Support for tongues?

October 3, 2010 FB

Here are my answers to Timothy’s points which he brought up in a comment on my previous note "7 Reasons why speaking in tongues is wrong". As I was going through them I was trying to see if they are true and reasonable points within their own contexts, just in case I was wrong. In my answers I try not to attack anyone who believes that tongues are for today. All I sought to do was address the points. And honestly, this matter of speaking in tongues doesn’t mean that much to me, so I don’t care about proving myself right or proving someone else wrong. I just care about finding out the truth of God's word.

"The apostle Peter said in acts 2:39 speaking of receiving the Holy ghost (like they did) that it was for them and their children and as many as the Lord will call...and i know that i'm called."

You are correct that the gift of receiving the Holy Spirit is for all Christians. A Christian cannot be a Christian without the Holy Spirit (see Rom. 8:9). Please note, the New Testament only uses the Greek word for "ghost" (phantasma, φάντασμα) two times (Matt. 14:26; Mk. 6:49), but in reference to the third person of the trinity, God the Holy Spirit, the NT uses only the word for "spirit" (pneuma, πνεῦμα), never the word for ghost. So the correct translation is Holy Spirit, not Holy Ghost. And yes, I realize that this is just semantics, but precision is always ideal.

"Also Jesus said in John 14 that it was important that he leave so that the promise of the Father(The Holy Ghost) could come, He told the Disciples to go to Jerusalem and wait to be filled with power from on high(the Holy Ghost)."

This is also correct that the promise of the Father in John 14-16 is the indwelling of the person of God the Holy Spirit. But nowhere does Jesus say that this would be evident by speaking in tongues, but he does say that the Holy Spirit would do many other things. Also, nowhere in the Bible is it stated that the gift of God to every believer is speaking in tongues. It only says that every Christian receives the Holy Spirit.

"And if you read through Acts, the apostles expected that after you beleived the gospel that you would be water baptized and then be filled with the Holy Ghost."

This is also true that the apostles expected believers to be water baptized and filled with the Holy Spirit, but not necessarily in that order. It would be too much to ask of the biblical text to make it say that a believer could only be filled with the Holy Spirit after they are baptized. In fact, when the Samaritans/Judeans receive the Holy Spirit for the first time in Acts 10, the Holy Spirit "fell upon" the believers before they were water baptized. I'm not sure if it was meant that a believer cannot be filled with the Holy Spirit until after they are baptized, but I answered as if that was the meaning. If I understood it wrong then I'm sorry and please disregard what i said for this point.

"...and being filled with the Holy Ghost is evident by Speaking in tounges!! "

This is a statement that needs to be thoroughly questioned. Does the Bible anywhere explicitly say that being "filled" with the Holy Spirit is the cause of speaking in tongues, and that tongues is the only result/evidence? I will agree that Acts does describe believers who were filled with the Holy Spirit speaking in foreign languages to foreigners when the Holy Spirit unexpectedly "fell upon" them. But it is very difficult to make the Bible say that beingfilled with the Holy Spirit always results in speaking in tongues without exception. I think we need to observe the circumstances of each time Acts describes speaking in tongues, before we attempt to make it apply to our circumstances today.

It is evident from observation that there were only three times in Acts when the Holy Spirit “fell upon” believers resulting in them speaking in tongues (Acts chapters 2, 10, & 19). Each time God was opening up a new door to the unsaved, in the exact order that Jesus said it would happen (Acts 1:8). First the Jews (Acts 2, in Jerusalem), then the Samaritans (Acts 10, Caesarea in Samaria/Judea), and finally the Gentiles (Acts 19, in Ephesus- the ends of the earth). All we can gather from observation in Acts is that the Holy Spirit made the believers glorify God by speaking in foreign languages that were always understood by others. It was not something the believers tried to do, in fact it is usually described as something unexpected. A quick note about Acts 2:4- It does not say that the believers spoke in tongues as a direct result of being filled with the Holy Spirit, rather it merely describes that they were filled when it took place- not that the filling was the cause of the tongues.

"This is how the Apostles knew if someone had received the Holy Ghost.."

Is seeing someone speak in tongues the only way that an apostle could know if a person was filled with the Holy Spirit? Or is the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5 and Ephesians 5 also evidence? According to Galatians, Ephesians, and 1 John, the best evidence for someone who is filled with the Holy Spirit is a pure and holy life free of presumptuous sin and full of the fruit of the Spirit (ie love, joy, peace, patience, etc.).

"...like in Acts 10 with Cornelius, when Peter was yet talking with him and his household it says the Holy Ghost fell upon them. And how did thry know? Because they spoke in tounges verses44-47..and in 47 Petre said they received it as they did(which was evident by Speaking in tounges)"

I agree completely with the wording of this point, but not the meaning behind it. The believers received the Holy Spirit, and then the Holy Spirit “fell upon them” and made them speak in tongues. It seems best to say that they did not speak in tongues because they were filled with the Holy Spirit (because the text does not say they were "filled"), although they probably were filled with the Holy Spirit when it happened. But this does not necessarily mean that the cause of their speaking in tongues was the filling of the Holy Spirit. There were times in the Old Testament when the Holy Spirit would come upon people and they would do the miraculous. Does that mean that when we are filled with the Holy Spirit today we should be tearing lions apart with our bare hands (Judges 14:6), or design parts of the tabernacle (Ex. 31:30-35)? No, obviously those were extraordinary circumstances, just like the three times in Acts.

