The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Secular Art

I would like to hear any opinions on believers listening to secular music or any other 'secular' art forms for that matter. I myself enjoy an artists songwriting/musical abilities whether or not they are christian/secular. I do understand that the content of the material is an issue, but for the most part is there anything wrong with this?<br><br>Hopefully this makes sense, most times I think better than I speak/write. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/igiveup.gif" alt="igiveup" title="igiveup[/img]

[color:blue]I actually made a post about this very issue on a message board on another site. I do not personally think that listening to secular music or watching secular movies or TV or things like that is wrong. I have found that here recently, a lot of Christian music is fluff and unbiblical anyway. And I have found that some secular is more honest and humbling than ANY modern praise song is. At the same time though, one needs to ask themself if what they are singing lines up with what the Bible so clearly teaches. And this same discression needs to be used when it comes to Christian music as well. As for TV and other forms of "secular entertainment", I think it is up to what the Scriptures say on the matter. And if the Bible does not address it, you need to ask yourself if you should even consider doing it at all. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/groovin.gif" alt="groovin" title="groovin[/img]

I'm not sure that there is any difference between secular art and secular business or secular science or anything else secular. Christians can and do work the same range of endeavors that non-Christians do. We just do it for different reasons.<br><br>My husband is a professor and a scientist. He discovers how God does His work, and is not afraid to talk about why his discipline excites his love for God (in a secular classroom). I am a visual artist (when I'm not cleaning bathrooms and cooking meals!) Not everything I do has to be overtly Christian, or even necessarily beautiful, but my hope is that it will cause others to think and to consider certain ideas. If you're interested, I can send you a series of articles I wrote on the subject.

Greetings Thredrice,<br><br>I think I need to hear more about the way in which you classify things as secular or Christian. Is the distinction made by the content of the composition, the artist who produces it, or something else?<br><br>Sincerely in Christ,<br><br>Jason

Thought maybe the following link would be of interest.<br><br>http://www.geocities.com/nwcricket/theses/thesmain.html

I would say the content of the composition and probably the artist too. I'm speaking specifically of non-christian music and artists. For example, Michael Jackson etc. (knowwhati'msayin')[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shrug.gif" alt="shrug" title="shrug[/img]

Right on, I agree with ya. I'm not making a distinction between issues of everyday life like business or science. What I'm saying is, is there anything wrong with enjoying the songs/music of a non-believer?

While I'm on the subject...kinda...Any opinions on Christians and tattoos. I don't have any, but just wanted to throw that out there. I've heard Leviticus 19:28 in opposition to tattoos. It reads "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves, I am the Lord." NASB<br>

I think there is most definitely a distinction between the "secular" and the "profane". However, as Christians, being most surely indwelt by the Spirit who is sanctifying our minds, hearts and souls unto the most Holy God, is there a place in our lives for the "profane"? What I mean by profane are the things of this world that do not glorify God. Can all forms of the world's music be said to glorify God? If not, then what room is there in a Christian's life for such music? The same can be said for sport, all manner of art forms etc. Each must be examined under the light of Scripture from various perspectives to determine if it is acceptable before God. If not, then surely it cannot be acceptable for us! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]

Also, each art form must be examined from Scripture as to its "excellence" for the Lord God is most excellent. I am speaking now of that art which is offered for the public interest, not that which is done by an individual for personal enjoyment. Some forms or art are by nature, IMHO, wholly unacceptable for pagan or Christian. I do adhere to that old adage, "You don't have to jump into the sewer to know that it sinks!"

In regard to music, specifically, there are several very good articles which you can read in this section of The Highway here: The Doctrine of the Church

Also, Dr. Peter Masters in his series on worship has an entire chapter devoted to the discussion of "Sacred and Secular" which you can read here: Sacred and Secular

Enjoy!!

In His Grace,

Pilgrim:<br><br>How sweet it is to hear you sound such a clear call to holiness, to call us to a higher plane of thinking and living, and in that call to the echo the thoughts of the Reformers, the Puritans and the Apostle to "come out from among them and be ye sparate, sayeth the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing" and again "that whether, therefore ye eat of drink, or what ever ye do, do all to the Glory of God" (2Cor 6:17 & 1Cor 10:31).<br><br>Gerry

Hey, brother! It's in the Bible, ain't it? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]

I understand that if you play "much" of Country Music backwards your wife, dog, and trailer will come back?

Amen, brother:<br><br>But we need it in our hearts, eg: "and let the word of Christ richly dwell WITHIN you"<br>And that WITHIN is not just the mind, but the HEART.<br><br>Grace,<br><br>Gerry

Joe<br><br>Living in the Country music capital of the world, I find that hilarious!

Okay, thanks for the clarification. In short, I find nothing unbiblical about enjoying the product of an unbeliever on account of it being made by an unbeliever. The merits of each composition must stand on its own.

However, this is not to say the issue is always simplistic. While we might find some legitimate enjoyment in the product coming from an unbeliever, we also have to take into account to what degree that ought to be publicized so that both Christians and non-Christians do not get the wrong impression. I think it is easy to get polarized on this issue, thinking that one can only enjoy things that have a direct connection to "spiritual matters", or in the other direction that Christians can sanctify any garbage to God's glory by virtue of doing it as a Christian. Certainly the Scriptures direct us to meditate on whatever things are true, noble, just, pure, lovely, of good report, and anything having virtue or anything praiseworthy (Philippians 4:8). Can any of these qualities be found from time to time in the product of an unbeliever? I believe they can. Should we expect that Christians should primarily be those who yield such virtuous productions? I would hope so.

