Conference yukon::christian_v7

    
    Re: .0
    
    Where ever Jah's (God's) presence is - is Holy. Even a sinful person as
    myself WAS, is made Holy.
    
    
    Lorenzo  (Jah says: "Be YE Holy, for I your God is Holy."
    

    The first thing that came to my mind when I read .0 was Cain and Abel. 
    Cain tried to make his offering acceptable to God, but Abel's _was_
    acceptable.  This makes me careful about thinking that anything we want
    can somehow be made into something that will glorify God.  Much better,
    we need to take what God tells us is glorifying and pleasing to Him,
    and apply ourselves to such.
    
    Matthew 23:16-19 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever
        shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear
        by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind: for
        whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the
        gold? And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but
        whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Ye
        fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar
        that sanctifieth the gift?
    
    The scribes and Pharisee's had their perspectives all wrong -- they
    were placing the emphasis in what they were "doing for God" or "giving
    for God", but the Lord Jesus quite aptly indicates what is really
    greater.  Just because something is "done for the Lord", it doesn't
    make it right or holy.  We need to be careful how we approach the
    things of God: "Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved,
    let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence
    and godly fear:  For our God is a consuming fire." (Hebrews 12:28-29)
    
    Mark L.

To comment on what Mark L quoted in Matthew 23:16-19, Dake says, "Pharisees
held that they were not responsible to pay vows sworn by the temple or
the altar (v 16, 18), but Jesus held that all vows must be paid and that
the temple was greater than part of its material, and the altar was greater
than the gift upon it."

>    Just because something is "done for the Lord", it doesn't
>    make it right or holy.

I'm nbot sure I see the connect between these two thoughts, Mark L.
I agree that something "done for the Lord" doesn't make it right or holy.
In reference to Cain, his "doing for the Lord" was perfunctory (for one)
and was out of the prescription for sacrifice (for another).  Abel's
sacrifice was acceptable because he conformed to the command *AND* did it
with the proper attitude.  One does not go without the other.

You can sanctify your money.  You can sanctify your car.  You can sanctify
your home.  You can sanctify your children (Samuel, Sampson); meaning to 
set apart for God's use.  You can sanctify your music.

If something is set apart for God's use, it becomes holy (God's property;
God's domain - as Lorenzo indicates).  If we then profane what is santified,
it becomes unclean.  If a priest used a tabernacle utensil for ladling
bath water, he would have profanes a sanctified instrument.  But just as
an unclean person can become clean, and some things in the OT were sanctified
holy to God through consumation of fire, so can things be made holy that
are "innoccuous" (barring those things Paul listed in .0 and others).

Mark

>You can sanctify your money.  You can sanctify your car.  You can sanctify
>your home. 
>If something is set apart for God's use, it becomes holy (God's property;
>God's domain - as Lorenzo indicates). 
    
    Does anybody besides me remember Joe Bailey's (I think I got his hame
    right) story "The Gospel Blimp".  It is a comical story about how
    something can be "sanctified for the Lord's use" yet be of no (or
    negative) use for the Lord.  I believe we need to consider (and
    somewhat why I quoted from Matt 19) "Who does the sanctifying?" -- us
    or God?  In many instances in the OT law, men (Moses, the priests, and
    others) are told to "sanctify" certain things (or themselves), and at
    other times (and sometimes with regard to the same "item" or action) we
    read God saying that "I will sanctify...."   I would submit to you that
    something we do is only "sanctified" by God when our actions are in
    obedience to Him.  (This sort of goes along with some of the thoughts I
    entered in the topic on "'Right or Wrong' vs. 'The Will of God'").  It
    is *not* up to us to impose upon God to use what *we* think He should.
    I in no way mean this to sound harsh.  I believe that God is immensely
    pleasd with those those who sincerely come to Him "with opened hands"
    to do what He wants with all that they have.  The key, however, is
    "what He wants".
    
    Another thought to keep in mind as well -- it was possible under the OT
    that something that was sanctified could become defiled in such a way
    that the only recourse was to destroy it.  I believe today it is
    possible for something or someone to have their testimony so marred
    that God will never be able to use it as He intended.  (Consider some
    of the sad cases that have been in the media.)
    
    Mark L.
    
    p.s. I am not convinced about Cain's motives, etc.  The crux of the
    matter is that Abel *by faith* (not by command--none had been given)
    offered an acceptable sacrifice.  Cain's problem arose when he began to
    take the rejection of his offering personally, rather than admit "Abel
    did it right".

    I wouldn't compare music to sacrifice, but to prayer. The Cain and Able
    story was centered around  sacrifice not prayer. 

    Rock music can be used as prayer, but personally, even though I like
    rock music in general,  as prayer, it turns me off. 


     Jim

Sacrifice, prayer, praise, communion...

music can be used for all these things.  But to keep things on topic,
THINGS and ART can be sublime or perverted.  We're arguing over what
has BECOME perverted, or whether of something perverted can become
clean again.

Yes, Mark L, some things CANNOT be made clean and could only be given 
over to God through destruction, usually by fire.  But some things can
be "converted" to divine use.

Mark

    I've heard some of my church leaders call rock music sinful.  I don't 
    regard rock as sinful, BUT ...  sin is always "up to date" and popular.  
    "Clean living" is old fashioned and has always been that way for every 
    generation, near as I can tell.  Popular music, by definition, needs to 
    be popular and up to date to sell.  So, though I don't think rock music 
    in general is sinful, I *do* feel that the medium has become a bed for 
    sinful thoughts and practices.  
    
    Other types of popular music have also been regarded as decadent by 
    Christians and have "wicked" aspects -- including MANY classical works 
    which are commonly performed today.  Carmen, Bolero, Candide, Madame 
    Butterfly, La Boheme ... the list is practically endless.  Over time,
    we've learned to overlook these aspects in order to appreciate the
    intrinsic artistic value of enduring works.
    
    Similarly, I figure that many of the statues and paintings that survive
    today as "art" were really pornography and such in their day.  I know 
    that's not PC, but it makes sense to me.  Near as I can tell, pornography 
    accompanies every advance in communication technology.  It's simple 
    economics.  New technology is expensive and requires sponsors ... 
    and sex sells.  
    
    Steve

     re: -.1

     Well said, Steve. Thanks for a realistic, balanced, Biblical approach.

     Brian