"...and in chapter 11:17-18 Peter tells the others what happened and that the received it the same way. I beleive that if anyone says that it's not for today or that it's wrong to speak in tounges then they are withstanding God (Acts 11:17) "

Acts 11:17 does not say that it is wrong for us to say that speaking in tongues is wrong. It only describes Peter saying that it was wrong for him to forbid them to become part of the Church at that time. There was an argument about whether or not Peter should have gone to the Judeans/Samaritans (11:1-3). It’s a stretch to make it a command for us not to say it’s wrong, and to further say that we are withstanding God if we do say it’s wrong.

"And Jesus said in Luke 12:10 that it won't be forgiven you if you speak against the Holy Ghost!! Saying that it's not for today or that it's a sin is a sin in itself!! It's like slapping God in the face because it's a gift (2 Timothy 1:6, Luke 11:13). the Gift of God talked about here is the Holy Spirit...And if you look, John testified more that Jesus was coming so we might be filled with the Holy Ghost, than he did that he was coming to redeem us!! thats how important this is!" 

A quick note: In original manuscripts of the Bible tongues is never once specifically called a "gift," only a "manifestation."

Please check the contexts of the passages you reference. In Luke 12:11 Jesus talks about blaspheming the person of the Holy Spirit, not about speaking against the gifts of the Spirit. In the similar Matthew passage, Jesus says that blaspheming the Holy Spirit happens when someone sees Jesus perform miracles and they attribute the miracles to the Devil (Matt. 12:22-37). Since we do not see Jesus present here on earth performing miracles we cannot blaspheme the Holy Spirit these days.

In the 2 Timothy passage Paul does not mention speaking in tongues. Also, if Timothy had the gift of tongues, and Paul was writing to “stir up the gift,” then why doesn’t Paul write about tongues in either 1 or 2 Timothy? It seems reasonable to say that the gift which Paul was writing to stir up was not speaking in tongues, but it was the gift of being a pastor (because he was writing to Timothy about being a pastor).

As for John, he never mentions the manifestation of speaking in tongues in any of his writings. Are we to presume that John always means speaking in tongues when he is talking about being filled with the Holy Spirit, even though he never once mentions speaking in tongues?

"...and in Gal.3:13-14 Paul puts the promise of receiving the Holy Ghost (which is only evident by speaking in tounges) with Savation itself!! I didn't say this Paul did. And I could go on and on and on about this and show you time after time that it is very important for us as Christians to not neglect this Gift..."

I agree that Paul puts the promise of receiving the Holy Spirit with salvation, but Paul does not mention tongues in Galatians at all. We have to read that into the biblical text. We have to presume that he means tongues, without any warrant from the text to do so. But doing so is not allowing the text to speak for itself.

Here are a few questions: If I have never spoken in tongues does that mean that I am not saved? Did the thief on the cross speak in tongues? Did Moses? Did David? Did Jesus? Did the 3000 Jews who were saved on Pentecost in Acts 2? Or the 5000 in Acts 4? If we believe that they all did then from where do we get that information?

To support a view by arguing from biblical silence is not a good idea. If the Bible doesn’t say something explicitly, it’s never safe to presume something that is probably not there.

"...just show me one timr in the scriptures that it's not for today...you can't! This is a lie that Satan has spead,"

I have already shown, in a previous note, that it is direct disobedience to Jesus, and that it does not edify the Church (see points #5 & #7 of my note "7 Reasons why...") so i will direct you to that note.

Since every time it is ever described in Acts it is always something that the Holy Spirit does to the believers, not something that they were trying to do, and since it is always described as foreign languages, we cannot say for certain that it is what we are supposed to do nowadays.

As for saying that it is a lie from Satan to say that speaking in tongues is wrong, I could also wonder if it’s possible for it to be a lie from Satan that speaking in tongues is a gift for us today. One of the views has to be right.

"...and 1 Cor.12-14 does nothing but encourage you to Speak in tounges...you just are getting it wrong.."

This is where I will have to completely disagree. It is actually the exact opposite of what you have just said. Those chapters are written to discourage believers from speaking in tongues, and the main thrust is to encourage two things: Love and unity. The whole reason why Paul was writing this section was because those who were trying to speak in tongues to edify only themselves were disrupting the unity of the Corinthian church. That’s why Paul says to pursue proclaiming God’s written word (prophecy, 1 Cor. 14:1), and that proclaiming God’s written word is greater than the true manifestation of foreign languages (14:5). Throughout the section Paul makes a definite distinction between false tongues (“a tongue” gibberish) and the true manifestation (“tongues” foreign languages). The true manifestation was speaking foreign languages and, gathering the data from 1 Corinthians 12-14, its normal operation was done by one person, who had the manifestation, either witnessing to an unsaved foreign person or edifying the church with an interpreter who would interpret the speaker (14:5). It was not given to all believers but to some (12:28-30), and the three times when it occurs in Acts it only happened when the Holy Spirit forcibly “fell upon” a new group of believers who were being added to the Church.

"Because the prophet Joel said (Joel 2:28-32) That in the last days God would pour out his Spirit upon ALL flesh..and Peter testifies of this in Acts 2:16-18 and in verse 33 Peter said that it was what they were seeing and HEARING that Joel had prophisied about. So this is what GOD said so thats all i need!!"