That's my $.02 [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]. Sincerely in Christ,

Jason

Gerry,

Agreed...... a second time, for I wrote:

However, as Christians, being most surely indwelt by the Spirit who is sanctifying our minds, hearts and souls unto the most Holy God.

[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/tongue.gif" alt="tongue" title="tongue[/img]

In His Grace,

[color:blue](Phi 4:8 NASB) Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.


[color:black]I totally agree Jason. I also think, too, that the reason Christians, myself included, listen to the music we do is because of the way it makes us feel or if we can relate to it. And with all the emotions and feelings that we as humans feel, many of us find that Christian music does not deal with those. And that is a problem. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/crybaby.gif" alt="crybaby" title="crybaby[/img]

Pilgrim,<br><br>How refreshing it is to hear men talk of holiness. I think of the verse, "Let this mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus." <br><br> I also read a quote by Richard Baxter this morning that restates your thoughts, on the heart, "See that your chief study be about your heart, that there God's image may be planted, and His interest advanced, and the interest of the world and the flesh subdued, and the love of every sin cast out, and love of holiness succeed; and that you content yourelves with seemingly to do good in outward acts, when you are bad yourselves,a dn strangers to the great internal duties. The first and great work of a Christian is about the heart."<br><br>In His grip,<br>Linda

Pilgrim:<br><br>I knew there was SOMETHING I liked about what you wrote [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img].<br><br>Peace, <br><br>Gerry

Let's be sure to realize that it is just as much an error to put an over emphasis upon the heart, or any part of man's elements, over another. There is no true life without the whole of man's being having been transformed in the image of the Lord Christ. If I had to choose one text from the Scriptures which teaches this necessary truth it would have to be this:

Colossians 1:9-10 (ASV) "For this cause we also, since the day we heard [it], do not cease to pray and make request for you, that ye may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, to walk worthily of the Lord unto all pleasing, bearing fruit in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;"

Let us be cautious not to bifurcate that which God has created as one. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]

In His Grace,

Pilgrim:

The point I'm trying to make is the same one that Calvin, Owen, Edwards, Philpot, Bunyan and so on make very clearly in their works. The reason that I make that point repeatedly, and will continue to do so, is that the church, and the teaching of the church, as a whole is OUT OF BALANCE on the issue, preferring to dwell on the truth in the mind and not insisting that the truth in the mind as a notion is not saving. In my opinion, this is the danger and this is not being emphasized enough in the writing and preaching of the church today.

The latest article you released on the Highway, by Pastor Coles, has an interesting reference to this problem which I quote as follows:

“I replied that I thought that I also put a strong emphasis on God’s grace as the motivation for obedience. But he responded that his wife couldn’t even relate to God’s grace — it went right by her. I was a bit taken aback, and so I said, “You mean that the many times I have spoken on God’s grace, she didn’t hear me?” He said yes, in her 20 years on Crusade staff, never once had she felt God’s grace and love on a personal level.

I thought about what he had said and asked some clarifying questions to make sure I understood him. Then I responded, “If your wife has never felt God’s love and grace, she is not converted!” I had been reading Jonathan Edwards’ classic, A Treatise on Religious Affections, in which he makes a strong biblical case that saving faith is not mere intellectual assent to the gospel, but that it affects the heart. This elder got very upset with me. But I stuck to my guns then and do so now, that if a person can sit in church for 20 years and never be moved by God’s grace and love as shown to us at the cross, then that person is not truly converted.”



This conversation is VERY REVEALING. Note how Pastor Cole stresses in his conversation that if she hasn’t FELT SOMETHING SHE ISN’T CONVERTED. Let me repeat that, IF SHE HASN’T FELT SOMETHING, SHE ISN’T CONVERTED. Notice how he says that he had "put a strong emphasis on God’s grace as the motivation for obedience". Ok, but had he ever made the point blank statement that he makes here about not being converted? I doubt it because he tells us he had to think it over in terms of what he had recently been reading from Edwards and had to "stick to his guns". Well, may be thats the problem. Maybe in expressing it as he had in those nice soft, but not too clear, words about "Gods grace as a motivation for obedience", which tend not to ruffle as many feathers as what he has finally said in private to one of his elders, maybe in so doing he had deemphasized the problem.

In other words, you can memorize large parts of the bible, and become conversant in many branches of theology and do many good works, like 20 years on staff at Campus Crusade, but still be dead in your sins. That is what I’m trying to say and because I keep saying it, you seem to think that I am out of balance in unduly stressing it. I don’t think so. I note much, much attention given, rightly so, in the conservative church, to charismatic error, but very little attention given to the errors in the conservative camp, which is this dry dead religion.

Pastor Cole makes some excellent points in his article, but in focusing on the errors of the Christian Psychology, he deflects the due error of the conservative church in contributing to the problem which is a singular focus on the mental and behavioral aspects of the assimilation of the truth.

Note how Pastor Cole, in the beginning of his article, rightly credits Edwards and Calvin with focusing him on this aspect of the teaching of the church which is neglected today, but then goes on to pin the primary focus on Christian Psychology. Didn’t he start out telling us that he was taught these errors in seminary? And doesn’t he say that he’d never read Calvin’s Institutes until he had been pastoring for years? Well, it seems pretty clear that if the emphasis had been on the Bible and Calvin and Edwards, and Philpot, and Gill and Bunyan, etc, men who taught the Bible, in the first place, perhaps it wouldn’t have taken him so long to sort all of this out.

