Scott Aniol and Shai Linne, continue in their well debate against one another. Interesting remarks to be made is that the point Shai is making is that Music, apart from lyrics, can be sinful. Indeed it can be sinful. Just as the sowing of the evil one is sinful. It is not sinful in and of itself to simply create music. But, the intentions and the darkness of our hearts make it so. Scott is disagreeing (without Scriptural backing) albeit he may have some knowledge of Scripture. certainly his points are full of error though. I agree in one sense Shai's point on Romans 14 - we are not obligated to remain with the two distinctions between a thing and another thing. Shai is debating over whether Rap MUSIC is sinful or not. So you can actually place these distinctions in place of say the meat offered up to idols. Does Rap music actually cause one to commit idolatrous worship?
Scott replies back to Shai's point by saying again the Scripture is concerned with not only the WHAT we say but the HOW we say it, which is something that I disagree whole heartedly. Scripture does not speak on the HOW so much. Consider this as an example: Prayer. Someone who prays to the true God (What) is said to be praying in idolatrous tones because of How he prays, whereas Hindu who prays to whoever is said to be the most devote person in Prayer because of HOW he prayed. Again Scripture is more concerned with What we know and not in how we know it. Of course Scott furnishes for us some scriptural evidences of his view, granted - taken out of context. For one thing Ephesians 4:15 is not speaking to us about how we communicate something. Whether we preach or teach has nothing to do with how we communicate it. The in love furnishes the purpose for why we communicate these truths. In fact, it furnishes the why God has given us the Apostles, and teachers. The purpose of the Apostles and Teachers were to communicate truths of revelation for the purpose that the Church would grow into unity of the knowledge of the faith. Of course there are those of the flesh who do not know the truth and do not want to truth these people are talked about in 1 Corinthians.
1 Corinthains 2:1-5 - simply Paul's point is that God has appointed Paul as an apostle and elder and teacher so that what Paul preaches is not 'lofty speech' but the word of God alone. Nothing here speaks against knowledge but everything in Paul's letters speaks against carnal knowledge. Gnostic knowledge puff's up, but true knowledge which Paul is not talking against does not.
The last point I wish to make is that Scott seems to be making a very very common error with regards to God and secondary causations. For one God is said to have caused the fall in the sense that God simply moved into motion the world so that the world now is on a course in which it cannot stop. Now whatever happens to the world happens because it does it on its own and not because God actually Caused it to happen. Consider this clearly to be the Cosmological Argument. The great danger here is that although God is said to be the Creator of all things He is not the 'maker' of all things. Indeed man makes things out of the saw dust that God made. But man can make something out of the portion that God made sinful. Who is making the jump? Shai or Scott? I believe the prayer of Scott would be like God I thank you that you have given me your dirt so that I could make a beautiful bow and arrow. Not what you have done, but what my hand had wrought (pun intended).
http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-music/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-can-music-be-sinful-rebuttal/
No comments:
Post a Comment