First of all, the prophesy of Joel does not mention tongues at all. It only mentions God pouring out His Spirit on all flesh and all people prophesying (proclaiming God's word).

Second, here's a question: If Joel’s prophecy were fulfilled at that time then did ALL people, both saved and unsaved, receive the Holy Spirit? Did the entire world get saved? Obviously no. Since all people, saved and unsaved, did not receive the Holy Spirit at that time then this prophecy was not fulfilled the way it was written. And since all prophecy must be fulfilled as written, Peter must therefore be saying that what was happening on the day of Pentecost was only similar to what Joel said would happen, not that it was the same thing. And it is not straining the text to interpret it that way.

Peter, in the original Greek of Acts 2:33, says that the gift of God is the Holy Spirit, not tongues. In the grammatical structure of the sentence, the referent of “the promise” is the Holy Spirit, not what was going on at the time. So when Peter says that God “poured out this which you now see and hear,” he is not referring to the promise of the Holy Spirit. They are two different parts of the sentence. The promise of the Holy Spirit and what the Jews in Jerusalem were experiencing at the time cannot be equated with each other in the original Greek.

"I thnk that you need to seek God to open up your minds to this unspeakable gift.."

Once again, please check your contexts. The unspeakable gift is not tongues because Paul is not talking about tongues in that section (2 Cor. 9:10-15). Furthermore, how could tongues be spoken if they’re supposedly an unspeakable gift?

"...because you are lacking if you don't have it!"

(See Col. 2:8-10) In addressing this final point I am going to assume that you are right that babbling like the pagans in ecstatic prayer language is a true freedom (not a necessity) that we may exercise in Christ. I will now show how unloving it is to say that we are lacking if we don’t have the manifestation of tongues, even though you probably didn’t mean it to be that way.

In Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 Paul absolutely condemns looking down on other believers because of their own convictions and/or freedoms. He says that if we do look down on other believers because of their different convictions about gray areas then we are not walking in love (Rom. 14:15). Paul says that when we accuse believers of lacking something from God we “condemn” and “regard with contempt” our brothers in Christ, thereby destroying the unity of the Church that Jesus prayed for (John 17:20-23). In principle, Paul would say that God has accepted both the believers who do speak in tongues and the believers who don’t (Rom. 14:3), and each one is solely accountable to God, not to anyone else (14:4, 12).

Paul would make it even stronger and say that by flaunting our own personal freedom we can actually cause another weaker brother to violate their conviction and stumble into sin (1 Cor. 8:9). And, not only is it sin for the weak person whose conviction is violated, but Paul makes it crystal clear that in this situation it is also sin for the strong person to use their freedom (8:12a). Paul then makes it even more direct and says that using our freedom in a situation like this is sin against, not only the weak believer, but also against the Lord Jesus Himself (8:12b). So even if it were true that babbling in gibberish is a spiritual freedom we have in Christ, then looking down on someone because they either do or don't practice it, is sinful.

I feel I have sufficiently answered these points with reasonable objectivity, trying not to force the Bible to say what I want it to, taking scriptural context and historical setting and audience into account. In essence, there is no substantial or explicit reason to believe that speaking in tongues is for every believer today. The only way we can come to that conclusion is to take something that the Bible merely describes (not commands), make it jump through a hoop to mean that tongues is the only evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit, then make that jump through another hoop to mean that this now applies to every believer, and then make that jump through another hoop that says every time the NT talks about a “promise” or “gift” or being "filled with the Spirit" it must mean tongues (even though 99.9% of those passages have nothing to do with tongues at all), and then make that jump through another hoop, and so on. By mostly reading into the text without warrant, this just asks way too much of the biblical text to make it say that our modern form of tongues is okay.

“And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans” (Matt. 6:7)

Four reasons why Jesus’ resurrection matters for salvation

June 10, 2010 FB

For those who want a more precise theological title we could call this: “Four soteriological functions of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The truths of this study are such that they could be greatly expounded upon, but for sake of brevity we will keep it to the basics. This will be the concentrated version where we cram all the truths into the shortest space possible, instead of giving full and comprehensive explanations. For the best value I recommend looking up every reference to see how they open up the truths being presented, and so that God can make the truths real to you through His own word.

What role does Jesus' resurrection play in the salvation of a sinner? If Jesus' death is what paid for our sins, then what is the point of him rising from the dead? Why does the apostle Paul say that we are “still in our sins” if Christ did not rise from the dead (1 Cor. 15:17)?
There must be more to the resurrection than just the proof of Christ's deity, or a receipt for sin's payment, or the stamp of approval (vindication) upon Jesus' teaching and ministry. If the gospel message of salvation includes Christ's resurrection, and it does (See 1 Cor. 15:1-4), then we must ascertain and understand the function of the resurrection in salvation so that we will be able to possess and preach a correct and complete gospel, a correct and complete faith, and a correct and complete hope.

“If Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty… and if Christ is not risen your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:14, 17).

Why? Because...

1) ...a physically living Savior is necessary since the eternal afterlife is to be physical
The Bible clearly teaches that the afterlife will be both spiritual and physical in nature. The Bible speaks of “new heavens and a new earth” to be created at the end of time (Isa. 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1). Taking a normal, face value interpretation (literal hermeneutic), the new heavens and earth are to be physical in nature. The Bible also teaches that there will be physical resurrections of both the saved and the unsaved (Job 19:26; Ps. 16:9-11; Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2; John 5:28-29). Now if the afterlife is to be physical in nature, then a savior who can bring us into that afterlife must be physically alive. Therefore the resurrection of Jesus provides the sinner with the hope of a physically living Savior (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:24-29) who can save them from their sins, and who will return one day to bring in the physical afterlife (Acts 2:24-36; 5:30-31).

