An Examination of Sovereign Grace Ministries and Getty-Townend For Use in Fundamental Christian Churches (Part 2)

[jcoleman] I think you’re misunderstanding a bit what I’m saying. You are correct that I’m hearkening back to creation for the general principle, but in order to make what I said seem ridiculous you had to ignore the part where I talked about how those good things are corrupted. I claimed that the corruption did not change the reality that God made those things good, but that evil always exists a corruption/misuse/abuse of good. Therefore, the very fact that we see things as evil is actually a logical affirmation of the fact that at their root those things exist as good (though they are currently being used to express evil.) So essentially you’re argument destroys a straw man.

Now, a corrupt thing may be able to do good or be relatively good, that is as it relates to other things but as you insisted it is not “intrinsically” good. But as I said that is irrelevant here since 1 Tim 4:4 is not talking about intrinsic goodness.

Now I’ll admit that I’m not a Greek scholar, but in my research it looks like your cherry-picking definitions and misrepresenting their relationship to other words. Kalon’s first definition indeed does refer to “usefulness” (or serviceability—I’m guessing this is your concept of “good for something”), but it also has the definitions of “beautiful”, “attractive”, “lovely”, and “good.” In fact, the theological dictionary actually states that the use in 1 Tim. 4:4 is to mean “right”, “orderly”, and “excellent.” In fact, when used in the sense of “morally good”, the theological dictionaries refer to kalon as a synonym of agathos. So I don’t think that you’ve laid out a supportable critique to my interpretation.

It’s also helpful to note that I’m not arguing for an intrinsic goodness generated by the thing itself. Far from it! I’m saying the intrinsic goodness is from God himself because he made it as good (and he tells us that!)

Now if you are arguing that they are intrinsically good with respect to eating, well then you have made my point which is the point being made since earlier in the text that is precisely what is being discussed, the psuedo-spiritual edict by false teachers that certain meats are sinful to eat or that by not eating certain meats a level of superior spirituality is attained.

And how are they all made acceptable? Not by their intrinsic goodness but as the passage says (1 Timothy 4:5), by the Word of God and prayer (of thanksgiving). So if they are so intrinsically good why do they need to be sanctified by the Word of God and prayer? Right, because they aren’t intrinsically good, rather they are good to eat and are sanctified by the Word of God and the prayer of thanksgiving.

Which explains the use of kalon and instead of agathos. Now, you are correct that they can be used, at times, synonymously but not always. They do have nuanced usage and the reason I pointed out the passages I did was first to note Paul’s use of kalon and agathos in 1 Timothy, they were not used without discrimination but with nuance. Kalon here emphasizing just what the context is presenting, good for eating and agathos used where there is an intrinsic value in view.

[Alex Guggenheim] Dr J I do believe music that is entertainment based may have edifying properties but that when that which us edifying is of service to the greater entertainment property of the piece I would not classify it as sacred or spiritual music or use it liturgically. This is not to say personally I would not use it. As for when the dispensation of Psalm 150 occurred, it is right smack dab in the middle of the Theocracy of Israel, hence not only the reference to the Sanctuary but its authorship and dating unless you believe we are not in the church age and still are in the Theocracy of Israel with all of its proprietary divine protocols. Your point about the contingency of the sanctuary has a strength, however it can be no more dogmatic than as I have read it. But still the imperative with its protocol is to Israel.

If you are arguing the entire imperatives are limited to the Theocratic dispensation I would not debate that point. Even if they were not, that would not demand that they be carried over to the church dispensation; the dispensation of grace would have eliminated that. I don’t believe the others who cite Psalm 150 or I Chronicles are relying on the imperative for their arguments more so than the imperatives are being cited as an example of the type of worship that took place under the Theocratic dispensation. The citation of those imperatives as examples that while not binding on the church but not forbidden is what makes the debate over them adiaphora, and therefore would still eliminate the dogmatism that is associated with their exclusion with the passing of that economy.

Still, going back to the argument others have made about the intrinsic sensuality implied with the dance and the music, regardless of whether or not those practices were contained in that economy, if the acts in and of themselves are inherently sensual, then they would have logically been considered sensual during that dispensation, and they were not.

