Donations for the month of December


We have received a total of "0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
John_C
John_C
Mississippi Gulf Coast
Posts: 1,820
Joined: September 2001
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,320
Posts53,342
Members965
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,070
Tom 4,076
chestnutmare 3,087
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,820
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 24
Pilgrim 19
Meta4 5
Robin 2
John_C 2
Recent Posts
Nero
by Meta4 - Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:56 PM
Spurgeon
by Pilgrim - Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:06 PM
Gracious High Priest
by NetChaplain - Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:05 PM
A Discourse on the Cleansing Virtue of Christ's Blood
by Pilgrim - Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:44 AM
Renewed Strength
by chestnutmare - Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:56 PM
Faith-Trials (Jas 1:3)
by NetChaplain - Mon Nov 29, 2021 3:20 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Robin #47544 Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:05 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,076
Likes: 2
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,076
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by Robin
Superb book by Doctor Luther! His writings aren't quite what one might expect from a theologian. His language is earthy, and he freely uses sarcasm and wit in his argument with Erasmus on the issue of "free will." Brilliant stuff.

Have you ever heard Luther's own original version of his great hymn, "A Mighty Fortress is Our God?" Syncopated, lively, militant. Not at all like the metronomic, toned-down version I grew up hearing in church. I hope the Lutherans haven't dismissed Luther's style of hymnody as they have so much of his teachings!

I don't think I have heard Luther's original version. Great song though and one of the songs that is sung fairly regularly in our Church.

Tom

sojourner #47550 Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:04 PM
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
Old Hand
Offline
Old Hand
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
Lutherans are Protestants Robin not reformed. They separated with the Reformed when it came to the Lord's supper Luther kept repeating Hoc est corpus meum (this is my body)ie: consubstantiation. Also there was twenty five years between the two men so in reality Calvin was the next generation of reformers.


Peter

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
sojourner #47551 Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:26 PM
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
Old Hand
Offline
Old Hand
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
Well Philipp Melanchthon was the next theologian after Luther died, but keep in mind that the Augsberg Confession and the Book of Concord is the definite declaration of the Lutheran Church (orthodox Lutherans). And Melanchthon himself tried to reconcile Calvinists and Lutherans with regards to the Eucharist and as such wrote the Confessio Augustana Variata or the Altered Augsberg Confession... People then accused him and his followers of being crypto-Calvinists.

The real founders of orthodox Lutheran theology were Johann Gerhard, Abraham Calovius, Martin Chemnitz, Aegidius Hunnius, Leonhard Hutter, Nicolaus Hunnius, Jesper Rasmussen Brochmand, Salomo Glassius, Johann Hülsemann, Johann Conrad Dannhauer, Valerius Herberger, Johannes Andreas Quenstedt, Johann Friedrich König and Johann Wilhelm Baier.

Another thing to remember is that Lutherans look the Book of Concord more than Luther's writings as the authority as to what the church teaches. I've seen Lutherans quote Chemnitz more than Luther when it came to theology.


Peter

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
Peter #47552 Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:59 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,070
Likes: 20
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,070
Likes: 20
Let's not forget the matter of baptism as well. There is a significant difference between Lutherans and Calvinists. However, although many (most?) Calvinists historically rejected baptismal regeneration, some such as John Calvin held to presumptive regeneration of covenant children, which is different to be sure but unfortunately too similar in the effects.

Men such as Jonathan Edwards, I believe, made the necessary complete breakaway from Rome's sacramentalism and held to the biblical teachings concerning the Lord's Supper and Baptism without falling off the edge like another group did. evilgrin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
sojourner #47555 Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:55 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,021
Likes: 3
The Boy Wonder
Offline
The Boy Wonder
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,021
Likes: 3
Thanks for the history lesson! I've had a look recently at some Lutheran liturgy and I think it's very beautiful and rich. I couldn't be comfortable with the Lutheran practice of the Lord's Supper of course, but most of the Lutheran liturgy evokes a sense of awe and reverence that is missing in so many evangelical churches.


Pilgrim #47556 Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:10 AM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,820
Permanent Resident
Offline
Permanent Resident
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,820
Sorry, not up to speed. What other group are you talking about?


John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
John_C #47558 Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:30 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,070
Likes: 20
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,070
Likes: 20
Originally Posted by John_C
Sorry, not up to speed. What other group are you talking about?
Mainly Baptists, who do not view Baptism as a sacrament (see HERE; article I). Of course, even further removed from the Reformational doctrine of baptism are the Campellites who view baptism as essential to salvation, which is a heresy (synergism).


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
sojourner #49113 Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:12 PM
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 18
Plebeian
Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 18
Having read an article on the New Calvinism by E.S.Williams and presented at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, I felt very sad that the men involved with this movement are men I have held in very high repute, especially John Piper who is among my favorite preachers.
However, one of the chief characteristics of this movement is a total disregard for the regulative principle of worship especially with respect to the use of contemporary worship music (CWM) which also includes "holy hip-hop." Very sad indeed.
But help me to understand the Biblical rationale for this condemnation of CWM. I have two concerns:
1. All I seem to hear is "the music sounds wordly." Isn't this a matter of individual taste rather than a matter of Scripture? What in America is called "classic" may also "sound wordly" in my African context. Who judges what sounds worldly and what sounds godly?
2. I think that we are shooting ourselves in the leg when we condemn CWM. This is so because we planted its seeds by abandoning the historic Reformed position of non-instrumental music in worship. It is only the non-instrumental position which is truly a Biblical bulwark against CWM. Other arguments seem to me to be cultural preferences with no Biblical support.

Kindly help me understand.

Lichawa.


