For CCM? Please convince us FROM Scripture alone

[Frag]

That is why the "show me chapter and verse" is the defense of the foolish.

When people claim that the Bible is sufficient and that there are principles in Scripture that show CCM is wrong, then the "show me chapter and verse" is a defense of God's word. It is wrong to add to Scripture and constrain people by what ends up being mere opinion.

Only on the FFF will you see someone debunking the actual need to support one's opinion by Scripture.

By "show me chapter and verse", what I mean is "show me where the Bible directly condemns and specifically mentions what I am defending as right".  If God was going to specifically command us against all possible acts of evil then the Bible would have to be carted around in a semi-trailer.  Also, the book of acts Christians might have wondered long why they were commanded not to "sext". 

Principles are found in "chapter and verse".  To exclude them as useless because they create "what ends up being mere opinion" is actually a defense for "Christian" Humanism (the fear of absolutes!).  Again, that is why it is a waste of time to argue where the lines of holy living are with carnal, worldly minded Christians.  As this forum has proved time and time again, carnal Christians can use the Bible to defend almost anything.  But HOLY Spirit filled Christians rightly dividing the HOLY Bible are always led to live a HOLY life. 

Ok.  Now proceed with the mockery, scorn and name calling.....

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

That is why the "show me chapter and verse" is the defense of the foolish.

When people claim that the Bible is sufficient and that there are principles in Scripture that show CCM is wrong, then the "show me chapter and verse" is a defense of God's word. It is wrong to add to Scripture and constrain people by what ends up being mere opinion.

Only on the FFF will you see someone debunking the actual need to support one's opinion by Scripture.

By "show me chapter and verse", what I mean is "show me where the Bible directly condemns and specifically mentions what I am defending as right".  If God was going to specifically command us against all possible acts of evil then the Bible would have to be carted around in a semi-trailer.  Also, the book of acts Christians might have wondered long why they were commanded not to "sext". 

Principles are found in "chapter and verse".  To exclude them as useless because they create "what ends up being mere opinion" is actually a defense for "Christian" Humanism (the fear of absolutes!).  Again, that is why it is a waste of time to argue where the lines of holy living are with carnal, worldly minded Christians.  As this forum has proved time and time again, carnal Christians can use the Bible to defend almost anything.  But HOLY Spirit filled Christians rightly dividing the HOLY Bible are always led to live a HOLY life. 

Ok.  Now proceed with the mockery, scorn and name calling.....

You have expressed my thought quite well. When examples are given ,the "law of indistinct induction" is quoted. There are perhaps times when that is correct however, the "outlandish" examples are given to show that if principle doesnt matter then anything goes.

If I can drink wine, why can't I smoke pot?

What gets asked on here requires someone to do an exposition of the 212 verses with the word "wine" (no variations) in the Bible. Just an example.

Romans 8:7  Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

 

[Mathew Ward]

That is why the "show me chapter and verse" is the defense of the foolish.

When people claim that the Bible is sufficient and that there are principles in Scripture that show CCM is wrong, then the "show me chapter and verse" is a defense of God's word. It is wrong to add to Scripture and constrain people by what ends up being mere opinion.

Only on the FFF will you see someone debunking the actual need to support one's opinion by Scripture.

By "show me chapter and verse", what I mean is "show me where the Bible directly condemns and specifically mentions what I am defending as right".  If God was going to specifically command us against all possible acts of evil then the Bible would have to be carted around in a semi-trailer.  Also, the book of acts Christians might have wondered long why they were commanded not to "sext". 

Principles are found in "chapter and verse".  To exclude them as useless because they create "what ends up being mere opinion" is actually a defense for "Christian" Humanism (the fear of absolutes!).  Again, that is why it is a waste of time to argue where the lines of holy living are with carnal, worldly minded Christians.  As this forum has proved time and time again, carnal Christians can use the Bible to defend almost anything.  But HOLY Spirit filled Christians rightly dividing the HOLY Bible are always led to live a HOLY life. 