Thus I think there is an over-emphasis on attempting to classify the music and dance as sensual which is not only made from straw-man arguments, but prevents or at least distracts from a better analysis of other matters that could provide better proof that a particular song or dance meets the criteria of Biblical scrutiny, i.e., whether or not the lyrics are doctrinally sound (example, Michael W. Smith touted as a solid Christian artist, writes a song about finding his “Place in this World” which is clearly in violation of 1 John 2:15-19), a clear emphasis on flesh-based performance and glorification (although that may require interpretation of motive which could be subjective), the motives and background of the musician (for example, Ray Boltz was considered a leader in the Christian music scene of writing “spiritually moving” songs while maintaining he was a homosexual). This type of analysis eliminates most of the so-called Christian music without any need to attempt to locate some subjective and clandestine musical demon that produces subliminal motives that somehow have the ability to sneak past the believers Holy Spirit “firewall”.

[jcoleman] So your test is dependent on whether the entertainment industry uses the piece of music? That seems rather weak as they used classically styled music as well—quite prolifically, I might add, if you’re looking at movie soundtracks.

And even if we do grant that test, it means it’s not a property of the music so much as of who’s using it. That’s right back to the “association” question, and doesn’t address at all what we’re discussing of that which is intrinsic to the music by itself.

[jcoleman] Thankfully I’m not a dispensationalist. So I have no hangup whatsoever of trying to determine whether it fits into such and such a dispensation and whether or not it’s valid on those terms. (Note: I didn’t say we’re still in the “Theocracy of Israel”, but I am saying that there is much blurrier distinction between those two thing than you’d like.)

[DrJamesAch] If you are arguing the entire imperatives are limited to the Theocratic dispensation I would not debate that point. Even if they were not, that would not demand that they be carried over to the church dispensation; the dispensation of grace would have eliminated that. I don’t believe the others who cite Psalm 150 or I Chronicles are relying on the imperative for their arguments more so than the imperatives are being cited as an example of the type of worship that took place under the Theocratic dispensation.

[DrJamesArch] The citation of those imperatives as examples that while not binding on the church but not forbidden is what makes the debate over them adiaphora, and therefore would still eliminate the dogmatism that is associated with their exclusion with the passing of that economy.

[DrJamesArch] Still, going back to the argument others have made about the intrinsic sensuality implied with the dance and the music, regardless of whether or not those practices were contained in that economy, if the acts in and of themselves are inherently sensual, then they would have logically been considered sensual during that dispensation, and they were not.

Thus I think there is an over-emphasis on attempting to classify the music and dance as sensual which is not only made from straw-man arguments, but prevents or at least distracts from a better analysis of other matters that could provide better proof that a particular song or dance meets the criteria of Biblical scrutiny, i.e., whether or not the lyrics are doctrinally sound (example, Michael W. Smith touted as a solid Christian artist, writes a song about finding his “Place in this World” which is clearly in violation of 1 John 2:15-19), a clear emphasis on flesh-based performance and glorification (although that may require interpretation of motive which could be subjective), the motives and background of the musician (for example, Ray Boltz was considered a leader in the Christian music scene of writing “spiritually moving” songs while maintaining he was a homosexual). This type of analysis eliminates most of the so-called Christian music without any need to attempt to locate some subjective and clandestine musical demon that produces subliminal motives that somehow have the ability to sneak past the believers Holy Spirit “firewall”.

[Alex Guggenheim] Whether I would like something or whether you would is not relevant but what is relevant is that the specific imperative to praise God with dance was given to the Theocracy of Israel and not to the church. We are told, ourselves, to praise God as well but never are we given the imperative to dance so to use this as a claim that it either directs or permits dance as an ecclesiastical form of liturgy still fails.

I didn’t say anything about whether or not one of us “likes” something. I’m not at all sure where you got that out of what I said.

The point is, as a covenant theologian, I don’t accept the kind of distinction you’re trying to make between the “Theocracy of Israel” and the “church age”. So I think the passage is very much applicable.

