Why Certain Types of Music Make Our Brains Sing, and Others Don’t
“our prediction of musical events remains inexorably bound to our musical upbringing. To explore this phenomenon, a group of researchers met with the Sámi people, who inhabit the region stretching between the northernmost reaches of Sweden and the Kola Peninsula in Russia.” - Neroscience News
- 182 views
Rajesh said, “It seems that you are unwilling to hold that there are kinds of instrumental music that God deems unacceptable for use in corporate worship.”
Do you have an actual example of instrumental music that God deems unacceptable for use in corporate worship?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Through the teaching of various passages and in various ways, Scripture reveals plainly that for anything to be acceptable to God for use in corporate worship, it must meet at least the 5 following requirements:
1. Not be sinful
2. Not be prohibited
3. Be Lawful (1 Cor. 10:23)
4. Be Expedient (1 Cor. 10:23a)
5. Be Edifying (1 Cor. 10:23b)
Concerning points 3-5, 1 Cor. 10:23 reveals to us that it is not true that all things that are lawful are also expedient and edifying. We can be certain, therefore, that only those things that are not sinful, not prohibited, lawful, expedient, and edifying are acceptable to God for use in corporate worship.
For us to have a proper biblical understanding of what we are to believe concerning all kinds of instrumental music, we must apply what 1 Cor. 10:23 inerrantly and infallibly teaches us about all things that are lawful to the realm of all kinds of instrumental music.
When we do so, we learn with certainty that even if it were true that all kinds of instrumental music are lawful, it still would not be true that all kinds of instrumental music are acceptable to God for use in corporate worship because not all kinds of instrumental music that are lawful are also expedient and edifying.
We, therefore, know with certainty that not all kinds of instrumental music are acceptable to God for use in corporate worship.
To make a claim like this, “We, therefore, know with certainty that not all kinds of instrumental music are acceptable to God for use in corporate worship”, specific examples of unacceptable worship music are needed. Without them, the claim is without warrant.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[RajeshG]Through the teaching of various passages and in various ways, Scripture reveals plainly that for anything to be acceptable to God for use in corporate worship, it must meet at least the 5 following requirements:
1. Not be sinful
2. Not be prohibited
3. Be Lawful (1 Cor. 10:23)
4. Be Expedient (1 Cor. 10:23a)
5. Be Edifying (1 Cor. 10:23b)
Rajesh, this may come as a surprise to you, but nobody on either side of the argument over music in the church really has an argument with any of these points. You’re proving….exactly nothing, really. Except, perhaps, that you’re not cluing in that your first three characteristics are from the Department of Redundancy Department.
For my part, what strikes me the most are passages like Psalms 149 and 150, which indicate first of all that the same instrumentation was pretty much used for praise of God that was used (e.g. Daniel 3:5) for pagan worship, that a certain portion of it seemed to have traits compatible with dancing of that day, that it has (looking through the Psalms) various phases of mood and such, and that nowhere in the Scriptures is any mention made of prohibited melodies, harmonies, instruments, genre, or the like.
Really, this whole discussion is quite a shame, because what we really (IMO) ought to be discussing regarding music is why we are called to sing at all, why we might have music in the church, and the actual characteristics that good church music ought to have. I’d submit this as a starting point:
Song in the church is required by God in great part because He desires His people to impart His Word to their hearts and minds in lyric, easily memorizable form, and use that same form to return praise to Him.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
It is a sad reality that there are those on SI who fancy themselves to be devoted students of Scripture, but in actuality are less knowledgeable than they think.
Concerning “sinful” vs. “prohibited,” Scripture provides the following evidence.
1. God made the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Neither it nor its fruit was therefore sinful. Nonetheless, God prohibited human consumption of its fruit. The fruit was not sinful, but it was prohibited by God for human consumption as food.