2) ...a physical resurrection is necessary for judicial remission and absolution of sins
In legal terms, the penal retribution for sin is death; physical, spiritual, and eternal. Simply put, you sin, you die. Therefore you die spiritually at the moment of sin and you must also die physically as a payment for your sins. Since you are already dead spiritually, when you die physically without a savior you will then enter into eternal death where you will pay the final eternal penalty for your sins against the eternal God. In Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross the legal retributive penalty for sins (death) was completely paid. Once this penalty was completed (the physical death of Jesus), the penalty was no longer to be inflicted but must be remitted, or absolved (Acts 2:24, 38). Therefore, the resurrection of Jesus is itself the judicial absolution for sin’s penalty.
In simpler terms, Jesus’ death took care of the penalty and his resurrection releases and removes the penalty. This means that in Christ’s death all of our sins are paid for, and in his resurrection the total forgiveness and remission of sin’s penalty is available for everyone (Luke 24:46-47; Acts 10:39-43; Rom. 4:23-25). Those who put their complete trust in the risen living Lord Jesus for eternal life will be granted legal justification, remission, and absolution of sins before God because of his resurrection. This is why Paul says that we are still in our sins if Christ is not raised; because the legal retributive penalty (death) could not be absolved without a resurrection from death.

3) ...a physical resurrection is necessary for the act of regeneration, or the “new birth”
This third reason concerns the actual act of infusing eternal life into the sinner who is “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1), but is also directly related to the fourth reason why Christ’s resurrection is necessary for our salvation, which we will see later.
Now, what does someone who is dead spiritually need if they want to live forever? Eternal life, duh. But if they have no eternal life, how then do they receive it? Through the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. First Peter 1:3 says that believers are “born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” It is this “new birth” that infuses the spiritually dead sinner with eternal life. But there’s more! Throughout the entire gospel of John Jesus says that he will give the very same eternal life that he has within himself to those who put their complete trust in him (John 1:3; 3:14-16; 4:13-14; 5:21-29, 39-40; 6:32-58; 8:12; 10:10-18, 25-30; 11:24-26; 12:23-26; 14:6, etc.). But there’s more! Jesus doesn’t just give us his eternal life as one would give a gift. Jesus said that He himself is “the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25). And Romans 6:1-10 says that God, at the moment of salvation, actually unites us together with Jesus Christ in both his death and his resurrection. So the death of Jesus for our sins itself is the death of the sinner for their sins. And, likewise, the resurrection of Jesus is itself the resurrection of the believer into eternal life. Ephesians 2:4-6 gives us this in its most clear view: “But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ… and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”
Because Jesus was raised from the dead into eternal life, so the sinner who puts their complete trust in Christ will be united together with him and his resurrection (John 6:57; 14:19). At the moment of salvation the sinner is infused with the spiritual part of the resurrection. And in the future the believer will have their physical body transformed to enter into the afterlife, just as the Lord Jesus’ body was transformed in his resurrection. Which leads us to the fourth reason why the resurrection of Jesus is necessary for our salvation…

4) ...a physical resurrection is necessary because of the nature and quality of eternal life
Before we get into this fourth reason let’s sum up what we’ve seen so far: The resurrection of Jesus gives legal absolution to the guilty sinner who trusts in Jesus and unites them with him in eternal resurrection life in all its spiritual and physical fullness.
This fourth reason concerns the actual nature and quality of the eternal life which is infused into the sinner. So far we have then seen that the afterlife is both spiritual and physical in nature, so for us to enter it we must have eternal life, both spiritual and physical. That life was provided for by Jesus Christ, and in His resurrection the believer will be infused with both the same spiritual (now, at the moment of salvation) and physical (in the future, a transformed body – see 1 Cor. 15:35-54) eternal life that Jesus has (Phil. 3:20-21; 1 John 3:2). But is there more? Oh yes, that was just the beginning!
Now what are the nature and quality of eternal life? As we have already seen, the nature of the eternal afterlife is both spiritual and physical. So the nature of our eternal life, as mentioned above, must include a physically transformed resurrection body that is able to enter into eternal life. And because Jesus was raised physically, and because believers are united with Christ, believers will also have their physical bodies transformed for eternal life (John 14:19; Rom. 6:5).
Now let’s turn to the quality of this eternal life which we receive through Christ. Many passages that speak of the gifts, graces, and glories that the believer inherits through regeneration hinge on the resurrection of Jesus. There is not enough room to cover everything in depth, but let’s at least list a few of the wonderful gifts that come along with Jesus’ resurrection and eternal life:
-The indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:11; John 7:37-38, 14:15-21)
-Victory over sin’s power and control right here and now (Rom. 6:1-11; 8:1-11; Col. 2:11-13)
-Being made children of God and joint heirs with Christ (Luke 20:35-36; Rom. 8:11-17)
-Eternal security, hope, and joy (1 Pet. 1:3-9)
-The ability to bear fruit to God (Rom. 7:4-7)
-The ability to have a good conscience toward God (1 Pet. 3:21)
-Being made into a new creation (2 Cor. 5:14-17)
-Having an intercessor between us and God (Heb. 7:22-25)
-Being in the love of Christ forever, without separation (Rom. 8:34-39)