I stress it because the church doesn’t and in fact the modern church minimizes it, I stress it because I’m trying to counter something that is out of balance, not because I’m out of balance or because the men I refer to were out of balance. Truth be known, if churches were stressing it as it ought to be stressed, there probably would be less false solutions like “Christian Psychology” running rampant today. People are looking for these things as a solution because they aren’t hearing the real solution from the pulpit. Swindol, Cloud, and Townsend are all Armenians theologically trained at DTS, where the Holy Spirit is denied, minimized, given lip service and quenched.

I was surprised to hear Pastor Cole say that he respected Swindol. Why, because he’s very intelligent and well read and because he has a huge following and has written many books and in the eyes of man he is a success? Don’t the scriptures tell us to be wary of these very things, especially if those that have them don’t teach the “faith once delivered to the saints? Is it any wonder that Swindol teaches what he does and is the kind of model he is if he “knows not the Spirit”?

Again, as Philpot, Edwards, Owen, Calvin, Bunyan and all of these men stressed in their teaching true religion starts in the Mind, Moves to the Heart, and Motivates the Feet and Hands and Lips. This is what these older preachers recognized as the missing part of the teaching of the church, it is what makes “irresistible grace” irresistible and keeps the doctrines of grace from becoming just another dry mental work of the flesh.
“The Letter kills, but the spirit gives life.”

One last thing, Pilgrim, I'm not saying you, or your position is out of balance. I don't know you well enough or your site well enough to say that. Frankly, based on what I've heard you say and the articles I've seen you post, it seems to me that you try to maintain a proper balance. What I am saying is that as I read church History, when Godly leaders saw an imbalance, or an error, they tried to address it in their preaching and their writing and I don't see the Conservative Church as a whole doing this, on the contrary, in my view they are part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

In His Grace,

Gerry

I may be young, but I see where you are coming from. I may be only slightly educated when it comes to schooling, but I know the dangers first hand of having too much head and not enough heart. The passion goes away. The zeal fades. And you end up thinking Bible study and discussing your beliefs and even fighting for the Truth as work. Affections are not something to be over-emphasised, but neither is head-knowledge. So all I gotta say is AMEN [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/clapping.gif" alt="clapping" title="clapping[/img][img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/groovin.gif" alt="groovin" title="groovin[/img][img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/videogame.gif" alt="videogame" title="videogame[/img]<br><br>[color:blue]Psalm 150:1-6 (NASB)<br>Praise the LORD! Praise God in His sanctuary; <br>Praise Him in His mighty expanse.<br>Praise Him for His mighty deeds; <br>Praise Him according to His excellent greatness.<br>Praise Him with trumpet sound; <br>Praise Him with harp and lyre.<br>Praise Him with timbrel and dancing; <br>Praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe.<br>Praise Him with loud cymbals; <br>Praise Him with resounding cymbals.<br>Let everything that has breath praise the LORD. Praise the LORD!</font color=blue><br><br><br>

Gerry,



In His Grace,

Whew![img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/yikes.gif" alt="yikes" title="yikes[/img] When I got home from work this evening and saw all the replies I thought I said something wrong [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/ohno.gif" alt="ohno" title="ohno[/img]. Thanks for everyone's comments.

[color:red]Well Stated!

Your comments here "[color:red]Wanting to stress the sovereignty of God due to the near total lack of present churches to either teach it aright or to even acknowledge it at all, some are given to preaching this one true to an extreme. In doing so the twin truth of man's responsibility is lost. 2) Making "apology" in every text that is preached which speaks of man's responsibility and constantly adding God's sovereignty to it with the purpose of "guarding" that sovereignty" ring so true. Some every-time they preach are looking for the 5 points of Calvinism in each word (a Calvinistic bush behind every tree), much less each verse. I have seen some mighty unhealthy twisting, turning, and tampering of the Holy text just because the speaker desired to relate the 1-5 points of Calvinism against Arminianism. I see this as especially true of recent converts to Calvinism as they have limited knowledge of "all" the facts. Proper balance is a MUST.

Ethics, Preaching, and Biblical Theology, by John M. Frame

Pilgrim:

Thank you for your counsel. I believe I am open to good counsel. You are correct in pointing out that I have only participated on this board for a few months, and you are clearly in a better position to judge whether or not what has been presented here since it’s inception clearly and consisting and in a truly balanced way presents the discriminating truths with the same force and rigor in the same way that these men of the past presented it.

I am sure that I have been overzealous and imperfect in my attempts to bring forward what I believe is a signal problem in the church today. I have no doubt, that being human, I will continue to err in those efforts. However, I believe that the source of our divergence of views in this matter stems from more than my error and infirmity. Perhaps you will indulge me to try and explain a little further?

I believe that the source of our divergence of views on this issue has to do, in large part, with a differing opinion of how to correct an imbalance that we both seem to agree exits. I believe that the imbalance that exists today, and has existed for some decades now, has both a qualitative and a quantitative component.

With respect to the qualitative component, I mean that the quality of the preaching and writing of the men I have mentioned from the past was much more direct, heart searching, and discriminating with respect to true and false conversions, and the full range of evidences that a person was to use to examine themselves to determine whether or not they were “in the faith”. In my view, these men did not limit the experimental part of religion to the emotional component and thus they were more willing to address clearly and directly such things as worldliness, as manifest in a love of things and money rather than God

With respect to the quantitative component, I believe if one examines the whole of their writings and their sermons one finds a balance in terms of the amount of time or words devoted to each of these three components. So, for example, it is true, that taken as a whole, these men’s teachings are examined one will find nearly equal effort expended on the mental, emotional and behavioral aspects of true religion.

Therefore, it seems logical to me, that if you agree that there is an imbalance, and you have repeatedly stated that you do, it would seem necessary, in order to bring things back into balance, to begin to stress that which has been neglected. Could this approach be “misconstrued” as a “singular focus” on the “experimental” as a “prescribed remedy”? Yes, indeed it could. In fact, I have no doubt that it will.