Besides, the fact that it was commanded (or even merely allowed!) implies that it cannot be intrinsically evil period. You may argue about whether or not it is wise in specific contexts (e.g., the church liturgy), but what you cannot argue is that it is intrinsically evil.

You cannot condemn what scripture allows, and you cannot allow what scripture condemns.

I don’t accept the kind of distinction you’re trying to make between the “Theocracy of Israel” and the “church age”

So you believe that we are living as a political entity ruled by a king under the stipulations (both command and consequence) of the Mosaic Law, with land to defend and enemies to defeat?

[jcoleman]

[Alex Guggenheim] Whether I would like something or whether you would is not relevant but what is relevant is that the specific imperative to praise God with dance was given to the Theocracy of Israel and not to the church. We are told, ourselves, to praise God as well but never are we given the imperative to dance so to use this as a claim that it either directs or permits dance as an ecclesiastical form of liturgy still fails.

I didn’t say anything about whether or not one of us “likes” something. I’m not at all sure where you got that out of what I said.

[jcoleman] (Note: I didn’t say we’re still in the “Theocracy of Israel”, but I am saying that there is much blurrier distinction between those two thing than you’d like.)

So that is where it came from and again, what I like or you like is irrelevant.

[jcoleman] The point is, as a covenant theologian, I don’t accept the kind of distinction you’re trying to make between the “Theocracy of Israel” and the “church age”. So I think the passage is very much applicable.

Besides, the fact that it was commanded (or even merely allowed!) implies that it cannot be intrinsically evil period. You may argue about whether or not it is wise in specific contexts (e.g., the church liturgy), but what you cannot argue is that it is intrinsically evil.

You cannot condemn what scripture allows, and you cannot allow what scripture condemns.

As to the distinction between the Theocracy of Israel and the Church age my response would be the same as Larry’s.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[jcoleman]

[Alex Guggenheim] Whether I would like something or whether you would is not relevant but what is relevant is that the specific imperative to praise God with dance was given to the Theocracy of Israel and not to the church. We are told, ourselves, to praise God as well but never are we given the imperative to dance so to use this as a claim that it either directs or permits dance as an ecclesiastical form of liturgy still fails.

I didn’t say anything about whether or not one of us “likes” something. I’m not at all sure where you got that out of what I said.

Actually you did refer to whether I like something or not. In post 106 in referring to the Theocracy of Israel and the Church Age you stated (Bold mine):

[jcoleman] (Note: I didn’t say we’re still in the “Theocracy of Israel”, but I am saying that there is much blurrier distinction between those two thing than you’d like.)

So that is where it came from and again, what I like or you like is irrelevant.

[jcoleman] The point is, as a covenant theologian, I don’t accept the kind of distinction you’re trying to make between the “Theocracy of Israel” and the “church age”. So I think the passage is very much applicable.

Besides, the fact that it was commanded (or even merely allowed!) implies that it cannot be intrinsically evil period. You may argue about whether or not it is wise in specific contexts (e.g., the church liturgy), but what you cannot argue is that it is intrinsically evil.

You cannot condemn what scripture allows, and you cannot allow what scripture condemns.

First, at no place have I made the argument that dancing is intrinsically evil. Someone else may have but I did not so that is not germane to anything I have said or the issue as I have treated it.

As to the distinction between the Theocracy of Israel and the Church age my response would be the same as Larry’s.

I suspected a preterist, historicist or covenanter view when I saw the comment “thank God I am not a dispensationalist”, but I left it alone since it is another subject. Although those 3 views are the absolute worst form of eschatology, I would simply say anyone that is a true Bible believer is a dispensationalist whether they like it or not, even those of the 3 views above. If a preterist, historicist or covenanter can tell me that Adam lived under the 10 commandments of Exodus then I’ll recant. But if they agree that God did not deal with men in Adam’s time in the same way He did when the law was introduced, they’ve just admitted to dispensationalism. If Jesus changed the priesthood, then of necessity there was a change in the law Heb 7:12, a very clear dispensation. The examples are too numerous to ignore.