There are many more blessings that are due to the resurrection of Jesus, but let’s not forget that all the blessings that come along with the Holy Spirit – the gifts of the Spirit, the fruit of the Spirit, the spiritual weapons to stand against the attacks of the devil, etc. – are also part of eternal resurrection life (Acts 2:32-33). Because of being united to Christ in death and resurrection to eternal life believers are complete in Christ (Col. 2:8-10), we have everything we need to live out the resurrection life that we have been given in Christ (Rom. 6:5; 2 Pet. 1:3), and we will experience God pouring out his wonderful graces on us forever; “that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:7), and all because of the resurrection of Jesus!

To conclude, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is necessary for our salvation because of the need for a living savior, for legal absolution of sins, and for regeneration into eternal life and all of its glories. But there is one final reason why the resurrection of Jesus Christ is important for salvation; so that Jesus Christ can be with us. The greatest desire of the heart of Jesus is to be with those he loves (John 17:24). Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins because he loved us and wanted to be with us so much. But if he stayed dead, then he would not be able to be with us in our resurrection. So the resurrection of Jesus provides him with the ability to be with us, and to shower his love on us, and to enjoy us, and to show us his glory. Can you imagine how excited and eager Jesus must be to be with us and show us all the unimaginably wonderful things he has prepared just for us (1 Cor. 2:9; Eph. 2:4-7)? What love he has! What hope we have!

“Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.” (John 17:24-26)

Nehemiah Ryan © 2010

An argument against modern Christian music

February 15, 2010 FB

INTRODUCTION
This is not going to be what you may be thinking. Actually this argument will not be against modern Christian music for everyone. The title was just to gain attention. This is actually going to be an argument against self satisfaction, and an argument for love and sensitivity to one another.
The nature of music and personal beliefs/feelings and their relation to one another is such that there are too many variables to reach an ultimate decision about which types of music are acceptable for all believers. Therefore an objective argument against listening to the whole of both Christian and secular music, either old or new, cannot be applied to every person. Likewise, an objective argument against listening to certain parts of both Christian and secular music, either old or new, also cannot be applied to every person. Rather, the argument must be restricted to a relative nature.
This being said, there are still objective biblical truths that must be determined about what may or may not be listened to, but those truths necessarily cannot apply to any particular type or age of music without first being related to personal beliefs/feelings. And even in this case, both Christian and secular music, as a whole or in part, cannot be argued against and subsequently applied to every person.
In this case, all that can be argued for are the objective biblical principles in application to individuals, and in relation to one another. And all that can be argued against is the violation of these biblical principles both individually and in relation to others.

BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES
Since the Bible contains God’s objective truth, anything that it commands must not be violated. Therefore, there are objectively absolute truths about music that apply to every believer. However, each person has different musical tastes. Therefore, since there are objective values that apply to all believers (biblical truths), and since there are also differing subjective personal components (musical tastes), the subjective components then must fall under and relate to the objective values. However, because the subjective components are different for each person, these same components cannot be applied to others but must remain relative, yet at the same time they must remain as constituents of the objective truths. Simply put, the biblical truths apply absolutely to every believer and to all types of music, but cannot apply absolutely to any particular types of Christian and/or secular music in relation to all believers.
There are basically two objective principles that must be brought into question for determining what types of music one should listen to. The two main objective principles are as follows: (I) Listening to fleshly music is always wrong, and (II) personal freedom must never violate another’s personal convictions.

I. Listening to fleshly music is always wrong

Galatians 5:17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.

Romans 13:14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.

The flesh is at war with the Spirit and believers are commanded to not provide their flesh with anything that would lead them to sin. Therefore, if a particular type of music causes a believer to lust and stumble into sin, that type is fleshly and must not be listened to.
But what types of music are to be considered fleshly? In actuality, music itself is not fleshly or sin. What must be determined here is the difference between preference and conviction. A believer may have personal preferences about music that do not cause them to fall into sin, but they may also have convictions about music that, when they are violated, will cause them to fall into sin.

A personal preference about music is something that is normally outside the realm of sin, but can enter into it. A preference is usually determined by something within a person, not by an outside factor. However, if the personal preference causes one to lust and fall into sin, it should be rejected because it violates the biblical principle above.
This can be seen in the following illustration. Jill is a believer who likes rap music (either Christian or secular, or both). However, her preference for this style combined with her fleshly lusts cause her to start dabbling with the stereotypical lifestyles of rappers and this leads her into the sins of that stereotypical lifestyle (i.e. using profane language, using drugs, etc.). In this illustration, the preference did not cause Jill to sin. Rather it was her attraction to and subsequent involvement in a lifestyle that lead her into sin. Please note that this does not mean that everyone who listens to a type of music will have the same experience(s). Because fleshly desires are relative to each person, in this case it was a person not keeping a leash on their preferences that caused them to fall into sin. It is the fleshly lust within a person that leads them to seek out sin and pervert something that is not necessarily sinful in and of itself. A preference then is normally in favor of something, but may also be in opposition to something.