Ok.  Now proceed with the mockery, scorn and name calling.....

You have expressed my thought quite well. When examples are given ,the "law of indistinct induction" is quoted. There are perhaps times when that is correct however, the "outlandish" examples are given to show that if principle doesnt matter then anything goes.

If I can drink wine, why can't I smoke pot?

What gets asked on here requires someone to do an exposition of the 212 verses with the word "wine" (no variations) in the Bible. Just an example.

Romans 8:7  Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Romans 8:8-9  So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

 

[christundivided]

That is why the "show me chapter and verse" is the defense of the foolish.

When people claim that the Bible is sufficient and that there are principles in Scripture that show CCM is wrong, then the "show me chapter and verse" is a defense of God's word. It is wrong to add to Scripture and constrain people by what ends up being mere opinion.

Only on the FFF will you see someone debunking the actual need to support one's opinion by Scripture.

By "show me chapter and verse", what I mean is "show me where the Bible directly condemns and specifically mentions what I am defending as right".  If God was going to specifically command us against all possible acts of evil then the Bible would have to be carted around in a semi-trailer.  Also, the book of acts Christians might have wondered long why they were commanded not to "sext". 

Principles are found in "chapter and verse".  To exclude them as useless because they create "what ends up being mere opinion" is actually a defense for "Christian" Humanism (the fear of absolutes!).  Again, that is why it is a waste of time to argue where the lines of holy living are with carnal, worldly minded Christians.  As this forum has proved time and time again, carnal Christians can use the Bible to defend almost anything.  But HOLY Spirit filled Christians rightly dividing the HOLY Bible are always led to live a HOLY life. 

Ok.  Now proceed with the mockery, scorn and name calling.....

You have expressed my thought quite well. When examples are given ,the "law of indistinct induction" is quoted. There are perhaps times when that is correct however, the "outlandish" examples are given to show that if principle doesnt matter then anything goes.

If I can drink wine, why can't I smoke pot?

What gets asked on here requires someone to do an exposition of the 212 verses with the word "wine" (no variations) in the Bible. Just an example.

Romans 8:7  Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Romans 8:8-9  So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Exactly... I really get tired of people quoting verse 7 without verse 8-9. They knowingly omit the verses because  it doesn't fit with the point they are trying to make.

 

[Ransom]

If I can drink wine, why can't I smoke pot?

It's also fair to point out that it's the fundies that always want to know why they can't smoke pot, and so forth.

If I didn't know better - and if I'm honest, I actually don't - I'd say the fundies were the ones with the fixation on sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

And thanks to the hijinx of Jack Schaap, Hyles, et al, we can already regard sex as a given . . .

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Exactly... I really get tired of people quoting verse 7 without verse 8-9. They knowingly omit the verses because  it doesn't fit with the point they are trying to make.

No, the carnal man is different than the unsaved or natural man as shown in In the passage from 1 Corinthians 2:11 (ish) to 1 Corinthians 3:4. The outline is old, but the natural man is set apart from the carnal man and the spiritual man. Paul called the (saved) Corinthians carnal, not natural. (1Cor3:1-3).

Reading Romans 8, we have to start with basic interpretation. The Book was written to the Church at Rome, (1:7, 16:23), so we can assume it was written to saved people.

Romans 8 is not talking to the lost, but to the saved. While you accuse me of cutting of verse 8-9, but you have omitted verses 10-16. Paul was encouraging/exhorting the saved to stop living after the flesh (vs 13) and to be led by the Spirit (vs 14). Paul was reminding them that if they were saved, they should live like it. Paul was also reminding them that if they had the Spirit of Christ, then they should be led by the Spirit of Christ (God).