Even though covenanters erroneously conclude that Revelation was fulfilled from ch’s 1-19, they still look for a new heaven and new earth, which is a different economy. Even if they admit a difference between the old and new testament, it’s an admission to at least one separation of economies, so to say the 3 views do not believe in dispensationalism is misleading. It is really the futurism they disagree with, but since the above 3 views stand or fall on whether or not dispensationalism is valid, no preterist, historicist or covenanter will ever admit that they can’t even pursue their own theology logically without embracing some form of dispensationalism.

My 2 cents on the side issue.

So being a covenant theologian doesn’t meant that you don’t see any dispensational distinctions. And it definitely doesn’t make you a non-futurist either. What many would argue has been the most common eschatalogical view in the history of the church is historic premillenialism which is futurist (and virtually all of those would be reformed AFAIK.)

Alex, I was thinking you were referring to whether or not we liked the music/other issues not the dispensational distinction. My misunderstanding. And you might not have said that dancing was intrinsically wrong, but I think that there are definitely those in this thread that would. Sorry if that seemed a bit off topic for your posts.

So you believe that we are living as a political entity ruled by a king under the stipulations (both command and consequence) of the Mosaic Law, with land to defend and enemies to defeat?

See, you’re interpreting covenant theology through dispensationalistic glasses. So your question presents a view that no covenant theologian would affirm. It’s not that we don’t see any discontinuity between the old and new testaments, it’s that we see a strong continuity than discontinuity. Both sides agree that both exists, they just disagree on which has priority. And I’d understand the true Israel of the OT to be a part of the people of God (essentially as much of the people of God as had been revealed at that point) but that the church is a continuation of that same people of God (not the nation, but the true Israel about which Paul speaks.) And I think that all of the people of God are redeemed in the same way—through faith. From Adam on. The law doesn’t introduce a change to that, nor does Christ’s first coming. The law is school master to hasten the process along. And Christ fulfills what was extant by mysterious before.

But that’s all of an aside, or course. For me, practically speaking, it just means that as I read Psalms I’m going to assume a much stronger connection to the church (as a subset of the people of God) than you’re going to. So I don’t dismiss Psalm 150, for example, as not having any value for the church. I believe it gives very strong indication of what God values in worship (corporate or otherwise.)

But I’m impressed that I managed to derail the thread topic with that one side issue. :P

I would like to speak up for Don, and say his thinking has been incorrectly called “Gnosticism.” I wonder how many in this discussion have talked to modern-day Gnostics on more than one occasion? I wonder how many of us have read any Gnostic literature? Don’s ideas don’t even come close. If a person says “base emotions,” everyone knows what he means. Paul certainly believed in their existence by his comment in Romans 1:26. Shall we call his thinking Gnostic? If emotions cannot be base, or vile, then neither can thoughts. Are there no base thoughts? They were created good right along with emotions/passions. And emotions are essentially impossible to separate from thoughts. Furthermore, God often calls people “base” or “vile.” Are we wanting to say that these people are base, but actually have only good emotions?

If you want to call someone’s thinking Gnostic, then please prove it. Otherwise it remains a mere epithet.

“Of all base passions, fear is the most accursed.” - William Shakespear, Henry the VI. Well, OK, I admit that William Shakespear was one of those Gnostics himself.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[jcoleman]

[Alex Guggenheim] Whether I would like something or whether you would is not relevant but what is relevant is that the specific imperative to praise God with dance was given to the Theocracy of Israel and not to the church. We are told, ourselves, to praise God as well but never are we given the imperative to dance so to use this as a claim that it either directs or permits dance as an ecclesiastical form of liturgy still fails.

I didn’t say anything about whether or not one of us “likes” something. I’m not at all sure where you got that out of what I said.

Actually you did refer to whether I like something or not. In post 106 in referring to the Theocracy of Israel and the Church Age you stated (Bold mine):

[jcoleman] (Note: I didn’t say we’re still in the “Theocracy of Israel”, but I am saying that there is much blurrier distinction between those two thing than you’d like.)

So that is where it came from and again, what I like or you like is irrelevant.