A personal conviction is something that is entirely different. It is something that normally falls within the realm of sin. A personal conviction is dependent upon the past experiences of a believer. This can be seen in the following illustration. Before John became a believer he had an addiction to alcohol. As part of his alcoholic forays he would purposely pair the drinking with country music. So now that he is a believer, whenever he hears country music it reminds him of his lust after alcohol and stirs up that lust, thereby providing his flesh with a temptation to fulfill its lusts and possibly fall into alcoholism again. It causes him to feel as though he were sinning. (A similar biblical example of this is seen in 1 Cor. 8:1-7) In this illustration, the music is actually what provides John with a temptation to fall into sin because it is something that he connects to his past alcoholic addiction. Therefore, listening to country music (both Christian and secular) is wrong for John because it may cause him to lust after sin. This is John’s conviction, and he knows that listening to a specific type of music provides his flesh with something that stirs up lust, so he tries to stay away from that type of music. It is a temptation that comes at the person from outside and stirs up lustful desires. A conviction then is always and only an opposition to something.

A brief note concerning emotion and the flesh: Emotions are normally always involved in music but they are not always fleshly. Therefore one must be careful not to automatically say that a feeling or emotion is fleshly. Because each person has a different taste in music, they will be emotionally involved in some types, but not in others. Likewise, because each person has different fleshly desires, certain types of music may cause one to lust, but others will not. The main point of this section is that a person’s flesh is not to be provided with anything that will cause their flesh to lust and possibly lead the person into sin. Therefore, if a certain type(s) of music leads a person into sin, then that person should not listen to that type(s). This is exactly what Jesus meant when he said “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you…If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you” (Matt. 18:8-9).

Here are some (not all) absolutes and possibilities that we can conclude so far:

• It is absolutely impossible for Christian music as a whole, or in part, to be sinful for every person. However, depending on certain factors, it is possible for Christian music as a whole, or in part, to be wrong for an individual.


• It is absolutely impossible for personal preferences for musical types to only and always be considered sin, but they may lead one into sin. Therefore, depending on certain factors, it is possible for a personal preference in favor of a type of music to change into a personal conviction against it.


• It is absolutely impossible for all emotion to be fleshly. However, depending on certain factors, it is possible for some emotions to be fleshly at certain times. Therefore, depending on certain factors, it is possible for certain types of music, both Christian and secular, to be fleshly for an individual.

II. Personal freedom must never violate another’s personal convictions

Romans 14:1-3 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

1 Corinthians 8:9-13 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

In both of the above passages the issue being addressed is concerning eating meat that was offered to pagan idols. It was the conviction of some people in both the Roman and Corinthian churches that buying and partaking of the meat that was offered to idols was sinful. But there were others who had no problem with eating the meat because, to them, meat is just meat. The issue facing those churches also applies to the issue of music in the life of a believer. Some are personally convicted if they themselves partake of certain things, and others are not. This goes back to the difference between preferences and convictions.
Preferences. The fact that a person likes or dislikes certain musical styles/artists is subject to change and therefore may be imposed upon by others.
Convictions. Since a conviction is dependent on subjective outside determining factors it should not be imposed upon, otherwise the conscience is wounded and fleshly lust may be stirred up.

What is now left to be determined is how one’s personal freedom and another’s personal conviction work in relation to one another.
Let’s look at the above Romans 14 passage first. Paul gives a distinction between the strong and the weak. In the context of the passage the “strong” would be the believers who had no conviction against eating the meat offered to idols and would do so regularly. They are the ones who have freedom. The ones who are “weak” are those who were not free to eat the meat offered to pagan idols because in their past when they ate the meat they sinfully did so at the table of demons (1 Cor. 10:21). These are the ones who are limited to not eating the pagan meat and therefore have a personal conviction against it.
Now let’s relate that to music. The believer who is strong can be characterized as the one who has no conviction against a particular type of music, neither Christian nor secular, and is free to listen to whatever they prefer. The believer who is weak is the one who has a conviction. So the weak believer cannot listen to some music without it reminding them of an old sin and possibly causing their flesh to lust after sin. Or even more to the point, upon hearing certain types of music, the conscience of the weak believer will make them feel as though they are sinning because certain types of music are always connected to an old sin.

Paul says that the one who is strong is not to have contempt for the weak because of their conviction. Apparently, in the situation of both the Roman and Corinthian churches the ones who were strong would actually disrespect and despise the weaker brethren because of their convictions. Paul says not to do this. Therefore, when applied to the area of Christian music, if a weak believer has a personal conviction about certain music then the stronger brother is not to disrespect and condemn the weaker brother or their conviction. Rather, he is to “accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions” (Rom. 14:1).

We can also assume that the flipside was true (14:3). Apparently in the Roman and Corinthian churches the weaker brethren were condemning the freedom of the strong. Eating meat offered to idols was wrong for the weaker brethren, so they assumed it was wrong for all believers. However, this was not the case because the meat is just meat whether or not it was offered to idols. It was only sin for the weaker brother because of their personal background. Therefore, since it was sin for the weak and not for the strong, the weak were not to condemn the freedom of the strong. The same goes for music. Because one believer may have a personal conviction against some type of music, it does not mean that all believers have the same conviction. Therefore, the weak brother who has a conviction about some type of music is not to condemn the freedom of the strong because “God has accepted [the strong]” (14:3).