Try Barnes on Roman 8:7
The carnal mind. This is the same expression as occurs in Ro 8:6, (to jronhma thV sarkoV). It does not mean the mind itself, the intellect, or the will; it does not suppose that the mind or soul is physically depraved, or opposed to God; but it means that the minding of the things of the flesh, giving to them supreme attention, is hostility against God; and involves the sinner in a controversy with him, and hence leads to death and woe. This passage should not he alleged in proof that the soul is physically depraved, but merely that where there is a supreme regard to the flesh there is hostility to God. It does not directly prove the doctrine of universal depravity; but it proves only that where such attention exists to the corrupt desires of the soul, there is hostility to God. It is indeed implied that that supreme regard to the flesh exists everywhere by nature, but this is not expressly affirmed; for the object of the apostle here is not to teach the doctrine of depravity, but to show that where such depravity in fact exists, it involves the sinner in a fearful controversy with God.

 

[christundivided]

Exactly... I really get tired of people quoting verse 7 without verse 8-9. They knowingly omit the verses because  it doesn't fit with the point they are trying to make.

No, the carnal man is different than the unsaved or natural man as shown in In the passage from 1 Corinthians 2:11 (ish) to 1 Corinthians 3:4. The outline is old, but the natural man is set apart from the carnal man and the spiritual man. Paul called the (saved) Corinthians carnal, not natural. (1Cor3:1-3).

Reading Romans 8, we have to start with basic interpretation. The Book was written to the Church at Rome, (1:7, 16:23), so we can assume it was written to saved people.

Romans 8 is not talking to the lost, but to the saved. While you accuse me of cutting of verse 8-9, but you have omitted verses 10-16. Paul was encouraging/exhorting the saved to stop living after the flesh (vs 13) and to be led by the Spirit (vs 14). Paul was reminding them that if they were saved, they should live like it. Paul was also reminding them that if they had the Spirit of Christ, then they should be led by the Spirit of Christ (God).

Try Barnes on Roman 8:7
The carnal mind. This is the same expression as occurs in Ro 8:6, (to jronhma thV sarkoV). It does not mean the mind itself, the intellect, or the will; it does not suppose that the mind or soul is physically depraved, or opposed to God; but it means that the minding of the things of the flesh, giving to them supreme attention, is hostility against God; and involves the sinner in a controversy with him, and hence leads to death and woe. This passage should not he alleged in proof that the soul is physically depraved, but merely that where there is a supreme regard to the flesh there is hostility to God. It does not directly prove the doctrine of universal depravity; but it proves only that where such attention exists to the corrupt desires of the soul, there is hostility to God. It is indeed implied that that supreme regard to the flesh exists everywhere by nature, but this is not expressly affirmed; for the object of the apostle here is not to teach the doctrine of depravity, but to show that where such depravity in fact exists, it involves the sinner in a fearful controversy with God.

Barnes???? Really....

The average man haphazardly quotes Barnes without any thought as to what he says. Barnes faced charges of heresy in the Presbyterian church and denied that humanity was personally answerable to the sins of Adam. You'd should really find another source for knowledge. I know very few people that seriously appeal to Barnes for much of anything.

In regards to your silly ideals on Romans 8... The entire discourse in Romans 8 is an appeal of those in Christ Jesus to understand their position in opposition to those apart from God. The verses you referenced clearly place all those in a Christ Jesus in opposition to the carnal mind. There is absolutely NO appeal for Christians to battle a carnal mind. Those in Christ do not have a carnal that is impossible to subject to the law of God.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Exactly... I really get tired of people quoting verse 7 without verse 8-9. They knowingly omit the verses because  it doesn't fit with the point they are trying to make.

No, the carnal man is different than the unsaved or natural man as shown in In the passage from 1 Corinthians 2:11 (ish) to 1 Corinthians 3:4. The outline is old, but the natural man is set apart from the carnal man and the spiritual man. Paul called the (saved) Corinthians carnal, not natural. (1Cor3:1-3).

Reading Romans 8, we have to start with basic interpretation. The Book was written to the Church at Rome, (1:7, 16:23), so we can assume it was written to saved people.