Let me bring the argument into sharper focus by using a specific example. By using Pastor Coles, I mean no disrespect, for, in fact, I respect his honesty and willingness to be open about his errors and the need for change and to share this with others. I admire and respect this very much and think we need more of it. My purpose, therefore, in using his church as an example is because he has graciously brought before us an example of the precise problem in both it’s quantitative and qualitative components.

For example, when I read the sermons and writings of the men you agree were more balanced I find a willingness to state clearly from the pulpit that those who have never felt the love of God to be unconverted. I find sermons that dwell on this subject and don’t simply mention it in passing. I find the subject is not couched in words that might lead the unconverted to rely on a false hope, but fully developed and clearly and unequivocally presented. Is Pastor Coles willing to do these things? Is he now willing to emphasize this area because it was so long neglected? In other words, it would seem to me that taken as a whole, his teaching and his hearers need some “imbalanced” teaching for a while in order to correct an existing imbalance.


I have gone back and read most of the letters, memoirs, histories, and sermons and writings of the authors (with the exception of Owen) I have mentioned and while it is true that taken as a whole these men taught the “whole counsel” of the Word of God, and their writings were balanced overall, there clearly were times in their ministries that they addressed an imbalance in the way I describe above. There were times when they believed that their people were “asleep” and needed an “awakening” and they set about to do that in the way I have described. And when they perceived that there was some necessary balance reestablished, then they returned to a more normal balanced approach to their preaching, as you seem to be suggesting.

I also notice that each of these men were criticized for being too experimental, for being too “enthusiastic”, that their prescribed remedy was misconstrued by the “conservative church of their day”.

So, it would seem to me that you believe the existing imbalance needs to be addressed differently than I do. I respect that. And I respectfully disagree.

Finally, not with standing what I have said above, I have gone back and reviewed all of my posts on this site and I think a fair review would find that, while I have emphasized a “heart” religion, to imply that I have not also stressed the effects of such a religion in the walk or fruit in the life would reveal a bias.
In His Grace,

Gerry

K2P:<br><br>Thank you. <br><br><br>In Him, <br><br>Gerry

Gerry,



Peace,

Pilgrim:<br><br>Thanks for your candor also. <br><br>As to Pastor Coles. I thought I made clear in my post that I was using his church as an example to make a point. It seems to me that he is in the quite capable hands of the Holy Spirit with respect to his errors, which I did not, as you state, bring forth, he did. The questions I asked about correcting those errors, as I stated, were for illustrative purposes only.<br><br>As to rest of your arguement about us not having all of the writings of any individual man. This is, of course correct, and I am aware of this, not blind to it. I have not read as much as you have, but I too have read very widely and vastly on the subjects of which I speak and do not consider myself to be a novice in these things. <br><br>I don't believe that my characterization of the ministry of the men that I have pointed to (and I purposely did not include all "of the older writers" because some of them were just as much in error as the men of this day) is inaccurate with respect to their desire to correct the deadness of the church of their day, and their approach in doing so, as I have described it, because they themselves in their writings stated it clearly and plainly, as did the editors who put together their works. See the preface to Owens' works on the Holy Spirit and Edwards and Philpots letters to friends and fellow pastors, etc. So, sorry, that arguement just doesn't wash. Would you care to address the arguement I made, and these men themselves made, in their letters and writings and their editors made directly?<br><br>As to the incredible job facing a pastor, I have nothing but the most profound respect for the position and it's difficulties and the men who have undertaken this most solemn and sacred undertaking at the calling, teaching and sending of the Holy Spirit. I have thought off and on for about 40 years whether or not I was called to the ministry and have taken some seminary training, but have come to the conclusion that I am not called to the Gospel Ministry. Having said that, I don't think it inappropriate to bring to light the needed improvement in those in the ministry and those considering it, nor do I believe that if one does so he should be considered insensitive to the demands of the office.<br><br>Respectfully, <br><br>In Him,<br><br>Gerry

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Would you care to address the arguement I made . . .</font><hr></blockquote><p>Not really at this point. But thanks for asking. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,

Therefore, it seems logical to me, that if you agree that there is an imbalance, and you have repeatedly stated that you do, it would seem necessary, in order to bring things back into balance, to begin to stress that which has been neglected.

acts2027 I have truly enjoyed this thread and the discussion of what “some” of the Puritans taught and preached. I do however take exception with the way you are viewing, that is what you believe, are the totality of the Puritans preaching/emphasis style.

When one emphasizes one area, as you state above, then the other areas will go “less” attended and be underemphasized. Though you may correct “the one area”, "later" the others then will need correcting and you will constantly be on a titter totter of attempting to explain the whole counsel of God. Thus, it is best to keep things “balanced” throughout.

Expository preaching is a balanced way of presenting the “whole counsel of God.” The preacher will emphasize what the “verses” say and not his own “personal agenda.” I believe the Scripture was written, as such, to bring us constant, balanced, doctrinal, and heart searching truths on a continual basis—thus a Scriptural balance.

Ministers preach for the “long term” if they are doing it right. As Bickel, states in his book, Light and Heat, Puritan View of the Pulpit, Preachers are charged with preaching a message already given and not creating one. The preacher is not called and sent by God to make a quick sale, but to deliver a message. In other words, they preach not to have “short term” balance, but rather “continual balance.” I like what Spurgeon, often referred to as the Puritan that was born a 100 years too late, states, make no mistake here; we shall not watch our congregations to make our cue from it, but we shall keep our eye on the infallible Word, and preach according to its instructions.

