Bands whose lyrics follow a certain denomination?

I was thinking recently about some Christian metal bands recently, particularly Vengeance Rising and how members of the band fell out of belief, even with Roger Martinez of Vengeance Rising supposedly became a SATANIST after troubles with his band members and label. What is interesting about his case is that he was the pastor of a charismatic/pentecostal church before this and had bands play at his church. It is almost like your belief was bound to be fickle if your church is dedicated to playing loud music and feigning spiritual gifts (sorry pentecostals...). But after considering how these bands have turned to apostasy it made me think how deeply convicted other bands might be in their beliefs, because let's face it, a lot of metal bands sing about Christianity but they are not actually Christian. Metallica and Dark Angel even have songs about Christianity but as it is known they are quite atheistic, showing us Christian subject matter doesn't necessarily equal Christian band. Bands that write about their beliefs following a certain denomination though seem much more devout, and are more interesting thematically as well! Take Hesychast for example, they are an Eastern Orthodox band who shriek the Trisagion prayer in their songs. Is that not cool or what? After discovering them I was thinking to myself what other denominational bands probably exist out there, so I figured I would ask this forum since I am still new to much Christian metal and do not know really where to start. Protestant bands are particularly interesting me because they don't possess the same epic holy aesthetics a Catholic or Orthodox band would (and also because I am a protestant). And I cannot stop thinking of "calvinist death metal" being a thing.

While I agree that there are objectionable things about Pentecostalism, believe me that the answer is not found in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. Both of those institutions at their core reject the concept of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. While their aesthetics may seem awe-inspiring, it is really just dressed-up deceit.

Off the top of my head I cannot think of any truly Christian bands which in their lyrics proclaim adherence to a particular denomination. In fact, I don't even really see the point of that. Making theological claims makes sense to me though. I myself am a member of a conservative Presbyterian denomination, so I am by no means against the concept of denominations, but I don't think that we ought to use them in a divisive manner.

I think it is more useful to speak in terms of theological traditions. You have the Reformed tradition, the Baptist/dispensational tradition, the Lutheran tradition, the Pentecostal tradition, etc. which all have their distinctives. Even then I can't think of very many bands that go out of their way to identify themselves with a particular theological tradition.

Then there are the Catholic metal bands

I've never run into a Mormon "evangelical" rock band (unless the Osmond's count... but I think most of their music was rather secular)

With the availability of youtube, you get an idea of what persuasion bands are when their music is sampled. Christianity has 3 or 4 main branches: evangelical, charasmatic or evangelical/charasmatic mix, traditional/Anglican type denominations, Roman Catholic and Greek/Russian Orthodox. I'm using Christianity for lack of as better word and very loosely as I don't agree with all the main branches or denominations. There may be other branches I may be missing but these seem to be the main ones. 

I'm thinking most bands from the US and Canada and Sweden are from more of the evangelical/charasmatic denominations. I based this on my impression from the bands in my collection and the style of the lyrics. The only European bands from Europe I'm mostly familiar with are Jerusalem and Leviticus and to a lesser extent Narnia (I have all the Jerusalem albums and Leviticus albums on order). These bands are evangelical from what I see. I had an Innerwish CD but I sold it but I'm not sure if they are a Christian band. Their lyrics are vague. 

I'm not into bands from Latin America but I'm thinking these bands are more of the Roman Catholic, evangelical and charasmatic side of things. European bands not already mentioned I'm thinking are mixed as you have evangelical, traditional, charamatic and evangicial branches of Christianity in various places in Europe. 

When I get into a band I don't worry about what denomination they are as long as the lyrics are Biblical or make sense. I haven't had any issues with the lyrical content of the Christian bands I listen to. Also, when a band releases an album at a point in history, that is a snap shot of their beliefs/how they feel at that point in time. A bands's beliefs may of changed from when an album was released 20 or 30 years ago to today. There have beeen discussions in this forum of band members that are no longer Christians or have modified their Christian beliefs. That's another reason why I try not to label bands to a certain denomination.