Now let’s look at the passage in 1st Corinthians. This passage takes the principle to a higher level. The Romans passage was about a believer’s thinking and feelings (passing judgment), but this passage deals with actions. Paul makes it a point to let believers know that it is possible for our own free actions to cause others to sin. What Paul warns against is a strong believer being a bad example to the weaker. Paul gives an illustration of the strong believer going into the pagan temple and eating the meat there (1 Cor. 8:10). This then would become a stumbling block (8:9) and cause the weaker brother to go ahead and partake of the meat, thereby violating their weak conscience (8:10). This principle is very serious. Paul says that by using our own personal freedom we can actually cause another weaker brother to violate their conviction and stumble into sin. And, not only is it sin for the weak person whose conviction is violated, but Paul makes it crystal clear that in this situation it is also sin for the strong person to use their freedom (8:12a). Paul then makes it even more direct and says that using our freedom in a situation like this is sin against, not only the weak believer, but also against the Lord Jesus Himself (8:12b)!
So one’s freedom to listen to music, either Christian or secular, may wound the conscience of the weak, give them a license to go after their personal fleshly lusts, violate their conviction, and cause them to fall into sin. Therefore, if we know that our freedom will cause the conscience of the weak to be wounded then we must restrict our freedom so that it does not cause the weak to stumble. Here’s a brief illustration that Dr. J. Vernon McGee gave about this: You have the freedom to swing your fist anywhere in the air that you want to. Swing it here, swing it there, it’s all okay. But where my nose begins, your freedom ends. In other words, the only time that the freedom of a believer’s personal musical tastes should be limited is when it violates the conscience and conviction of another. Otherwise it is sin for everyone involved.

Here are some (not all) absolutes and possibilities that we can further conclude so far:

• Passing judgment on someone else’s freedom is absolutely always wrong. But condemning the object(s) of their freedom is okay only for oneself if it is a personal conviction. However, it must be limited to oneself and cannot be applied to or forced upon others.


• Being sensitive to and not violating the convictions of another can never be wrong. So, if there are two individuals who have convictions that seem to be in conflict with each other, remember that convictions are always in opposition to something, never in favor. Therefore, if that case does arise then one of the conflicting values must necessarily be an imposing positive preference because two limitations cannot impose upon each other. Thus, limiting oneself can never actually oppose or violate a conviction.


• Forcing one’s own freedom and/or conviction(s) upon someone else is always wrong, and it is sin against both the other person(s) and Christ. Therefore, since it is possible for listening to Christian music, as a whole or in part, to violate the conscience and be sin for a weak believer, and since the stronger believer must not violate the conscience of the weaker, then this actually is an argument against Christian music as a whole or in part for both the strong and weak believer; however, it cannot apply to every situation.

Finally, we must see that love is the guiding factor. This relates to both (A) the Lord Jesus and (B) to other believers.

A. The relationship between the believer and Jesus.

John 15:9-11"Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love. These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.”

Anything that comes between a believer and the Lord Jesus is sin. Therefore, if a certain type of music, even if it’s labeled “Christian,” takes precedence over and above the person of Jesus then it is sin. In other words, just because something is labeled “Christian” does not mean that it cannot come between you and Christ. Nor does it mean that it will happen. It simply means that it is possible for music of any kind to become more important than the Lord. And sadly, this often does happen, even with Christian music. Since Jesus wants you to abide in his love and have the fullness of his joy, then you must not disobey his commandments by letting something come between you and him, even if it’s Christian music.

B. Relationships between believers.

John 15:12-13 "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.”

Romans 14:14-15 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.

1 Corinthians 8:13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

From the verses above we can see that it is a sign of selfishness and a lack of love for us to refuse to limit our freedom when it violates the conscience and conviction of another. We can see that one who is not willing to give up a type of music for another believer certainly would not be willing to give his life for them. We can see that we are not walking in love and that by using our freedom knowingly and spitefully in the face of the weaker brother leads to his destruction. And we can see that it is the responsibility of the stronger believer to limit his freedom so that no one sins.

Some final conclusions and questions:

• It is possible for a believer to allow his personal musical preferences (even Christian) to get in the way of his relationship with the Lord Jesus. However, this does not mean that it will happen.


• It is possible for a stronger believer to listen to certain types of music that the weak may be convicted by, yet not be sinning against the conscience of the weak. However, this can only apply if the strong believer does not know about the conviction of the weak believer, and/or if the weak does not know about the freedom of the strong.


• It is impossible for a believer to love his brother and at the same time knowingly violate their weaker conscience and conviction. Therefore, if we know that a weaker brother has a conviction and we still violate it, it can only mean one thing; that we do not love that brother.

Here are some questions that may be asked about music:

• The question is not “Is Christian music, new or old, wrong for everyone?” The question should be “Is it wrong for me in this specific situation?”


• The question is not, “Does this music make everyone stumble?” The question should be “Is this music coming between me and the Lord and/or cause another to stumble?”


• The question is not, “What kind of music is okay?” The question should be, “Do I love my Lord and/or my brother(s) enough to give up the type of music that is offending?”


• The question is, “Am I going to limit my freedom in this case because I know it causes my brother(s) to stumble?”

Two final notes:
First, this discussion has looked at the area of music as something innocent that the believer comes at either with or without a personal conviction. However, there is another side to it. Musical artists are not always innocent and do not always have innocent songs. In the area of Christianity, Jesus says that Satan has sown evil tares (satanic servants) among the wheat (Christianity), and that the tares are indistinguishable from the wheat until they ripen (Matt. 13:24-30; 36-43). Therefore, it is certainly possible for there to be unrecognizable and indistinguishable satanic musicians (tares) within “Christian” music. In other words, if there are tares within Christian music then it is nearly impossible to tell whether or not an artist is actually a minister of Satan, and we may never discover the difference until the final judgment.

