Oh, okay. See…I wasn't sure who you were talking to cause you didn't reply to anyone in particular.

What does everyone think about reggae? Some people say it's bad… for some or no reason.

Can you please give me some examples?

Okay…I listened to it. I wouldn't say it's bad.

Good.

As I think I have said before, the people who wrote rap/rock/etc. said they wrote it to affect people in a bad way.

@Carissa: I don't mind percussion in some places, and I did like the music from Facing the Giants. I did not care for the usage of the percussion in the movie, but that is my opinion. The thing is, I have been in churches where the drums are heavily miked, and it is chaotic and in fact frightening!

Okay.

"The people who wrote rap/rock/etc. said they wrote it to affect people in a bad way."

As Sam has been saying, the original intent of something does not have to effect the way we use that thing. He put forth the example of colleges; their original intent was to be institutions of learning, and helps in spiritual growth. The great majority of colleges today, however, have strayed far from their original intent. They are now places for young people to participate in "unchaperoned fun". Would you say that since their original intent was good, they are still good? Of course not.

It is the same with rock/rap music. Though the original intent of those styles of music were wrong, we can turn them around to be glorifying to God. Many have done this very thing. I think you should look up some Christian rap artists and read the lyrics to some of their songs; you will likely be amazed at how God-glorifying they are. I would not throw those songs away simply because the style of music which they employ was originally created for sinful purposes.

No thing is sinful in itself; anything can be turned to be glorifying to man or glorifying to God.

Replied to OCTSRIS's comment, you have not.

Prove to me from Scripture that rock, rap, disco, etc. are sinful, and I'll never listen to them again.

I'd like to hear your answer.

@SBG~ Dude, you said everything I was trying to say, just a whole lot better!

No thing is sinful in itself? Maybe music isn't sinful in itself, but it isn't in itself. The things we are talking about here, are created by people. Before it was created, it wasn't sinful, because it was not. I agree with you I think, in that no thing -in itself- is sinful. But as far as I can think, every thing HAS been turned to be glorifying to man or glorifying to God.

That's why we need to evaluate each song (and this is not only applicable to songs!) to see whether it is good.

Some things (using that term 'thing' to mean more than objects, but also ideas, and styles and attitudes) are amoral, with no definite right or wrong to them they are adiaphorous, and are only dictated by a person's conscience and the Holy Spirit as to what is sin or not.
Other things, especially I think the attitudes etc., are not subject to interpretation and have definite moral polarization.
Something that was created sinfully, and is used only for sinful purposes is sinful, however our sovereign God, is not hampered by that and can use sinful things to effect his own purposes.
I doubt that you would say, for example, that a pornographic magazine would be called anything but sinful, while God has the ability to use man's sin to his glory it does not change its nature.

Can you give me an example of anything (besides rap/rock) that was intended for bad but is now used for good?

The beat in rap and rock is made to be exactly the same as the beat used in Satanic cults. There was a 12 hour PBS show made about rock music, and they spent and hour interviewing the drummers. Those guys had gone to those cults, and learned their beats, so that they could copy them.

Also, what are we telling non-believers? Are we just the same as them?

You can't hear the words in these songs- in guides to writing rock music, the words come last. The order that they write the songs in was this: rhythm, harmony, melody, and then the lyrics. What happened to making melody in heart to the Lord? It's nearly the last priority! In traditional music, you write the words first, then the melody, then harmony, and then, at the very last, the rhythm.

Can you give me an example of anything (besides rap/rock) that was intended for bad but is now used for good?

Comic books. The Internet. Drums. Card games.

The beat in rap and rock is made to be exactly the same as the beat used in Satanic cults. There was a 12 hour PBS show made about rock music, and they spent and hour interviewing the drummers. Those guys had gone to those cults, and learned their beats, so that they could copy them.

So? <blockquote? Also, what are we telling non-believers? Are we just the same as them?

I use the Internet and read comics too. Heck, I even play card games with friends! Am I then a bad example?

You can't hear the words in these songs-

I must be gifted with super-hearing then!

in guides to writing rock music, the words come last. The order that they write the songs in was this: rhythm, harmony, melody, and then the lyrics. What happened to making melody in heart to the Lord? It's nearly the last priority! In traditional music, you write the words first, then the melody, then harmony, and then, at the very last, the rhythm.

So, all music that honors the LORD has to follow that tradition? Psalm 150: 4b-5 "Praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe. Praise Him with loud cymbals; Praise Him with resounding cymbals." Hm.....sounds a bit similar to guitars, and the cymbals on a drum set. Wouldn't you agree?

Comic books. The Internet. Drums. Card games.

Do we use them in the same way? Do we look at the things that they would be looking at? I would say most comic books are not good, and we as Christians should be very discerning as to how we use them. Same with the internet, drums, and card games. They can be used for good, but there is a very, very fine line.