CrimsonWarrior wrote:While I agree that there are objectionable things about Pentecostalism, believe me that the answer is not found in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. Both of those institutions at their core reject the concept of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. While their aesthetics may seem awe-inspiring, it is really just dressed-up deceit.

There's such a high degree of arrogance and ignorance in this statement that I wouldn't even know where to begin. Lord have mercy.

Son of Nun wrote:There's such a high degree of arrogance and ignorance in this statement that I wouldn't even know where to begin. Lord have mercy.

I apologize for any arrogance in my tone, as I certainly did not intend for that, but I do stand by the substance of those words.

Hang on-hang on= just grab some popcorn.

CrimsonWarrior wrote:

Son of Nun wrote:There's such a high degree of arrogance and ignorance in this statement that I wouldn't even know where to begin. Lord have mercy.

I apologize for any arrogance in my tone, as I certainly did not intend for that, but I do stand by the substance of those words.

As regards ignorance: Like many Protestants that I have encountered, you lump the Orthodox Church together with the Roman Catholic Church when there are actually myriad differences. In fact, Protestantism emerged from the Roman Catholic tradition and most Protestant theology developed in conversation with and in reaction to events and ideas in Western Christianity. This has led to many misunderstandings about Orthodoxy (there are even differences in the understanding of Christ's work on the cross that are often not even addressed). Your implication is that Orthodoxy teaches "works salvation" which is utterly false and you only assume that because you conflate it with Roman Catholicism. The whole confusion over faith and works only exists in the first place because Protestantism created a false dichotomy between faith and works in reaction to corrupt and false beliefs and practices in the RCC. Like much in Protestant theology, it was an overreaction that actually took its followers further away from traditional Christianity instead of simply remedying the problem by returning to the earlier beliefs and practices. Instead of trying to understand the early Church's soteriology the Reformers took some of St. Paul's writings out of context to craft a soteriology that is ironically unbiblical (just look at OP's signature for proof of that). The overreaction to RC sale of indulgences led the Reformers to ignore Christ's continual integration of faith and works as inseparable and to create a false dichotomy that misplaces works entirely due to an obsession over works "earning" salvation which was not even in the mind of the early Church but was simply a reaction to RC corruption and abuse of the idea of "merit." If you actually took the time to study Orthodoxy you would find that we do not teach that salvation is "earned" but instead of doing that you accuse us of "dressed-up deceit."

This article is useful in helping to explain why Protestants don't understand Orthodox soteriology (because they are working from within an entirely different Western conversation): https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2017/02/09/orthodox-catholic-and-protestant-soteriology-compared-and-contrasted/

As regards arrogance: I simply do not understand where this arrogance to talk down on Orthodoxy comes from when it is demonstrable that Orthodox teachings and practices are rooted in the early Church and when Orthodox can demonstrate traceable connections to the Apostles and Jesus Christ while Protestantism was invented by random individuals without any such authority who lived a continent away and a millenium and a half after the time of Christ. The time separating the Reformation from the time of Christ is longer than the time that separates the time of Christ from the Exodus. Orthodox truth is borne out by people like St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of St. John and was consecrated as a bishop by St. Peter in Antioch  and who testified to most of the central beliefs and practices of the Orthodox Church. Here you have a man of the first century that was firmly entrenched in the New Testament Church and he wrote about the unity of the Church, the threefold structure of Church government (Bishops, Priests, and Deacons), the importance of Apostolic Succession, and the emphasis on the Eucharist in Christian worship and as a sacrament imparting grace. Yet, Protestants say that we are supposed to deny him and believe in some men from another place, culture, and time who lacked any apostolic authority and lived an entire millennium and a half later because we are supposed to trust their interpretation of the Bible (which the Church canonized) over the testimony of the entire early Church and men who themselves knew the Apostles. Not only that, but we are supposed to trust the interpretation of one of these Reformers over the others and the myriad offshoots they spawned which has led to tens of thousands of denominations that are all at odds with each other in one way or another due to the created doctrine of Sola Scriptura that is ahistorical (practically impossible for the entire millennium and a half before the Reformers) and that makes every man his own Pope. I'm sorry but it offends me that someone speaking from such a precarious position has the gall to talk down on the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ (with the most verifiably well-established historical and theological claims) and accuse us of "dressed-up deceit." It's not the first time you've casually thrown around such accusations but I hope it will be the last.