Romans 8 is not talking to the lost, but to the saved. While you accuse me of cutting of verse 8-9, but you have omitted verses 10-16. Paul was encouraging/exhorting the saved to stop living after the flesh (vs 13) and to be led by the Spirit (vs 14). Paul was reminding them that if they were saved, they should live like it. Paul was also reminding them that if they had the Spirit of Christ, then they should be led by the Spirit of Christ (God).

Try Barnes on Roman 8:7
The carnal mind. This is the same expression as occurs in Ro 8:6, (to jronhma thV sarkoV). It does not mean the mind itself, the intellect, or the will; it does not suppose that the mind or soul is physically depraved, or opposed to God; but it means that the minding of the things of the flesh, giving to them supreme attention, is hostility against God; and involves the sinner in a controversy with him, and hence leads to death and woe. This passage should not he alleged in proof that the soul is physically depraved, but merely that where there is a supreme regard to the flesh there is hostility to God. It does not directly prove the doctrine of universal depravity; but it proves only that where such attention exists to the corrupt desires of the soul, there is hostility to God. It is indeed implied that that supreme regard to the flesh exists everywhere by nature, but this is not expressly affirmed; for the object of the apostle here is not to teach the doctrine of depravity, but to show that where such depravity in fact exists, it involves the sinner in a fearful controversy with God.

Barnes???? Really....

The average man haphazardly quotes Barnes without any thought as to what he says. Barnes faced charges of heresy in the Presbyterian church and denied that humanity was personally answerable to the sins of Adam. You'd should really find another source for knowledge. I know very few people that seriously appeal to Barnes for much of anything.

In regards to your silly ideals on Romans 8... The entire discourse in Romans 8 is an appeal of those in Christ Jesus to understand their position in opposition to those apart from God. The verses you referenced clearly place all those in a Christ Jesus in opposition to the carnal mind. There is absolutely NO appeal for Christians to battle a carnal mind. Those in Christ do not have a carnal that is impossible to subject to the law of God.

Barnes heresy was subscribing to a limited atonement. He was put on trial by the synod of Philadelphia for it twice, once in 1835 and once in 1836. He did not deny that man was personally answerable to the sins of Adam, he disagreed that Romans 5:12 was a proof text for the teaching of original sin, but instead asserted tha man was responsible for his own sin.

I have posted Barnes arguments so you can see what he asserted.

ROMANS 5:12-21

12-21. This passage has been usually regarded as the most difficult part of the New Testament. It is not the design of these Notes to enter into a minute criticism of contested points like this. They who wish to see a full discussion of the passage, may find it in the professedly critical commentaries; and especially in the commentaries of Tholuck and of Professor Stuart on the Romans. The meaning of the passage in its general bearing is not difficult; and probably the whole passage would have been found far less difficult if it had not been attached to a philosophical theory on the subject of man's sin, and if a strenuous and indefatigable effort had not been made to prove that it teaches what it was never designed to teach.

19. For, &c. This verse is not a mere repetition of the former, but it is an explanation. By the former statements it might perhaps be inferred that men were condemned without any guilt or blame of theirs. The apostle in this verse guards against this, and affirms that they are in fact sinners. He affirms that those who are sinners are condemned, and that the sufferings brought in on account of the sin of Adam, are introduced because many were made sinners. Calvin says, "Lest any one should arrogate to himself innocence, [the apostle] adds, that each one is condemned because he is a sinner."

By one man's disobedience. By means of the sin of Adam. This affirms simply the fact that such a result followed from the sin of Adam. The word by (dia) is used in the Scriptures as it is in all books and in all languages. It may denote the efficient cause; the instrumental cause; the principal cause; the meritorious cause; or the chief occasion by which a thing occurred. (See Schleusner.) It does not express one mode, and one only, in which a thing is done; but that one thing is the result of another. When we say that a young man is ruined in his character by another, we do not express the mode, but the fact. When we say that thousands have been made infidels by the writings of Paine and Voltaire, we make no affirmation about the mode, but about the fact. In each of these, and in all other cases, we should deem it most inconclusive reasoning to attempt to determine the mode by the preposition by; and still more absurd if it were argued from the use of that preposition that the sins of the seducer were imputed to the young man; or the opinions of Paine and Voltaire imputed to infidels.