So?

Should we worship God with things used to worship Satan? Really?

I use the Internet and read comics too. Heck, I even play card games with friends! Am I then a bad example?

Again, how do we do this? And would you use those songs as an evangelical tool? A man who has been preaching about music for 20+ years has gone to many highschools about the subject of music. In every school, he asked if anyone had given those records to their non-believing friends. No one raised their hand. Only once, afterwards, a girl came up and told him, "I did give one to my friend once. The next day, she came and gave it back and said, 'This it the most hypocritical stuff I have ever heard.'" What are we telling them? (I'm not even going to talk about language)

I must be gifted with super-hearing then!

I guess so, because I certainly can't understand the words!

So, all music that honors the LORD has to follow that tradition?

Why should we change a tradition that's thousands of years old? That tradition was made by God! Why should we want to use something made by men instead? Besides, you are not making melody with that tradition. Rap has done away with melody completely!

Psalm 150: 4b-5 "Praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe. Praise Him with loud cymbals; Praise Him with resounding cymbals." Hm.....sounds a bit similar to guitars, and the cymbals on a drum set. Wouldn't you agree?

'Stringed instruments and pipe' sounds more like orchestra music to me! As for the cymbals, they don't have to be the most prominent things in the music. They come after the instruments! I like cymbals. Cymbals have a neat sound. But he wasn't talking about drums. They're completely different than cymbals. And why do we have to change the instruments that have been used for a long while, and put electricity in them? Why do we have to change their beautiful sound to something that sounds fake? And, above all, "We know that an idol is nothing" (1 Corinthians 8:4) But you 'eat the meat sacrificed to idols' in your own home. You don't take it to corporate worship, 'Lest it become a stumbling block to those who are weak' (1 Corinthians 8:9) God said, "When you go into your land which the Lord your God is giving you, do not look at how they worship their gods, and say, 'We will worship Jehovah this way.'" (I can't remember the reference to this one and our Bible search machine isn't working :P)

This is mainly Sam's post to answer, so I'll leave most of it for him. ;D (You're welcome in advance, by the way. :P)

Mainly, I just wanted to comment on your response to Sam's response of "So?" to the fact that rap and rock beats have been used in Satanic cults. (Umm… if that sentence made no sense, please inform me.) You said that we should not worship God with things used to worship Satan. But does that logic really work? What if Satan worshipers happened to use pianos to lead them in their worship? What if they had even invented pianos for that purpose? Would it then be wrong for us to use them to worship God? I propose that it would not, because certain things are amoral (here we come back to this discussion again! :D), and I believe musical instruments are included in that category. You cannot call a drumbeat evil simply because it is used for evil purposes, because it can also be used for good purposes. Even if it was originally formed for evil purposes, it can be turned around for good because it is not evil in itself.

So Sam, now you don't have to respond to that part of the comment if you don't want to. ;) The rest is for you. :P

I'm not saying the drums themselves are bad. I think percussion is good in some places. It's the way that the rhythm is written that is not good.

There is only one way to play drums and still glorify God, and I'm the only one who knows how to do it.

@Dani M.–Well, I'd say the same thing I said before. The way the rhythm is written is amoral; man can use it to glorify God or himself, but the rhythm is not sinful in itself.

@Noah–sigh

Thanks bro! Your input is appreciated! :)

@Dani M.~ All of what you said boils down to your opinion. That rap "does away with rhythm", or that the rhythm itself is bad, depends on your interpretation of the sounds you hear in the music. If it feels too close to the world for you to listen to it in good conscience, then don't.

@Noah~ …………………………………..

Wow! Noah was being too trollsome for even Sam! :P

He's gettin' soft in his young age.

Young age? I think he's actually older than you.

Sure don't act like it! JK how old is he?

He turns 16 in January.

@All: I've got two more questions for y'all. Here you go:

1. Could Jesus Christ have sinned? We know that He didn't but could He have even sinned?
2. In James 5 it says "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil." Does sick mean sick in the sense of physical aliment or spiritual ailment? Also does anointing with oil actually mean physically anointing someone with oil?

1. A resounding NO. James 1:13, "God cannot be tempted with evil". Titus 1:2, "God…cannot lie". Also, in 1 John 3:9, it says "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." This verse is used figuratively of Christians, meaning they must not make a practice of sinning, but I see no reason why it cannot also apply literally to the Son of God.

2. I believe this verse can and should apply to both physical and spiritual sicknesses. Too often we keep things to ourselves when others could help with the Christian's mighty weapon of prayer. As to anointing with oil, I do believe it is literal. James' tone in this part of the epistle does not seem to be figurative. Our church does anointings for baby dedications, as well as when anybody else requests it.