[jcoleman] The point is, as a covenant theologian, I don’t accept the kind of distinction you’re trying to make between the “Theocracy of Israel” and the “church age”. So I think the passage is very much applicable.

Besides, the fact that it was commanded (or even merely allowed!) implies that it cannot be intrinsically evil period. You may argue about whether or not it is wise in specific contexts (e.g., the church liturgy), but what you cannot argue is that it is intrinsically evil.

You cannot condemn what scripture allows, and you cannot allow what scripture condemns.

First, at no place have I made the argument that dancing is intrinsically evil. Someone else may have but I did not so that is not germane to anything I have said or the issue as I have treated it.

As to the distinction between the Theocracy of Israel and the Church age my response would be the same as Larry’s.

I decided to start another thread that addresses some of pretersim, historicism, and covenant theology here so we don’t hijack this thread.

In order of posting history

[DrJamesAch] (Post 86) With all due respect to Don, I don’t think the burden of proof should be on the ones that listen to the music you and many fundamentalists oppose. They did not attack your music, you attacked theirs, so the burden of proof always lies in the person prosecuting.

Way to miss the point James. When a new item is brought into the debate, the burden lies on the person raising the issue to prove his point. Please go back and read the posts where I called for proof and you will see where the burden lies.

[Greg Long] (Post 87) C’mon, Don, you keep asking for Scripture, but then when it is given to you you just dismiss it out of hand rather than dealing with it. It was the dismissal of what is clearly mentioned in the Psalms concerning music that was one of the primary reasons I couldn’t accept the strict teachings on music I was brought up on.

Greg, simply citing a passage isn’t proving that the passage applies. I’m not simply asking for Scripture, but for Scriptural proof of the views being advanced. So far barely any Scripture has been advanced on the opposing side. These citations have barely been given any exegetical treatment, and, as far as I can see, don’t advance the argument the others are making. If you are going to cite a passage as proof of your point of view, you should be prepared to back it up with reasons why it proves your point.

You also said:

[Greg Long] And you’re just flat out wrong on this emotion thing. Yes, of course, our emotions have been corrupted by the Fall, but are you suggesting that they can never be used for good or directed towards the good? You haven’t answered the questions put forth to you in that regard.

And you’re wrong about “lust” in the NT (epithumia). It is used a few times in a positive sense. Even if it was just used one time in a positive sense that would disprove your point.

Finally, I thought it was pretty commonly accepted that certain books in the NT, namely Colossians and 1 John, are addressing incipient forms of Gnosticism. The word doesn’t have to be mentioned for the beliefs to be addressed.

1. If I haven’t specifically said that our emotions can be used for good or directed towards the good, let me clear that up here. Yes, they can be used for good or directed towards good. I completely admit that and if my earlier comments have led some to a contrary understanding of my view, then I am glad clarify it here.

But that isn’t the issue under discussion here. jcoleman is insisting that emotions are at least morally neutral, uncorrupted, and it is only when our (presumably) corrupt will directs our emotions towards a corrupt object that they become evil. That is just not so, as I have shown from Rm 1.26 a few posts earlier.

2. You have heard of the concept of exceptions proving the rule, haven’t you? The noun lust occurs 37 times in the NT, according to Bibleworks. Out of these, I reckon only three can be said to be a positive use, refering to simply strong desire for something good. In the overwhelming majority of usages “they indicate evil desire in accordance with the Greek and Jewish development … They may be characterised as such by information as to the object … or the manner … and … can be used for sinful desire without any such addition. In this regard 1 C. 10:6 plainly follows Nu. 11:4. The compression and extension of the tenth commandment into a simple [not lust] in R. 7:7; 13:9 finds a parallel in 4 Macc. 2:6: …, and it is thus pre-Pauline. There is no point in asking whether Paul is here following Jewish or Stoic usage. The two had long since merged in respect of the use of [epithumia] and [epithumein]. Apart from [pathos epithumias] at 1 Th. 4:5 there is nothing distinctively Stoic in Paul. The antithesis of [logismos] and [epithumia] is not found in him. [Epithumia] is evil, not because it is irrational, but because it is disobedience to the command of God. Basically, then, his conception of [epithumia] is OT and Jewish, not Stoic. For Paul, who alone in the NT offers an explicit doctrine of sinful man, [epithumia] is a manifestation of the sin which dwells in man and which controls him, but which is dead apart from the [epithumia] stirred up by the Law, R. 7:7, 8. That desire is a result of the prohibition of sin reveals the carnality of man, Gl. 5:16, 24, his separation from God, his subjection to divine wrath, R. 1:18 ff. In James (1:14, 15) [epithumia] is regarded as the constant root in man of the individual acts of sin to which the author’s attention is mainly directed. The special feature in Jn. is the connection between desire and the world, 1 Jn. 2:15– 17. Desire arises out of the world, constitutes its essence and perishes with it.”