There is not the slightest intimation that it was by imputation. The whole scope of the argument is, moreover, against this; for the object of the apostle is not to show that they were charged with the sin of another, but that they were in fact sinners themselves. If it means that they were condemned for his act, without any concurrence of their own will, then the correspondent part will be true, that all are constituted righteous in the same way; and thus the doctrine of universal salvation will be inevitable. But as none are constituted righteous who do not voluntarily avail themselves of the provisions of mercy, so it follows that those who are condemned, are not condemned for the sin of another without their own concurrence, nor unless they personally deserve it.

Sinners. Transgressors; those who deserve to be punished. It does not mean those who are condemned for the sin of another; but those who are violators of the law of God. All who are condemned are sinners. They are not innocent persons condemned for the crime of another. Men may be involved in the consequences of the sins of others without being to blame. The consequences of the crimes of a murderer, a drunkard, a pirate, may pass over from them, and affect thousands, and whelm them in ruin. But this does not prove that they are blameworthy. In the divine administration none are regarded as guilty who are not guilty; none are condemned who do not deserve to be condemned. All who sink to hell are sinners.

Truth is, the Philidelphia synod would disagree with me on the nature of the atonement. I reject TULIP theology.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

"Eventhough I cannot point to Scripture, I see 'principles' and 'concepts' that give me comfort in making my preferences legitimate."

(Admin mocks those who use a verse to establish a principle that is not directly taught)

  Also, the book of acts Christians might have wondered long why they were commanded not to "sext". 

Are we not commanded many times to avoid all forms of fornication?

(Admin uses verses to establish a principle that is not directly taught)

Sorry, you lose.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Am I missing something Darkwing?

Avoiding all forms of sexual immorality is explicit in many passages. Did I really have to post any? Mt 15.19 etc.

I completely agree with you.
However, "sexting" isn't mentioned in the Bible. So we have to apply Biblical principles and concepts to reach the personal conviction that it is wrong.

To me, this is identical to what you are accusing the anti-CCM crowd of doing.

Maybe I misunderstood your position?

(and for the record, I'm on the side that thinks most CCM songs are fine; but I also think that not everything is explicitly mentioned in the Bible and thus you have to apply Biblical principles to establish some beliefs.)

 

[Frag]

  Also, the book of acts Christians might have wondered long why they were commanded not to "sext". 

Are we not commanded many times to avoid all forms of fornication?

It appears you "know" what is in the Bible, yet you are unable to show us. You also deny that something is in the Bible when it is explicitly mentioned.

Wow.  Don't take a sentence out of the context of my post.  Reread my post, then TRY to comprehend that the above sentence was in reference to what the Bible would have to contain IF it was required to have a command for every potential evil (thus the need to command against some things that didn't even exist yet). 

Either you are playing dumb, or just dumb.  Either way, you are wasting my time. 

 

[Bruh]

There are a lot of things not in scrioture. There absence does not make them permissable.

There are a lot of things not in Scripture. Their absence does not make them impermissible.

Like smoking Marijuana in moderation of course.  You still have not given a chapter and verse as to why Marijuana is wrong.  No hyperbole here.  But if there is no chapter and verse it must be o.k according to your logic.  If I understand you correctly? 

 

[Bruh]

That is why the "show me chapter and verse" is the defense of the foolish.

When people claim that the Bible is sufficient and that there are principles in Scripture that show CCM is wrong, then the "show me chapter and verse" is a defense of God's word. It is wrong to add to Scripture and constrain people by what ends up being mere opinion.

Only on the FFF will you see someone debunking the actual need to support one's opinion by Scripture.

When people claim that the Bible is sufficient and that there are principles in Scripture that show Smoking Marijuana is wrong, then the "show me chapter and verse" is a defense of God's word. It is wrong to add to Scripture and constrain people by what ends up being mere opinion.