As a matter a fact Spurgeon himself addresses how we are to deal with “unbalance” in believers lives. Far from doing it from the pulpit he states,

If we should be faithful as stewards, we must not neglect any one of the family, not neglect any portion of the estate….This is to be done not only by [color:#FF0000]personal talk, but by personal prayer. We ought thus to beat the bounds of our parish, and go round and round our congregations, forgetting none, despairing of none, bearing all upon our hearts before the Lord.

I do not see the “Prince of Preaching” changing the emphasis of his sermons?

The Puritan system had three prominent features:

1. Doctrinally, Puritanism proclaimed a broad and vigorous Calvinism;

2. Experimentally, the system offered a warm and contagious devotional kind of Christianity;

3. Evangelically, it heralded a tender, aggressive, and impassioned message of substitutionary satisfaction.

Their preaching centered on:

1. A Scriptural Message—The preaching of the Puritans was a scriptural evangel. Biblical phrases are seen woven in and out of their sermons and works. The Puritans understood God to be the only One who could convince, convict, convert, and comfort the sinner through the Word. Their task as messengers was to communicate that Word by teaching and applying its whole counsel to the hearers. Preachers were to declare God’s mind and heart as set forth in the passage chosen so that the Holy Spirit, who did not work in a vacuum, would use the revealed truth to enable a lost soul to come to Christ. God’s message was their method.

2. A Doctrinal Message—Not only was the Puritan message Scriptural it was doctrinal. They articulated doctrinal principles by distinguishing things that differed. When they talked about sin, they compared it to a glorious heaven that was ruled by a holy God. One can clearly see the doctrines of the general call and the effectual call in the clucking of the chickens in John Bunyan’s, Pilgrim’s Progress.

3. A Symmetrical Message—The Puritan’s message contained the “whole counsel of God.” The Puritans were not squeamish in letting a passage say what it meant for fear of not getting a response from the audience. If the text said that salvation was difficult and a rare thing, that one must strive in one’s quest to reach God, the Puritan would let it stand as written. On the other hand, if a text said that he who believes has life, they let that passage speak in all its freeness and gospel glory. The Puritans had a beautiful symmetry in the proclamation of the gospel.

4.An Applicable Message—The Puritans always desired to insure that messages were applied “rightly.” Joseph Alleine before ever addressing what true conversion was, addressed what it was not. Alleine presently 10 marks of an unconverted man and, then to insure no one missed the point, he revealed 12 marks of an unregenerate heart (An Alarm to the Unconverted).

5. A Message of a Whole Christ to the Whole Man—The concept of Christ being preached as a prophet, priest, and king was a hallmark of the Puritan era. Therefore, one observes no attempt on the part of the Puritan divines to offer Christ as a Saviour from the penalty of sin while deliberately ignoring His claims as a sovereign and the Lord and His demands that one forsake the love and practice of sin. As Alleine states, once again, The unsound convert takes Christ in halves. He is all for the salvation of Christ, but he is not for sanctification. He is all for the privileges, but does not appropriate the person of Christ. He divides the offices and the benefits of Christ. This is an error in foundation. Of course, there is much more that could be said. I have attempted to reveal only some of their emphasis in their great preaching. I would suggest reading Bickle’s book, as he is very detailed including many of the Puritan’s own quotes on their own practices.

IMHO the emphasis of Puritan Preaching is not a point of argument, but one of the proper education.

I agree with you, and I agree with acts2027, but one question comes to my mind now, and this may just be inexpierence talking, but whatever the case may be, [color:blue]how do you go about bring a balance back when there already seems to be an imbalance?</font color=blue> [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/confused.gif" alt="confused" title="confused[/img]

That was so simple and yet so hard. Prolly why I didn't think about it. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/bingo.gif" alt="bingo" title="bingo[/img] Then again, sometimes the most obvious answers are the hardest to find.

Joe:<br><br>I've "enjoyed" it too, sort of. I wondered how long it would be before you guys ganged up on me [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]. You make some good points and I don't have time to go into all of your points right now, but I would simply remind both you and Pilgrim that neither of you have yet addressed the point I made in my last post directly and so I will restate it again here:<br><br>"I don't believe that my characterization of the ministry of the men that I have pointed to, and I purposely did not include all "of the older writers" because some of them were just as much in error as the men of this day, is inaccurate with respect to their desire to correct the deadness of the church of their day, and their approach to do so as I have described it, because they themselves in their writings stated it clearly and plainly, as did the editors who put together their works. See the preface to Owens' works on the Holy Spirit and Edwards and Philpots letters to friends and fellow pastors, etc. So, sorry, that arguement just doesn't wash. Would you care to address the arguement I made, and these men themselves made in their letters and writings and their editors made directly?"<br><br>Briefly, what you and Pilgrim seem to be saying is that you are agreeing to disagree with me, and these men, about the correct way to reinstate balance into an out of balance situation. Thats ok if you want to disagree, but lets not attribute the problem to my error or poor manner of presenting it unless you are willing to disagree with the men I have stated and their editors, because I am perfectly capable of bringing those references to the discussion given enough time. <br><br>Peace, and I love and respect you both, I just don't agree with you and I don't think the men I have cited would either.<br><br>In Him,<br><br>Gerry<br><br>

1. The truth was stated in the other post and thus I will not recant. Here I Stand (heard that one before [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img])

2. Even if what you assert is true concerning “some” of the Puritans at specific times in their ministry, it is no proof that this was the “norm” for their ministry. Additionally, by your own admission you “do not” agree with everything the Puritans wrote. Though they may be right on many/most things they are not omniscient. I see a healthy balance not only in the "experience" issue of the Puritans, but in the other areas as well.