Finally, this discussion about personal convictions and their relation to other believers does not only apply to the area of music. It also applies to all other parts of the Christian life (i.e. movies we go to, TV shows we watch, places we go, hobbies we have, etc.). So we must be careful not to let any part of our behavior become a stumbling block for others. And if any of our behavior does cause another to sin, then we are commanded to limit our personal freedom so that sin will not be committed.

Nehemiah Ryan © 2010

ORIGINAL NOTE COMMENTS

Elisabeth Vander Mey 
We totally agree with everything you said. Great note, Nehemiah!One question I'd like to hear your answer to: what do you do with a believer who says that all modern Christian music is wrong because it has a "rock beat" in it? We've known many believers like this. You and I see them as a weaker brother, but they see themselves as more righteous than us. What would you say to them?


Nehemiah Ryan 
I'm not sure what I would do. I think that they have a preference but not a conviction. They may have a very legitimate personal reason for their problem with "rock beats" so I would find out why they have a problem first. Then I would try to slowly and carefully try to show them that not everyone else is either offended by or stumbles listening to rock beats.It could be that this is their logical reasoning:Major premise: Secular rock music has some satanic/fleshly artists in it who write worldly/fleshly songs.Minor premise: Christian music has rock beats.Conclusion: Any "Christian rock" music is not from God, but from Satan.The major fallacy is that they made a hasty generalization of rock music.
Another hasty generalization fallacy that I can see them make is that they say that every believer is affected the same way by rock music. But that simply is not true. I mean think about it, some people are affected as little by a Led Zeppelin song as they are by "Old Macdonald had a farm" (both are secular songs with a "rock" beat). Not everyone has the same feelings toward every type of music.
Just remember the loving admonition element to this. If it just becomes a battle of who has the best argument, and about who is right or wrong, then it accomplishes nothing. People come from different backgrounds so some things may be really important to them that may not be important to you. So the goal here is to help the other believer(s) see their error for themselves, not to wave it in front of their face like a bullfighter does with a bull. This is best done by asking questions. That way they can see their own mistakes and prove themselves wrong. I remember I was talking with Esther's step dad and I was just asking him questions and he was showing himself where he was wrong on certain things. Later that night when i was out of the room and i heard him say, "He's trying to prove me wrong." I thought it was funny because all I did was ask questions. He was the one proving himself wrong.
Anyway, just be very careful that you don't start an argument just to prove your point and show them that they are wrong and you are right. Start a genuine discussion to try to help them (and you) have a better relationship with Christ and to help them (and you) love their brothers and sisters more than themselves.
The self-righteousness aspect is pretty much impossible to overcome via logical arguments, even for God. Once a person believes that God somehow can't get along without them, they've moved to making themselves equal with God. Since God cannot allow this, He must humble those who have exalted themselves.
All of us have some self-righteousness in us, don't we? If that's true then how many of us need to be humbled? It's no fun, but it's it worth it.


Elisabeth Vander Mey 
Thanks! I think so many believers are like the Pharisees, myself included sometimes. We look at the Pharisees like they were total hypocrites (and they were), but if we lived in that time, we would have seen them as pious, righteous spiritual leaders. They really did try to obey God's laws and live holy, righteous lives. Then Jesus came along, a poor guy who was of questionable birth, who challenged everything they cherished and revered as God's word. Jesus was a threat to their way of life, and they had too much pride to see that they had wrong motives.
Christians don't like to see themselves like the Pharisees, but so many of us are. We forget why Jesus came, to save sinners, because we get so caught up in rules and regulations and forms for church. The longer I live, the more I can see how we, as human beings, have distorted and ruined the perfect plans God has/had for us. We are always adding our own ideas and rules to things, and making them equal to God's laws, just so we can measure our own godliness and the spiritual state of others. How does that lead to freedom in Christ?I have a feeling that if Christ came to us today, we would be called hypocrites and pharisees.


Keith Hess 
Regarding Aaron-Elizabeth Vander Mey's question:
Perhaps some people think that rock beats are wrong because they conflate moral/aesthetic values. That is, when they listen to music with a rock beat, they find it aesthetically distasteful (though they don't recognize the distaste as an aesthetic one), and they assume that the distaste they have for the music is a moral distaste.
Or, perhaps they recognize the distinction between aesthetic/moral values, but they think that if some piece of music is aesthetically distasteful, then listening to that music would be morally wrong.
I've also heard some people argue that listening to rock music is bad for your health (they site experiments in which plants are exposed to different kinds of music, and in which the plants exposed to classical music/hymns/etc. thrive and the plants exposed to rock music die). I'm not sure how they get from the findings of those studies to the conclusion that rock music is sinful. Maybe they reason that if it's bad for a plant's health, it must be bad for a person's health. And, they might continue, it is sinful to expose oneself to something that is unhealthy since I Cor. 6:19 is true.p.s. I don't think that all rock music is aesthetically distasteful.
p.p.s. Perhaps I shouldn't use "distasteful" since that might imply that aesthetic/moral values are subjective. I think that some aesthetic values are subjective while others are objective.