For the first question, the answer is easily "no". Christ was God in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16, Philippians 2:6-7), and thus it is impossible for Him to have sinned (see the verses Matthew gave). In addition, if He had committed even one sin, He could not have been the sacrifice for our sins, for a true sacrifice must be spotless.

For the second question, I think I agree with Matthew for the most part (minus the baby dedications, but that's another debate for another time… :P). I think the verse is mainly referring to physical sickness, though it could probably be applied to spiritual ailment as well; and also, I am rather certain that the "anointing with oil" should be taken literally (though I have not seen it literally applied as of yet).

My dad has done it literally…and my mom had it done to her literally :)

^^^^Ditto to what Nicolas said^^^^

OK, I won't. :/

Just so you know, Nicolas, these "baby dedications" are not baptismal services. Though I suppose they are not referenced in the Bible, we use them solely as a dedication to the Lord, like dedications for newly built churches and that sort of thing (though I think they are a lot more important, since it is a new human life. :))

I don’t really know what you guys have on the table here right now, but since no one has said anything for a while I have a question (or two). :)

1. When in the beginning do you think God created the heavens and the earth?
2. When did Lucifer rebel?

1. At the very beginning. When time began in Genesis 1:1.

2. This is a tougher one…. Based on the small amount of information the Bible gives us, most people believe it must have been sometime after the creation week but before the Fall. Obviously, he had to rebel before he came as a serpent to tempt Eve. But he probably didn't rebel during the creation week, since God called everything good throughout that whole time period.

P.S. I don't think his name was ever Lucifer. That's a mistranslation in the KJV and NKJV of a Latin word that means "Morning Star." But because the KJV was used for so long, people believed for a long time that the verse where "Lucifer" is used was meant to apply to Satan. While that may be true, the word "Lucifer" means nothing more than "morning star." It's like if we were translating the Bible from Spanish to English and we came across the name Diablo. That's the Spanish word for devil, but that doesn't mean that his name is Diablo. It just means that it's talking about the devil…. if that makes any sense. =P

So your saying Satan WAS the morning star and it wasn’t just his name?

Correct. Or at least, I think so. We know that Satan had a high place in heaven from other passages. But that one passage in Ezekiel (or is it Isaiah?) is, I believe, the only basis we have for saying he was the morning star. And even that is sketchy, since its direct intention is to be a prophecy about an earthly king. Some see it as also applying to Satan (mostly because "morning star" was translated "Lucifer," as if it were a name, for hundreds of years), but I don't think we can know that for sure.

But yes, bottom line, Satan may still be the morning star, but his name wasn't Lucifer.

Okay, after considering the name Lucifer and all I think that the name was just a description of his glory in heaven. It may or may not have been his real name. That's what I think.
Do you think his name was Satan before the fall?

We know for certain that "Lucifer" was never the devil's name. As Christian said, it is simply a Latin word that means "morning star". As for the name "Satan", I believe I can safely say that this was not his real name before the Fall. "Satan" is a Greek (Or perhaps Hebrew? I'm not sure.) word that means "accuser". The devil is called this because of his constant accusations to God against God's people; so he certainly would not have been called this before he became evil.

I don't know if we will ever know Satan's real name in this life, since all we can do is use words to describe him, in English or in other languages.

I have a kind of random question.

Now that the Bible Bee is over, I am going to try to get a grasp on the differences between Dispensational vs. Covenant theology, and which is the most Biblical approach. I have a vague idea of the general concepts, and I am pretty sure I am dispensational, but it would be nice to hear both sides of the argument. Any thoughts?

Oh my. You're asking for more than you think. xD It would take a long time to explain…. Give me a little while to think about how to present Covenantalism and I'll see if I can get back to you.

I have a question… but it can wait until Margret gets her's answered. :)

Well I think Christian is working on an answer for Margaret. So you could go ahead and ask your question :)

Okay, thanks! Do you think John the Baptist and Elijah were the same person (Matthew 11:14)? Why/why not?

I think the answer is pretty simple. :)

"And they asked him, 'What then? Are you Elijah?' He said, 'I am not.'"
–John 1:21

So you think that out ruled what Jesus said in Matt. 11:14? (I'm not trying to prove anything, just so you know)

John the Baptist was the "Elijah" who was prophesied to come as the forerunner of Jesus, but he was not the same person as the first Elijah. He resembled him in many ways, but he was not actually him. Jesus' calling him "Elijah" was only to hearken back to the prophecies about the Elijah to come which John fulfilled.

John the Baptist was the "Elijah" who was prophesied to come as the forerunner of Jesus, but he was not the same person as the first Elijah. He resembled him in many ways, but he was not actually him. Jesus' calling him "Elijah" was only to hearken back to the prophecies about the Elijah to come which John fulfilled.

Agreed!

Since all of the previous questions have been 'cleared up', I have a question. Do you all believe slavery is wrong?

No, not in all circumstances, though it can certainly be abused very easily.