A Debtor to Sovereign Grace
Lichawa Thole #49114 Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:57 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,070
Likes: 20
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,070
Likes: 20
Originally Posted by Lichawa Thole
But help me to understand the Biblical rationale for this condemnation of CWM. I have two concerns:
1. All I seem to hear is "the music sounds worldly." Isn't this a matter of individual taste rather than a matter of Scripture? What in America is called "classic" may also "sound worldly" in my African context. Who judges what sounds worldly and what sounds godly?
Lichawa, this subject of music has been discussed here on the board over many years. If you do a search for "music", for example, I'm sure you will find many interesting and helpful discussions.

The author of this series of articles on the "New Calvinism" has also addressed this issue of music in the church and "hip-hop" specifically. I think he deserves a hearing and his reasons evaluated from Scripture. You can read his expose on "Holy Hip-Hop" HERE.

Also, on The Highway's main website there are several excellent articles which address this matter of godly music vs. ungodly (worldly) music. Here are a few for your perusal:

"A Reason to Sing" - Dr. P.J. Janson
"Congregational Singing and the Ministry of the Word" - Leonard Payton
"Is it a Prelude or a Quaalude" - Leonard Payton
"Glossary of Church Growth & Contemporary Christian Music" - Leonard Payton
"Evangelicals on the Durham Trail" - Darryl Hart
"Evaluating Music for Christian Worship and Enjoyment" - Leonard J. Seidel
"Rock 'n' Roll, the Bible, and the Mind" - Tom Allen

As you will find in the several threads here on the board that deal with this subject of music and worldliness, I have tried to layout in clear biblical terms the principles by which the Church and its individual members should discern what is acceptable music for the Church and their individual lives.

I think one of the basic principles that professing Christians are to adhere tenaciously to and apply with all prudence and wisdom is:

Philippians 4:8 (ASV) "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honorable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."

Even more basic is that all that one does is to be done as stated by the apostle Paul:

1 Corinthians 10:31 (ASV) "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."

Notice carefully, that Paul didn't write that we should do all FOR the glory of God, but rather TO the glory of God. It was the Lord Christ who exemplified this principle in His entire life; thought, word and deed. Isaiah prophesied by the Spirit of God, "and the glory of Jehovah shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together; for the mouth of Jehovah hath spoken it." (Isa 40:5) Similarly, John wrote, "we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." (Jh 1:14) The apostle Paul expressed this same thought with, "For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell;" (Col 1:19) And, the inspired writer of the book of Hebrews directs us to the essence of the Lord Christ and His glory this way, "who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance,..." (Heb 1:3)

If we are cognizant of what the Spirit was speaking through these prophets and disciples of Christ, we will come to see that what they were all conveying was that the Lord Jesus Christ exhibited and was in Himself the display of all that God is; the sum total and more of God's attributes. Thus, to "glorify God" we are to strive to be holy as God is holy is everything. We are to reflect holiness in our hearts, our minds, our very souls God. As one put it, we are to be 'analogs' of God. This is not only the goal of every true believer, but it is being infallibly accomplished to one degree or another in every one of Christ's precious sheep (cf. 1Jh 3:2).

2 Peter 1:2-9 (ASV) "Grace to you and peace be multiplied in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that his divine power hath granted unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that called us by his own glory and virtue; whereby he hath granted unto us his precious and exceeding great promises; that through these ye may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in that world by lust. Yea, and for this very cause adding on your part all diligence, in your faith supply virtue; and in [your] virtue knowledge; and in [your] knowledge self-control; and in [your] self-control patience; and in [your] patience godliness; and in [your] godliness brotherly kindness; and in [your] brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, they make you to be not idle nor unfruitful unto the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he that lacketh these things is blind, seeing only what is near, having forgotten the cleansing from his old sins.

Thus, these biblical principles must guide us in evaluating all things (Rom 12:2).

Music is NOT "a-moral", but rather music is the product, the expression of one's cosmology, philosophy and epistemology. And, every composer has a purpose, an intent which he desires to achieve through the music. In simple terms, all music effects the emotive side of man. And those who write the various forms of music realize this truth which has been incontrovertibly documented through myriad scientific and psychological studies. God created the basis for music, but man arranges those 'notes' to create something which is in accord with his philosophy and for his intended purpose. The world is under the power of the Devil and its citizens are at enmity with God; they hate God and all that is good. But on the contrary, they love evil and sin (Gen 6:5 8:21, 1Jh 2:16; 5:19; et al). Therefore, it is only inevitable that the world's music will be against God and His Church.

Lastly, and very briefly, "good" music, music that glorifies God will be excellent, harmonic, beautiful, and not entice the natural lusts which reside in the hearts of all mankind by nature. But this could easily be another topic of discussion, i.e., the standards of musicology.

Originally Posted by Lichawa Thole
2. I think that we are shooting ourselves in the leg when we condemn CWM. This is so because we planted its seeds by abandoning the historic Reformed position of non-instrumental music in worship. It is only the non-instrumental position which is truly a Biblical bulwark against CWM. Other arguments seem to me to be cultural preferences with no Biblical support.
1. You would have to prove that the "historic Reformed position" was non-instrumental music. I do not find that this was the case at all.

2. Abandoning musical accompaniment completely so as to prevent the use of instruments used in modern "Rock Music", in all its various forms, is not a valid argument. Abstention of anything because of its actual or potential abuse would prove too much. For example, all the historic doctrines of the true Church have been assailed, distorted and even denied, e.g., the doctrine of the Divine Trinity, the deity of Christ, etc. Should we therefore dispense with those doctrines because they have been and continue to be "abused"? scratchchin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 105 guests, and 12 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
DiscipleEddie, atdcross, NetChaplain, winslowlady, Zach
965 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
December
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,303,531 Gospel truth