Here is a body of evidence that I compiled in becoming a catechumen of the Orthodox Church that made it impossible for me to consider any variation of Protestantism as an accurate representation of authentic early Christianity: https://thethirdrace.wordpress.com/category/on-the-bible-and-the-church/

oldschooldoom wrote:Then there are the Catholic metal bands

Like Slayer?

 

Getting back on track, from what I read Son of Nun is Catholic? I lean towards Pentecost but my beliefs have changed over the years. I don't agree with many of the teachings of the Catholic and Orthodox faiths, but these have doctrines we can learn from. Catholic emphasis more on works. Pentecosts, Baptists, etc rely on faith mostly. Also, many think if you pray the sinners prayer you will be saved and God will do the rest. You have to mean it and worik on it. When you accept Christ, you are justified. After that the hard work comes by sanctificaiton - working out your salvation. I think (I may be wrong) the Catholics emphasis more on the sanctification or the working out your salvation. I think there is a ballance of justifued by faith and the sanctification - keeping yourself in check. 

Also, the Jews had to follow 613 civil, ceremonial and moral laws. We only need to keep 9 of them where they are repeated in the New Testament. The law acts as a mirror to see that we can't keep them on our own and we need Christ to bridge the gap of and totally relying on his grace and mercy to say within his standard. Paul, who was an expert of the law, knew this when he wrote much of the New Testament. The law makes us realize we have blown it with God and how ultimately we need Christ. This is where sufficient grace and mercy comes in there it paved the way through his work on the cross. His death and resurrection makes it desirable for the Christian to keep his commands where he is first in our lives and he first loved us.

Son of Nun and Crimson Warrior has some good points and may of bene misunderstood. Ok commercial break is over. Let's get back to talking about one of our favorite bands - Petra.

Son of Nun, I appreciate your detailed response and will read through the articles that you sent to me. It is true that I have learned a lot more about Catholicism than I have about Easern Orthodoxy and I may be overly conflating the two, and if that is the case then I need to correct it. I have not had the opportunity to interact with as many EO people as I have Roman Catholics, but I am curious, would you (as, I assume, an Eastern Orthodox Christian) affirm that you are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and that your own works are not involved at all in the salvation of your soul? (I understand that works necessarily follow from faith, and that faith without works is dead.) I ought to read up some more on EO soteriology because truthfully I was primarily relying on what I had been told by other Protestants.

I don't see how it is arrogant at all for me to insist that the Reformers had soteriology correct. I believe that the Bible is sufficient, clear, and preserved for us. There is a large body of Protestants which all hold to the same gospel and the same core soteriology - sola fide, sola gratia, and solus Christus - even if we diverge on matters of predestination and other secondary issues. You accuse us of misinterpreting the Scriptures and ignoring the doctrine of the early church. While admittedly I am not as well-studied on pre-Reformation church history as I would like to someday be, could it not be equally possible for someone to misinterpret the early church fathers while ignoring what the Bible actually says? I think it is helpful to look to history, and a historical argument is part of what led me to believe in covenantal infant baptism (instead of credobaptism only). But the Word of God is my ultimate authority.

While in the middle of writing this post, I went and looked at the first link you sent (which was the table comparing and contrasting Prot, EO, and RC beliefs) and noticed under the justification section, in the EO column, it says "Must have works that flow from faith". I reject this wholeheartedly as a false gospel, and Paul would too.

Although not really a Christian band… when Trouble had spiritual type lyrics, it was from a Catholic doctrine.

Pethead wrote:

oldschooldoom wrote:Then there are the Catholic metal bands

Like Slayer?

 

Slayer were Catholic/atheist  “Catheist”. LOL

Not too much different than what most priests and the pope are nowadays. 

No problem believing in aliens and nonbelievers can go to heaven.

CrimsonWarrior wrote:I am curious, would you (as, I assume, an Eastern Orthodox Christian) affirm that you are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and that your own works are not involved at all in the salvation of your soul?

