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

One other thing. Larry just said something very important in that he said there is no evidence that the character of worship has changed regardless of dispensation (if you are dispensational). So Don, I am afraid the burden of proof is on you to explain why Psalm 150 is not applicable to today. Where is your evidence that worship changed?

Just to make a historical point, it is Reformed theologians such as Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, the English Puritans, and the Scottish Presbyterians who argue(d) that the temple worship described in the Old Testament is completely fulfilled in Christ and thus not appropriate for the New Testament assembly. As far as I know, dispensationalists have not made use of this argument.

For example, the framers of the Westminster Confession believed that 1) only Psalms are permitted to be sung in public worship and 2) musical instruments were NOT permitted in worship.

This article is fairly typical in how strict Reformed theologians apply the Regulative Principle to musical instruments: http://www.westminsterconfession.org/worship/instrumental-music-in-worship-commanded-or-not-commanded.php

[made link clickable]

[GregH]

[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.

Not all worship described in the Bible is mandated for the church in church worship services, which is the specific topic addressed in the article referenced by the OP. You are the one asserting that some descriptions from the OT are mandated for use in the church. The burden is on you to prove it.

[GregH] 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?

Where did I say ‘separate’? I called for parents and pastors to refrain from sending their young people to Northland. I don’t think it is a wise choice and will be one that many will regret. That’s hardly a call for separation.

With respect to the music, “way conservative” is not how I would describe the music, the song, or the singer. It appears to be a cheap imitation of worldly styles in many ways and as such is part of the apostasy (1 Jn 2.15-17). It has no place in the church and if a Christian leader commends it, it says a lot about the philosophy and direction of said leader.

But it really has little to do with the discussion we are having in this thread. I’ll not comment on it further, you appear to be unwilling to actually debate the points at hand but want to throw in points like this to distract from the real discussion.

[Don Johnson]

Not all worship described in the Bible is mandated for the church in church worship services, which is the specific topic addressed in the article referenced by the OP. You are the one asserting that some descriptions from the OT are mandated for use in the church. The burden is on you to prove it.

Sigh, again, I am not claiming there is a mandate to worship that way. Read post #93 for example. I am merely asking why when Psalms indicates those things are acceptable, you feel that you can say that they are not acceptable.

[Don Johnson]

Where did I say ‘separate’? I called for parents and pastors to refrain from sending their young people to Northland. I don’t think it is a wise choice and will be one that many will regret. That’s hardly a call for separation.

With respect to the music, “way conservative” is not how I would describe the music, the song, or the singer. It appears to be a cheap imitation of worldly styles in many ways and as such is part of the apostasy (1 Jn 2.15-17). It has no place in the church and if a Christian leader commends it, it says a lot about the philosophy and direction of said leader.

But it really has little to do with the discussion we are having in this thread. I’ll not comment on it further, you appear to be unwilling to actually debate the points at hand but want to throw in points like this to distract from the real discussion.

OK, I have no interest in debating what the meaning of “separation” is. We disagree on whether your post is about separating or not. Fair enough.

Some might think my bringing up your blog post about Steve Eager and Matt Olson is a distraction Don. But I think it is relevant because it says a lot about where you are coming from. Your attacks on that singer are flat out nasty. They are uncharitable and uninformed (you are the one that admits you are a musical novice). I am not surprised you are not going to defend yourself further on this thread. But I am always surprised that some of you conservative guys think it is OK to be that nasty about fellow Christians just because you don’t like their music.

[Don Johnson] Where did I say ‘separate’? I called for parents and pastors to refrain from sending their young people to Northland.

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

Cool. My misunderstanding then.

[Larry] 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.

[Larry] 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.

I’m very glad we agree on this (even having differing views on the other topic. :) )

The problem here is that others in the thread (Alex and Don in particular) seem to think that the differences in the dispensations mean that Ps. 150 can’t be applied to new covenant worship.

[Larry] Dispensationalism holds that people are always saved by faith.

Well, at least progressives do. Classical dispensationalism would very strongly deny that.

[Larry] True Israel in the NT is ethnic Jews in contrast to the church (Rom 9; Gal 6:16).

We’d disagree on that understanding quite strongly, but seeing as how you don’t think your hermeneutic restricts us from using Ps. 150 to inform our worship, I don’t see any point in continuing the discussion here.

[Larry] The Law is a guardian to the time of faith; it is not a schoolmaster in the sense of teacher (Gal 3).

I would say it this way: that the law is a schoolmaster in the sense that it makes our sin all the more obvious to push us towards Christ.

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

Again, glad we agree on the issue at hand! But others seems to feel there is a very strong dispensational reason to avoid the implications of Ps. 150.

[Charlie]

Just to make a historical point, it is Reformed theologians such as Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, the English Puritans, and the Scottish Presbyterians who argue(d) that the temple worship described in the Old Testament is completely fulfilled in Christ and thus not appropriate for the New Testament assembly. As far as I know, dispensationalists have not made use of this argument.

Nor do most reformed theologians today. So it doesn’t appear to have any relevance :)

[Don Johnson]

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.

But you haven’t advanced a single passage that supports your view that this kind of music is sensual in a evil way (sexual or otherwise.) You’ve give passages in support of the idea that certain emotions are evil (though we disagree) but have given no evidence that the music in question gives rise to those evil emotions. So where back at square one.