3. The Preface to Owen’s work, The Holy Spirit has “no statements” regarding this issue? (Banner of Truth, 1998, maybe you have a different edition than I).

4. Why don't you give the Author, book, and page of specific examples you are speaking about so we may examine their context.

WILLIAM GOUGE said:

[color:blue] It is God's word that does convert, quicken, comfort, and build up, or, on the other side, wound and beat down. What is the reason that there was so great an alteration made by the ministry of Christ and his disciples, by the apostles and others after them, indeed, by Luther, and other ministers of reformed churches? They did not preach traditions of elders like the scribes; nor men's inventions like the Roman Catholics do. They preached the pure word of God. The more purely God's word is preached, the more deeply it pierces and the more kindly it works.

Lloyd-Jones said:

[color:blue]Preaching, the Puritans said, “is the exposition of the Word of God.” They even said that, in faithful preaching, God himself is preaching, and that if a man is giving a true exposition of Scripture, God is speaking because it is God’s Word, and not the word of man.

To the Puritans, explaining doctrine was not vain, academic self-indulgence, but an integral part of Biblical preaching:

This is essential in (the Puritans’) view of preaching. They were always out to find a doctrine, and doctrine is to be found in the Word. You do not impose doctrine on the Word. You do not start with doctrine and then find a text to fit it. You start with the Word and then find the doctrine in the text. You then produced reasons which justified your finding this doctrine and then you referred to other Scriptures which taught the same doctrine and confirmed the idea, the doctrine, that you claimed to discover in your text . . . They never failed to do this.

Packer states:

[color:blue]The Puritan preacher regarded himself as the mouthpiece of God and the servant of His words. He must speak ‘as the oracle of God.’ His task, therefore, was not information, fastening on to Scripture text meanings they do not bear, nor was it juxtaposition, using his text as a peg on which to hang some homily unrelated to it. The preacher’s task was precisely, exposition, extracting from his texts what God had encased within them.

The Puritan method of ‘opening’ a text was first to explain it in its context; next, to extract from the text one or more doctrinal observations embodying its substances, and then to amplify, illustrate, and conform form other Scriptures the truths thus derived; and finally, to draw out their practical implications for the hearers.

Richard Baxter, the importance of theology was based in the conviction that a proper understanding of God would allow for a proper understanding of everything else:

[color:blue]. . . it is a grand error, and of dangerous consequence in Christian academics . . . that they study the creature before the Redeemer, and set themselves to physics, and metaphysics, and mathematics, before they set themselves to theology; whereas, no man that hath not the vitals of theology, is capable of going beyond a fool in philosophy. Theology must be the foundation, and lead the way of all our studies.

Joe:<br><br>As I said, I will bring forth my references as I have time. <br><br>My point is that you may disagree with me of couse, but it would be nice not to be misrepresented in my views as erroneous, or singular, imbalanced and so. I simply have an opinion which may be different than yours and I believe I have some support for it from some of God's most distinguished servants. Of course they may have had views that differ from other truely Godly men of the faith without being wrong or imbalanced and I think we should be cautious about how we label others views on these things. <br><br>I'm not asking anyone to "recant" as if some error had been committed, I'm simply asking for a little room to have a different opinion and I believe that history will bear me out. Is that too much to ask?<br><br>Grace,<br><br>Gerry

With respect to my points on the qualitative aspects of preaching and how some of the formost of the churches saints specifically took upon them, in the course of a balanced ministry overall, to address an imbalance that existed I offer the following from Owen on the Holy Spirit Vol 3:

1.
“The work, as we may gather from various allusions in it, was written in
opposition to the rationalism of the early Socinians, especially as
represented by Crellius; to the mysticism of the Quakers, a sect which had
grown into notoriety within thirty years before the publication of this
work; and to the irreligion of a time when the derision of all true piety was
the passport to royal favor.”

The Holy Spirit by John Owen, vol 3, pg. 2, Preferatory Note, by the editor William H. Gould

Note the specific statement of opposition to “:rationalism” and “irreligion and derisioin of all true piety as a passport to royal favor”

2.
“Against such fanaticism it was
natural that a reaction should ensue, and certain divines pandered to the
blind prejudice of the times succeeding the Restoration, by sarcastic
invective against all that was evangelical in the creed of the Puritans and
vital in personal godliness. Samuel Parker, in his infamous subserviency to
the malice of the Court against dissent, and even against the common
interests of Protestantism, distinguished himself in this assault upon the
doctrines of grace and the distinctive principles of the Christian faith.”

The Holy Spirit by John Owen, vol 3, pg.2, Preferatory Note, by the editor William H. Gould

Note the specific statement dealing with certain divines antagonistic to distinctive principles of the Christian faith.

3.
“In 1678, Dr. Clagett, preacher to the Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn,
and one of his Majesty’s chaplains in ordinary, in “A Discourse
concerning the Operation of the Holy Spirit,” etc., attempted “a
confutation of some part of Dr. Owen’s work on that subject.” Mr. John
Humfrey, in his “Peaceable Disquisitions,” having animadverted on the
spirit in which Clagett had dealt with Owen, Clagett published another
volume, and promised a third on the opinions of the Fathers respecting the
points at issue. The manuscript of this last volume was lost in a fire which
consumed the house of a friend with whom it had been lodged. Henry
Stebbing published, in 1719, an abridgment of the first two volumes. The
principles of the work are not evangelical; a tone of cold pedantry
pervades it; and the author seems as much influenced by a desire to differ
from Owen as to discover the truth in regard to the points on which they
differed.”