The problem with this is that it's a made-up formulation that was invented 1500 years after the fact. It reflects the mindset of the particular time in which it was formulated, which as I pointed out earlier, was a reaction to the false teaching of Roman Catholicism concerning indulgences ("the treasury of merit") and purgatory (none of which the Orthodox Church teaches). No Christian in the early Church spoke or wrote in the manner you have formulated above. So if you really wanted to understand what Orthodox Christians (and by extension the early Church) believe about salvation, you have to first step outside of this Western conversation where the RCC acts and the Protestant Reformers react. None of that applies to Orthodoxy and we don't speak this way when we talk about salvation. I think you will see that the ideas behind the above formulation are largely shared by Orthodoxy but the above formulation is not an Orthodox one and speaks about faith and works in a dichotomous way which is in reaction to Roman Catholicism and not how we speak about this (see articles at the end of this post).

I don't see how it is arrogant at all for me to insist that the Reformers had soteriology correct. I believe that the Bible is sufficient, clear, and preserved for us. There is a large body of Protestants which all hold to the same gospel and the same core soteriology - sola fide, sola gratia, and solus Christus - even if we diverge on matters of predestination and other secondary issues. You accuse us of misinterpreting the Scriptures and ignoring the doctrine of the early church. While admittedly I am not as well-studied on pre-Reformation church history as I would like to someday be, could it not be equally possible for someone to misinterpret the early church fathers while ignoring what the Bible actually says? I think it is helpful to look to history, and a historical argument is part of what led me to believe in covenantal infant baptism (instead of credobaptism only). But the Word of God is my ultimate authority.

I believe the issue here is that all of the above comes from a mindset rooted in Sola Scriptura which I think is absolutely an ahistorical doctrine. The difference between the Orthodox Church and the Protestant denominations is that between a living tradition and one pieced together later as if by an archaeologist. The Reformers attempted to use the Scriptures like detectives to try to figure out where the RCC had gone wrong and to get back to the purity of the New Testament Church while the Orthodox Church is the actual living extension of the New Testament Church.

Some things have to be put into context here to understand why I criticize Sola Scriptura: One of the most significant problems with Sola Scriptura is that it presents us with a very anachronistic understanding of Church history and the lives of early Christians. Individual reliance on a bound canon of written Scripture was practically impossible almost up until the time of the Reformation (the printing press was invented only about a half century prior and was one of its main catalysts). Before that, owning a complete, bound copy of the Bible would have been prohibitively expensive for all but the most wealthy. To compound the problem, many people were not literate and couldn't read the Bible even if they came into contact with one. For almost 1500 years it would have been, on a practical level, impossible for people to rely on the written Scriptures in the way modern Protestants do and which they assert all Christians must. It took many decades for all of the books of the New Testament to be written and at least two or three generations of Christians lived before such writings were even complete. How can this be a teaching of the early Church? It was not. The Scriptures belong to the Church. It was in the Church that early Christians heard the Scriptures read during the liturgy. These were (are) a part of the epistle and gospel readings and the Orthodox liturgy is almost entirely derived from Scripture and recites large portions of the psalms, etc. This is how people learned the Scriptures, not by reading a private copy at home. To go even further, it was the bishops of the Church who actually determined what books were a part of the biblical canon. Orthodox bishops (ordained in apostolic succession) met in council and defined the boundaries of the canon and rejected other books circulating at the time such as the gnostic gospel of Thomas that claimed to have been written at an early date. The reason such books were rejected was because they were not a part of the living tradition of the Church. If Sola Scriptura had been in place and there was no Church hierarchy and living tradition, there would have been no authority to reject such spurious writings.

So there is really a significant difference here. Orthodox Christians are not looking back at a distant past and trying to formulate doctrines from the texts using methods that were unknown in the early Church. Rather, they are carrying forward a lived tradition rooted in, as St. Vincent of Lerins said, "that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all" and protecting this deposit of faith (which came from Christ and the Apostles) from all deviation. The Bible, the writings of the Fathers, the liturgy and other services, the Creed, etc. are all a part of this deposit of faith. When one element of it is plucked from the whole (as Protestantism does with the Bible) the context is lost. I would argue that this is why there is such divergence in Protestantism and why the attempts of Protestant groups to "re-construct" the early Church are often so far off and at odds with one another.