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-), 170-171.

So, yes, as I acknowledged when I brought the point up, there are some uses of epithumia that can be considered simply ‘strong desire’, but that doesn’t disprove that it generally speaks of the corrupted desires of human nature and that such a corruption exists.

You don’t want to argue that men’s desires are completely pure, do you?

3. It might be commonly accepted that some books of the NT are written to address incipient forms of Gnosticism, but two critical points must be noted: 1) pre-Gnosticism is not Gnosticism and links between the two are not absolutely proven, 2) the Bible nowhere mentions Gnosticism as such so it is pretty irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and 3) when used in debates such as this, the term is pejorative and an attempt to destroy an arguement by name-calling without offering reasoned responses. It’s like shouting “racist” in arguments about race relations.

[dcbii] (Post 90)Don, I agree with you that mankind is corrupt, and that even as Christians, we struggle with the old nature. However, since we are told “be ye angry, and sin not,” we know that we are still capable of a righteous expression of this so-called “baser” emotion, even if it would be difficult for us to do so properly. So I would think that even human anger in a righteous form could be expressed (carefully) in our literature and even music, though it would be hard to do so in a right way. And as I said, I think it would be more useful to express the anger of God rather than of man.

However, passionate worship, as David expressed in Chronicles, also appears to be a legitimate worship expression, even if we would have to be very careful to get it right. I’m not saying that dancing as David did should be a regular part of our worship, since we can’t tell that from the text, and there may be culture/association issues to work through, but we do know that we do not always need to be reserved in our expressions of joy toward God.

Dave, we are probably closer to agreement than disagreement, but a few points here:

1. As I said above in response to Greg Long, I don’t deny that we can express emotions without sin. However, what I am arguing for here is that our emotional makeup is corrupt along with the rest of our nature. We are twisted in the way we love, for example, and tend to love selfishly, for the benefits we get back, rather than out of a selflessness which is the ideal. It is hard to test this unless we are called to love someone who can’t or won’t love us back. I can think of many examples in my experience. I have a friend who has a severely handicapped adult son. I watch my friend and his wife as they care for him - I am convinced that they do love him, and he is capable of expressing his love for them as well. But they also get weary and frustrated. Even their love wavers and can, in low moments, become duty and very wearying. It’s hard to be noble all the time. This friend and his wife are mature Christians, not new believers. So my point in bringing them up is this: here are long-time mature believers who love in a difficult situation and are not capable of loving perfectly because of the corruption that is in them. If it were the Lord Jesus, on the other hand, loving this young man, there would be no failure of love, ever.

2. I am not against feeling in worship - if you use music at all, you are expressing feeling. I am simply arguing that there are appropriate and inappropriate feelings to express and appropriate and inappropriate ways to express that feeling.

[dcbii] nor do I buy much of what has been said about judging music in the past (I heard much of this in the 70’s, growing up), since little of it has been proven, and very little scripture has been used in the argumentation. As many here have already stated, much of it is just assertion without any proof at all. I just happen to think that the technical arguments are the least useful, when really we should spend our time focusing on sounding too much like the world, when we know that worship of God should be holy (i.e. “set apart”).

I don’t disagree with this, but should we therefore make NO technical arguements at all?