The Holy Spirit by John Owen, vol 3, pg. 3, Preferatory Note, by the editor William H. Gould

Note the specific reference to “a tone of Cold pedantry” in the attempted refutation of Owen’s work.

4.
“The THIRD BOOK is occupied with the subject of regeneration as the
especial work of the Spirit; it is shown not to consist in baptism merely,
or external reformation, or enthusiastic raptures,”

The Holy Spirit by John Owen, vol 3, pg. 4, Preferatory Note, by the editor William H. Gould

Note the specific reference to regeneration “not to consist in baptism merely, or external reformation”

So much for the analysis of Mr. Gould, the points made by the author himself, which are in his own preface to the book, follow and are even more to the point:

1.
“For although all that diligence, in the use of
outward means, necessary to the attainment of the knowledge of any other
useful truth, be indispensably required in the pursuit of an acquaintance
with these things also, yet if, moreover, there be not an addition of
spiritual ways and means, suited in their own nature, and appointed of
God, unto the receiving of supernatural light and the understanding of the
deep things of God, our labor about them will in a great measure be but
fruitless and unprofitable: for although the letter of the Scripture and the
sense of the propositions are equally exposed to the reason of all mankind,
yet the real spiritual knowledge of the things themselves is not
communicated unto any but by the especial operation of the Holy Spirit.
Nor is any considerable degree of insight into the doctrine of the mysteries
of them attainable but by a due waiting on Him who alone giveth “the
Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of them;” for “the things
of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God,” and they to whom by him
they are revealed.”

The Holy Spirit by John Owen, vol 3, pg. 6, To The Readers, by the author, John Owen.

Owen makes this point repeatedly, stressing the futility of the rational mind apart from the work of the spirit in his preface and then makes this statement toward the end of his work concerning the aspersions cast on those who content for the operations of the Spirit of God:


2.
“The oppositions unto all that we believe and maintain herein are of two
sorts: — First, Such as consist in particular exceptions against and
objections unto each particular work of the Spirit, whether in the
communication of gifts or the operation of grace. Secondly, Such as consist
in reflections cast on the whole work ascribed unto him in general. Those
of the first sort will all of them fall under consideration in their proper
places, where we treat of those especial actings of the Spirit whereunto
they are opposed.”

“The other sort, at least the principal of them,wherewith some make the greatest noise in the world, may be here briefly spoken unto:--
The first and chief pretense of this nature is, that all those who plead for
the effectual operations of the Holy Spirit in the illumination of the minds
of men, the reparation of their natures, the sanctification of their persons,
and their endowment with spiritual gifts, are therein and thereby enemies
to reason, and impugn the use of it in religion, or at least allow it not that
place and exercise therein which is its due. Hence, some of those who are
otherwise minded affirm that it is cast on them as a reproach that they are
rational divines; although, so far as I can discern, if it be so, it is as Hierom
was beaten by an angel for being a Ciceronian (in the judgment of some),
very undeservedly. But the grounds whereon this charge should be made
good have not as yet been made to appear; neither hath it been evinced
that anything is ascribed by us unto the efficacy of God’s grace in the least
derogatory unto reason, its use, or any duty of man depending thereon.”

The Holy Spirit by John Owen, vol 3, pg. 11, To The Readers, by the author, John Owen.


Note how Owen makes the point that those who contend openly for the mandatory nature of the Operations of the spirit are labeled as enemies to reason.

I will present statements from Edwards and Philpots and Bunyans Works as time affords, since you have asked for them, suspecting that you will reject what these men have themselves clearly stated, but praying that you will consider what I say.

Respectfully,

Gerry

acts2027,<br><br>Ok, I went to the 16 volume work and took down volume #3 (originally I went and just looked at my paperback…). Your quotes are there, but…<br><br>I think I see the problem—Mis-Owenology. <br><br><ul>First, these are William Goold’s, the editor’s comments, and not Owen’s. This is merely a “brief” summary of the whole. IMHO Owen believed in preaching the whole counsel of God within the framework I laid out earlier and similarly to what Perkin's states below.<br><br>Second, and more to the point, the problem is that you are NOT looking at quotes in "context". <br><br>Lastly, when you get further into the material, you will see that Owen is addressing something far removed from what you are thinking.[/LIST] In these quotes, clearly "some" were attacking the doctrine of the Holy Spirit openly (active) and contending against the faith of the Church. He was not attempting to correct imbalanced teaching or preaching by some pastors in varied congregations (passive). Did you notice, in several of your examples, that “particular” individuals and not “entire” congregations were being addressed (consistent with how the Spurgeon quote, I posted earlier, stated it should be done)? Did you notice that parts of the work appeared posthumously (it would be kind of hard to preach this way, though some would probably improve their preaching [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img])? Did you notice that these were “not” all spoken texts, but written texts--thus they were not given in a church setting? IMHO, since these were misunderstood, out of context, they do not support your view.<br><br>If this is what you are going to offer in the way of substantive proof against what I have already (1) quoted “from” some of the Puritans themselves, and (2) quoted “about” the Puritans (of which you formally stated I made several good points, which you did not refute) then I do not see where more quotes by Edwards, Philpot, or Bunyan will matter. Thus, this would conclude the matter IMHO. <br><br>But, just so there will be no misunderstanding, the Puritans preached for the most part “rightly.” Samuel Perkins in his book, The Art of Prophesying, said there were four great principles that should guide and govern the preacher:<br><br><ul> 1. To read the text distinctly out of the canonical Scriptures.<br><br>2. To give the sense and understanding of it, being read, by the Scripture itself (the exposition “must be” Scriptural—comparing Scripture with Scripture).<br><br>3. To collect a few profitable points of doctrine out of the natural sense.<br><br>4. To apply the doctrines, rightly collected, to the life and manner of men in simple and plain speech.[/LIST] I fail to see him saying he would emphasize one part of “truth” for the sake of another. (quote, from The Puritans, Lloyd-Jones).<br><br>May God Bless,