CrimsonWarrior wrote:While in the middle of writing this post, I went and looked at the first link you sent (which was the table comparing and contrasting Prot, EO, and RC beliefs) and noticed under the justification section, in the EO column, it says "Must have works that flow from faith". I reject this wholeheartedly as a false gospel, and Paul would too.

It's an imperfect article/format to be sure but cherry-picking that entry misrepresents the whole. What I would point to with special attention is that the article does do a good job of articulating how the Orthodox Church is not a part of the Western (Roman Catholic and Protestant) conversation and thus it is often the case that not only the answers, but sometimes the questions being asked are quite different. This is why it does real injustice to Orthodox teaching to conflate it with Roman Catholic but also to ask deeply Protestant questions (as above) rather than try to meet and understand Orthodox theology on its own ground. Look at the other parts of the table such as Merits: "Inconsequential to salvation or justification, salvation is not earned" and Works and Salvation: "Those who are saved must perform good works, but salvation is not a reward for works in any degree." Then compare those to the section on the RCC where "salvation is in part recompense for works." It's quite different and I suspect you might find more affinity with us Orthodox than you anticipated. If you read the second bullet point below the table I think it also helps to explain the confusion that results from the East and the West having different conversations. There will still be areas of disagreement but I hope this will help you to see that Orthodoxy is not Roman Catholicism, that we do not teach "works salvation," and that the accusations leveled against us above are not true or appropriate.  Here are a couple more articles from official Orthodox sources:


https://www.oca.org/reflections/fr.-john-breck/salvation-is-indeed-by-grace

http://ww1.antiochian.org/1123705533

I don’t enjoy online debates, but I just want to say:

1. I respect Son of Nun’s desire to have his position represented accurately and fairly. He deserves for this to be the case. As people of truth, we should seek to be truthful even with those positions with which we disagree.

2. I disagree with many aspects Son of Nun’s understandings of the development of doctrine, the picture of the early church, what the reformers were trying to accomplish, and the formation of the canon. But I acknowledge these issues are often complex. I do agree with Son of Nun that the issues leading to the Western church’s split were not necessarily those being discussed within the Eastern church due to different categories of thought.

3. Flowing from the above two points, I encourage interested believers to hear from different perspectives on these issues and to research them for themselves. Doing such will make you stronger in your faith!


PS: on topic for this thread, I find it’s often hard to pin down where artists actually stand on denominational issues, because much of the time they simply don’t write lyrics that are specific enough to determine this. (Which could be a positive or a negative, it just depends. As a Baptist, I’m not usually writing songs called “Believer’s Baptism Only” or “Local Church Autonomy”)

To clarify what was said above, when you say Reformers Crimson Warrior you mean Protesants and not Reformed Theology as a part of Calvinism?

Also, on your second paragraph Son of Nun when you said, "The Reformers attempted to use the Scriptures like detectives to try to figure out where the RCC had gone", I don't think this was the intent of the Protestant Reformers. I'm not an expert of Church history but Christainity during the first 200 or 300 years after Christ ascended was different during the Middle Ages where the Catholic Church and Orthodox were the dominant belief systems. I know some of the teachings of the Catholic religion and very little about Orthodox. 


To me it seems like the Reformers went through scripture and it was revealed to them by the Holy Spirit. Also, the Catholic church didn't allow or perferred patrons to read the Bible themselves where the priests were to intrepert the Bible for them. Because of the printing press and a few clergy in the Catholic church like Luther that people started to figure things out. The Catholic church saw this as a threat which was one of the reasons why thay started the inquisitions where mant people who weren't Catholic were tortured and killed. 


It's like over the past 50 years how new information regarding Bible Prophecy was revealed to believers that wasn't known in the earlier part of the 19th century. The Bible in th elast days said knowledge would increase. This referrs to knowledge of the Bible and technology. 

Thanks all for being so civil, but please move this conversation to the Theology Realm.