[Joel Shaffer] (Post 91)The point is everything, not just food and marriage. Everything God created is good. Marriage and Food are the examples. Every commentator that I researched holds this view, none of them believe its just the context of Food and marriage.

Joel, here is the passage:

1 Timothy 4:1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

The doctrines Paul talks about here are found in v. 3, forbidding to marry (an action) and advocating abstention from foods (a substantive thing). These doctrines are examples of what is taught by those who have fallen away (v.1). The question is, what does “everything created by God” refer to? The things created are ktisma, creatures, it is these things that are being referred to. Verse 5 makes it quite clear that he is talking about food here, not all of creation. He isn’t talking about human nature. He isn’t saying that human emotions are created good and are only bad when they are misdirected, which seems to be jcoleman’s argument.

[GregH] (Post 93) Alex, maybe you would like to attempt to explain away the reference to dance in Ps 150. Or you like Don who apparently does not count Psalm 150 as Biblical support? It is bewildering that you guys refuse to acknowledge what is written clear as day in the Psalms.

Greg, I think this is the first time you have specifically referred to any specific passage in this debate. I am not saying that it doesn’t have a bearing, I am simply asking you to prove it has a bearing on the topic at hand, since you brought it up. I don’t see a connection, please enlighten me.

~~~

Ok, I think I have covered everything. jcoleman had a post (#101) that was addressed to me, but I think I have already answered the things he is saying there in this post. It’s already long enough, so I won’t go over all of that again.

I am willing to continue the discussion, but I think that we will start repeating ourselves pretty soon, if we haven’t already. And part three of our articles by Doug Bachorik will show up tomorrow. So likely our attention will be drawn away to that.

See, you’re interpreting covenant theology through dispensationalistic glasses.

No, actually it was just a question about what you believe. I was wondering what kind of distinctions you disagree with.

Because I don’t think the issues here are dispensational/covenantal. In other words, “not agreeing with the distinctions” isn’t the root of the difference. I am actually on your side (as any good dispensationalist would be :)). I don’t see how appealing to some perceived distinctions between Israel and the church has any bearing. In other words, appealing to covenant theology doesn’t strengthen your point because it’s not an issue of dispensationalism/covenantalism.

I don’t think the basic character of worship has changed. There is no evidence in the Scriptures that would support that, so far as I can tell.

The rest of your post I think has some issues worthy of addressing, but I will do it only briefly here.

1. Dispensationalism holds that people are always saved by faith.
2. True Israel in the NT is ethnic Jews in contrast to the church (Rom 9; Gal 6:16).
3. The Law is a guardian to the time of faith; it is not a schoolmaster in the sense of teacher (Gal 3).

Which is to say again that the issues here are not based on your covenant theology vs. dispensationalism.

[Don Johnson]

[GregH] (Post 93) Alex, maybe you would like to attempt to explain away the reference to dance in Ps 150. Or you like Don who apparently does not count Psalm 150 as Biblical support? It is bewildering that you guys refuse to acknowledge what is written clear as day in the Psalms.

Greg, I think this is the first time you have specifically referred to any specific passage in this debate. I am not saying that it doesn’t have a bearing, I am simply asking you to prove it has a bearing on the topic at hand, since you brought it up. I don’t see a connection, please enlighten me.

My question is how it could NOT have any bearing on the topic at hand? Unless of course, you want to go along with Alex and throw it out because of his dispensational approach (yes, that dispensational card can get you out of some tough situations). If you can’t see any connection between Psalm 150’s encouragement for euphoric worship and how we worship today, we are truly wasting our time dialoguing.

Don, you recently called for separation from Matt Olson because of a video he “liked” on his Facebook page. You likened that music to apostasy in your comments below that post. In fact, you said, it was “part of the apostasy.” You say this even though you admittedly are a music novice.

I watched the song on YouTube. I had never heard of the singer, but I am just floored. The music is way conservative and the text is Biblical. And you actually have enough of a problem with it to call for separation and say that music is part of the apostasy in the church? You would separate from another guy just because he likes it?

My challenge to you Don is to explain how you can make such strong statements about something (music) you admit you know little about.