Only on the FFF will you see someone debunking the actual need to support one's opinion by Scripture.

 

[Bruh]

Am I missing something Darkwing?

Avoiding all forms of sexual immorality is explicit in many passages. Did I really have to post any? Mt 15.19 etc.

Can anyone give us ANY scripture that speaks, even remotely, to acceptable styles of music?

Why the struggle? Why the shuffling? Why obfuscate the issue?

Can anyone give us ANY scripture that speaks, even remotely, to that smoking marijuana is wrong?

Why the struggle? Why the shuffling? Why obfuscate the issue?

 

[Bruh]

To me, this is identical to what you are accusing the anti-CCM crowd of doing... Maybe I misunderstood your position?

No. I never asked for explicit naming of CCM in 'Scripture. This is a common ruse and red herring argument. What I don't understand is why they would even argue in that direction. Sexting = fornication. THAT is explicit and is not up for debate by even Frag. Nope. They just throw that in as if it works.

I asked for any Scripture that describe what styles of music are wrong and which ones are right. Reread the OPs here and here.

Also: I am not mocking anyone.

I'm asking for any Scripture that describe that smoking marijuana is wrong?

 

[Bruh]

  Also, the book of acts Christians might have wondered long why they were commanded not to "sext". 

Are we not commanded many times to avoid all forms of fornication?

It appears you "know" what is in the Bible, yet you are unable to show us. You also deny that something is in the Bible when it is explicitly mentioned.

Wow.  Don't take a sentence out of the context of my post.  Reread my post, then TRY to comprehend that the above sentence was in reference to what the Bible would have to contain IF it was required to have a command for every potential evil (thus the need to command against some things that didn't even exist yet). 

Either you are playing dumb, or just dumb.  Either way, you are wasting my time.

I believe the Bible is sufficient to provide guidance for all matters of spiritual life and practice. Yes. Music is addressed and vividly illustrated.

The problem is that there are ZERO principles, illustrations or even allusions to inform us against the CCM style of acceptable music.

You have commited plently of logical fallacies in that one statement. Sexting violates very clear principles. You don't even have to run to the catchall "that is worldly" to prove that point.

So... lets get concrete... I will give an IFBr an easy one! Please give us just ONE biblical principle that makes the following CCM song unacceptable.

TobyMac - Speak Life: http://youtu.be/ZeBv9r92VQ0

as a secular song.. encouraging people to have a positive outlook on life.... there is absolutely nothing at all wrong with it......

but as a christian song?..... it raises a few questions.......  for one..... what exactly is it that makes this song christian?.... or even more importantly.... what qualifies this song to be used in christian worship? ...... if i was listening to it as a non-christian i wouldn;t have any idea what religion or faith was being represented by the performer....... he could just as easily be a muslim .. a buddhist ...or have no faith in God or any deity at all...... ... just a commendable exuberance for life in general........ ...

but if he is trying to portray faith in a particular God or faith in Christ.... then in my opinion he has failed...... the song ... or at least the video.... is all about him, the performer........ and as such.... i wouldn;t sit in a church service for 10 seconds with it playing over the sound system or with someone performing it live........ it;s completely unacceptable for worship..... 

i wouldn;t mind listening to it on my ipod while riding a bike though............. 

Perfect!!

 

[Bruh]

  Also, the book of acts Christians might have wondered long why they were commanded not to "sext". 

Are we not commanded many times to avoid all forms of fornication?

It appears you "know" what is in the Bible, yet you are unable to show us. You also deny that something is in the Bible when it is explicitly mentioned.

Wow.  Don't take a sentence out of the context of my post.  Reread my post, then TRY to comprehend that the above sentence was in reference to what the Bible would have to contain IF it was required to have a command for every potential evil (thus the need to command against some things that didn't even exist yet). 

Either you are playing dumb, or just dumb.  Either way, you are wasting my time.