Joe:<br><br>You're not reading my posts. <br><br>First, I specifically said that I would bring forward what these men and their editors said. I have done that and you fault me for quoting their editors rather than the men themselves.<br><br>Second, when I do quote Owen, in the second part of the same post, you don't bother to remove your hastily made criticism, you just go on to state that I am misrepresenting Owen without any substantiation of your claim. I disagree, I think I am saying exactly what he said and saying very well. I have read he whole volume and I think you are accusing me of attacking the use of reason just as Owen's statement says that his detractors were accusing him of attacking reason, when, in fact he did no such thing, but rather spoke to it's limitations without the operations of the Holy Spirit.<br><br>Third, I'm not surprised that you don't want to hear what Philpot, Edwards and Bunyan had to say on the subject because in many respects they were more outspoken than Owen.<br><br>Fourth, if you don't want to see the evidence and want to close the matter, fine, that will save me a lot of work, but I would have to wonder if you just don't want to see what makes you uncomfortable.<br><br>Fifth, by the way Joe, have you ever experienced what the older authors, some of them, described as divine enlargement? Could you describe it from your own experience and explain to a fellow believer how the Lord had blessed you with this experience as referred to in the scriptures? Philpot does in one of his sermons, do you want to know what that sermon is called and where you can find it so you can read it and then critique it like you seem to want to critique me? How about John Gill, he too spoke of this divine enlargement? Can you point to anyone today who is preaching in a "balanced way" about this issue of scripture?<br><br>In His Grace, <br><br>Gerry

[color:red] if you don't want to see the evidence and want to close the matter, fine, that will save me a lot of work, but I would have to wonder if you just don't want to see what makes you uncomfortable.

It does not make me [color:red]uncomfortable, but what you assert is [color:red]scriptural imbalance and therefore [color:red]objectionable. Pilgrim advised you earlier:

[color:blue]So, please don't take offense at my words of caution as they are only intended to preserve that biblical balance and prevent any unnecessary confusion on the part of some. There is a wide variety of individuals who read these messages and thus we must be prudent in our presentations, especially when it is a truth most needed. A pastor has a great advantage when he is preaching to his congregation for his audience is mainly one which will hear him several times per week, week after week, month after month. Thus the maintaining of that balance is much easier done than it is here.

Thus, no more posts are "desired" as you will cause confusion, as already shown in your previous posts. And yes, I have read Philpot's DIVINE ENLARGEMENT AND SPIRITUAL OBEDIENCE. And yes, there are plenty of preachers preaching the way the Puritans ascribed in my examples, but not under-valuing parts of scriptural application, so that other parts may be over-emphasized. You may desire to attend one of their churches and experience "the enlarging " of your own heart to the glory of God alone, for apparently, your heart is not yet wide enough to "fully embrace" what the majority of Puritans wrote, preached, and exampled (as demonstrated by the numerous examples and applications in previous posts).

May God Have Mercy,

Just out of curiosity Thredice did you get your original question answered satisfactorily?

Music<br><br>These are my thoughts from a previous post on the subject of music. It may or may not be helpful, but it is my two bits!

Excellent thoughts Troy. That helped out quite a bit. It's just good to hear that listening to certain types of music is not wrong, but also from some of the other comments made by others; I realize that I should not be listening to anything that would draw me away from the Savior...and I realize there are cases when I do that very thing.<br><br>I tell ya...freedom in Christ is wonderful, but it's a tightrope walk sometimes....Peace.

In reply to both of you, that is not at all what I was trying to say in the post I wrote on music quite a while ago. If it was read to mean that it is ok to listen to any type of music, let me know so it can be removed from the board! There are both objective and subjective standards to music, but by far the objective standards, to the glory of God, are preeminent. Hypothetically, any genre of music, perhaps, would be a better statement, within certain limits. But even then, the objection will be brought up that some genre do not have any God-glorifying content. The article was meant to be on the general plane, not specifics. There are too many specifics to exhaustively address the subject. That is where systematic theology is so important.

GottseiEhre,

My comments above were ONLY intended to address this statement:

It's just good to hear that listening to certain types of music is not wrong . . .

and had no reference to the former article you posted on music.

In His Grace,

Just making sure! I apologize, I think I'm going on the defensive a little too much today, even when not really instigated, I don't know why. Nonetheless, thank you for your patience with me, and with the others on this board, Pilgrim! <br>troy

Sorry for the delay in response Troy/Pilgrim...in Wisconsin for the week. Glad to be back home both of your comments are understood. Thanks for further clarification on the issue.

This has been an issue for me for many years as a guitar player. I see many musicians that produce what I see as beautifully crafted music, but at the same time it has a message that is not biblical. One could argue, and it could be a strong argument, that if a song has an umbilical message, then the music itself is not beautiful. I'd like to learn some of these unchristian songs simply to learn the songs, and maybe improve my song writing in the process, but I'm very reluctant to.

Musical notation and lyrics are two separate things. It seems? you are wanting some comments regarding the music itself and not the lyrics, correct? Sound theology is the basis of both, however.

Perhaps you might want to look through the list of articles on 'Music' which is available on The Highway Website. Go there by clicking the aforementioned link and then scroll down and click on the section: "Calvinism and the Reformed Faith" and then click on the "Ecclesiology" button on the left menu. You will then see the 'Music' section.