And the burden of proof is on those who would bind the conscience of others, not on those who have a clear conscience. It doesn’t really matter the time order of who did/argued what first.

[Don Johnson] 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.

But shouting “racist” is only bad argumentation if there is no legitimate charge being leveled. If the charge is leveled along with reasons why it connects validly, then it’s perfectly fine to bring up. Point being that to bring up the word “Gnostic” is not problematic at all given that I didn’t just use it as a pejorative. I pointed out a certain philosophy at work and then drew parallels between that philosophy and Gnosticism. Given that we all agree that scripture addresses (at the very least) arguments that have parallels with Gnosticism, it’s an incredibly valid point. If the parallels do in fact exist, then that means scripture has something to say about it.

[Don Johnson] 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.

No one disagrees that our emotional makeup is corrupt. We disagreed on precisely what part of that makeup is corrupted. But you’re not willing to make the same kind of technical distinctions I’m making in my argument, so it seems to be a lost cause to continue that line of discussion.

By the way, I don’t actually believe that selflessness per se is the ideal. It’s actually very selfish, for example, to bring someone to Christ because it accords us more joy. Sacrifices here and now in light of greater future reward is not selflessness—it’s selfishness with a good investor’s mindset. But I don’t want to derail the discussion for a second time, so I don’t necessarily feel the need to push far into that topic…

[jcoleman]

[Larry] Dispensationalism holds that people are always saved by faith.

Well, at least progressives do. Classical dispensationalism would very strongly deny that.

Classical dispensationalism would very strongly deny that.

No. That’s simply not true. Classical dispensationalism does not deny that. Dispensationalism affirms that salvation is always of faith. There might have been some confusion on this at some point, but Ryrie cleared that up in the 1960s. Hopefully the day will come when we can finally do away with these types of statements.

[Greg Long]

[jcoleman]

[Larry] Dispensationalism holds that people are always saved by faith.

Well, at least progressives do. Classical dispensationalism would very strongly deny that.

Jcoleman, this is just plain wrong. Scofield had a note in his original Bible that could have been read to suggest a different means of salvation in the dispensation of Law, but classic dispensationalists since then (Ryrie, Walvoord, etc., etc., etc.) have been absolutely crystal clear that salvation has always been by grace alone through faith alone.

Perhaps we need a different descriptor than “classic” then? I wouldn’t describe Ryrie as “classically dispensational.” In fact, many modern dispensationalists would note that Ryrie is, in fact, rather different from early dispensationalism. I think my point still stands though with respect to the earliest forms which would have had more in common with Darby than with Ryrie. Descriptions of the dispensations as “successive failures” in God’s plan come to mind.

I don’t want to imply that anyone here is arguing for that, or that it’s at all a common view today. I merely bring it up because some of the same style problems arise when people argue against covenant theology—that is, they argue against things that, at the very least weren’t stated well, and that pretty much no covenant theologian today would say.

Edit: For example, I’m not sure how you could interpret Chafer in other other way than making that kind of distinction when he says:

The essential elements of a grace administration – faith as the sole basis of acceptance with God, unmerited acceptance through a perfect standing in Christ, the present possession of eternal life, an absolute security from all condemnation, and the enabling power of the indwelling Spirit are not found in the kingdom administration. On the other hand, it is declared to be the fulfilling of ‘the law and the prophets’ (Matt 5:17,18; 7:12), and is seen to be an extension of the Mosaic Law into realms of meritorious obligation

And Evans makes it even more clear:

This is sometimes called the Age of the Church, or the Church period. The characteristic of this age is that salvation is no longer by legal obedience, but by the personal acceptance of the finished work of Jesus Christ, who by his meritorious ministry has procured for us a righteousness of God’.

Perhaps we need a different descriptor than “classic” then?

Wouldn’t it be better just to use the taxonomy that already exists and to acknowledge that dispensationalism doesn’t teach multiple ways of salvation?

[jcoleman]

But you haven’t advanced a single passage that supports your view that this kind of music is sensual in a evil way (sexual or otherwise.) You’ve give passages in support of the idea that certain emotions are evil (though we disagree) but have given no evidence that the music in question gives rise to those evil emotions. So where back at square one.

And of course no one can find a passage that states any style of music is good or evil, so your comment is irrelevant. We can show that human emotions themselves are part of that which is corrupted by the fall, and from that we can reason that as music expresses or portrays such emotions it will more or less display that depravity. More or less depending on how thoroughly or plainly the corrupted emotions are put on display.

[jcoleman] No one disagrees that our emotional makeup is corrupt. We disagreed on precisely what part of that makeup is corrupted. But you’re not willing to make the same kind of technical distinctions I’m making in my argument, so it seems to be a lost cause to continue that line of discussion.

You have been doing a good job of denying that all along. The whole man is corrupt. That is the historical doctrine and I am surprised that you quibble with it.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

[Don Johnson] Where did I say ‘separate’? I called for parents and pastors to refrain from sending their young people to Northland.

Just curious, in what way is this different from “separate?”

I consider Matt to be a Christian brother, I am not separated from him. I just don’t think he’s a wise educator and don’t recommend his school.

[Larry]

Perhaps we need a different descriptor than “classic” then?

Wouldn’t it be better just to use the taxonomy that already exists and to acknowledge that dispensationalism doesn’t teach multiple ways of salvation?

But what else can “salvation is no longer by legal obedience” mean other than that it was by legal disobedience before the church age?