I believe the Bible is sufficient to provide guidance for all matters of spiritual life and practice. Yes. Music is addressed and vividly illustrated.

The problem is that there are ZERO principles, illustrations or even allusions to inform us against the CCM style of acceptable music.

You have commited plently of logical fallacies in that one statement. Sexting violates very clear principles. You don't even have to run to the catchall "that is worldly" to prove that point.

So... lets get concrete... I will give an IFBr an easy one! Please give us just ONE biblical principle that makes the following CCM song unacceptable.

TobyMac - Speak Life: http://youtu.be/ZeBv9r92VQ0

Chumbawamba - Tubthumping

Please give us just ONE biblical principle that makes the following song unacceptable.

What is the difference between Toby Macs song who claims to be Born Again and this song.   

 

[Bruh]

  Also, the book of acts Christians might have wondered long why they were commanded not to "sext". 

Are we not commanded many times to avoid all forms of fornication?

It appears you "know" what is in the Bible, yet you are unable to show us. You also deny that something is in the Bible when it is explicitly mentioned.

Wow.  Don't take a sentence out of the context of my post.  Reread my post, then TRY to comprehend that the above sentence was in reference to what the Bible would have to contain IF it was required to have a command for every potential evil (thus the need to command against some things that didn't even exist yet). 

Either you are playing dumb, or just dumb.  Either way, you are wasting my time.

I believe the Bible is sufficient to provide guidance for all matters of spiritual life and practice. Yes. Music is addressed and vividly illustrated.

The problem is that there are ZERO principles, illustrations or even allusions to inform us against the CCM style of acceptable music.

You have commited plently of logical fallacies in that one statement. Sexting violates very clear principles. You don't even have to run to the catchall "that is worldly" to prove that point.

So... lets get concrete... I will give an IFBr an easy one! Please give us just ONE biblical principle that makes the following CCM song unacceptable.

TobyMac - Speak Life: http://youtu.be/ZeBv9r92VQ0

Is there anything wrong with the words to this song?

I feel unhappy
I feel so sad
I'v lost the best friend
That I ever had
She was my woman
I loved her so
But it's too late now
I've let her go
I'm going through changes
I'm going through changes
We shared the eves
We shared each day
In love together
We found a way
But soon the world
Had its evil way
My heart was blinded
Love went astray
I'm going through changes
I'm going through changes
It took so long
To realize
That I can still hear
her last goodbyes
Now all my days
Are filled with tears
Wish I could go back
And change these years
I'm going through changes
I'm going through changes

 

[Bruh]

The lyrics to this song speak of faith.

I watch it all change
Take the news of the day
And throw it away

Time will kill all the pain
Fate will cure the decay
Of all this blind ambition
The greed brings us together

Stay strong
Stay true
Be brave
It all comes down to you

Try to just let it go
Know that justice moves slow
But it comes in the end

Rise, the guilty will fall
Stay, they can't take it all
They want the unimportant
It's love they leave behind  My interpretation is The Bible says we should love. 

Stand up
Aim true
Keep heart
The future looks to you

Every second you throw away
Every minute of everyday
Don't get caught in a memory
'Cause life won't wait for you
No, life won't wait for you, my friend  My interpretation is James says life is a vapor.

I am watching the change
Who will carry the flame?  My interpretation is Brings Christ to the next person.
It all feels very strange

Dreams that mean can be good
Faith to live as we should
And know we're all connected
We give ourselves the power

Stay strong
Stay true
Be brave
It all comes down to you

Everyday that you wait
You're falling faster
No slight of hand, no twist of fate
No ever after  My interpretation is Without Christ all is lost.

When it's gone, it's gone
A fight 'til the bitter end
Life won't wait for you
No, life won't wait for you, my friend
  So be sure to be a Witness for Christ.


As long as the words are positive, right?

 

[Ransom]

Like smoking Marijuana in moderation of course.

Do you ever talk about anything else? You sound like the 16-year-old stoners I have to share the air with at the bus stop.