2. God prohibited the making of altars of stone that were made of any stones that were hewn (Exod. 20:25). Many passages, however, show that hewn stones were used in the making of Solomon’s temple. For example,
1 Chronicles 22:2 And David commanded to gather together the strangers that were in the land of Israel; and he set masons to hew wrought stones to build the house of God.
From this evidence, we clearly see that hewn stones were not sinful, but they were prohibited by God for use in the making of altars of stone.
3. God prohibited the use of leaven in meat offerings that were brought to the Lord and offered to him.
Leviticus 2:11 No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto the Lord, shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the Lord made by fire.
God, however, commanded the use of leaven in other kinds of worship:
Leviticus 7:13 Besides the cakes, he shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offerings.
Had leaven itself been sinful or had the use of it in any form or way been sinful, God would not have commanded leavened bread to be offered in any aspect of worship. We clearly see that some uses of leaven in worship were prohibited by God, but that prohibition was not because that leavened bread was somehow itself sinful.
These three biblical examples (which are by no means exhaustive of the biblical data) clearly prove that my distinguishing between things that are “sinful” and things that are “prohibited” is not redundancy.
First Corinthians 10:23 properly applied to the realm of all kinds of instrumental music fully refutes the widespread, faulty belief that wrongly holds all kinds of instrumental music to be lawful and therefore automatically and necessarily acceptable to God for use in corporate worship. We know with certainty that not all kinds of instrumental music that are lawful are also expedient and edifying.
Because not all kinds of instrumental music are expedient and edifying, it is a completely false view to hold that all kinds of instrumental music are acceptable to God for use in corporate worship.
[RajeshG]What does the word “expedient” mean within this Biblical context. I looked it up in an online dictionary and the dictionary says it refers to something that is “convenient and practical although possibly improper or immoral.” Biblically speaking, we know that godly music wouldn’t be improper or immoral, so that just leaves the “convenient and practical” part. Doesn’t “convenient and practical” depend on individual circumstances? Music that is convenient for one church might not be convenient for another, so does God only find music acceptable if it is convenient and practical for that particular congregation? That certainly does open up a lot of musical genres that are easy to perform and eliminates those that are more difficult.First Corinthians 10:23 properly applied to the realm of all kinds of instrumental music fully refutes the widespread, faulty belief that wrongly holds all kinds of instrumental music to be lawful and therefore automatically and necessarily acceptable to God for use in corporate worship. We know with certainty that not all kinds of instrumental music that are lawful are also expedient and edifying.
Because not all kinds of instrumental music are expedient and edifying, it is a completely false view to hold that all kinds of instrumental music are acceptable to God for use in corporate worship.
[Kevin Miller]You have taken Greek and know how to use at least some Greek resources. Do your own work and find out for yourself what that word means in biblical usage.What does the word “expedient” mean within this Biblical context. I looked it up in an online dictionary and the dictionary says it refers to something that is “convenient and practical although possibly improper or immoral.” Biblically speaking, we know that godly music wouldn’t be improper or immoral, so that just leaves the “convenient and practical” part. Doesn’t “convenient and practical” depend on individual circumstances? Music that is convenient for one church might not be convenient for another, so does God only find music acceptable if it is convenient and practical for that particular congregation? That certainly does open up a lot of musical genres that are easy to perform and eliminates those that are more difficult.
I am not going to allow you again to misrepresent something that I have said and then turn around and suggest that I am the one who is trying to misdirect people.
My point stands regardless of any discussion about the specifics of what “expedient” means in that context. Scripture itself completely refutes the false notion that all kinds of instrumental music can be used acceptably to God in corporate worship.
Rajesh, when you say “my point stands regardless of any discussions about the specifics of what ‘expedient’ means in that context”, I cannot help but remember Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland saying that “it means just what I choose it to mean”.
No, Rajesh, sometimes you actually know what words mean and use them in that context, or else yes, you do sabotage your own argument. In a recent comment, a good example is how you are trying to argue that sin is not equivalent to lawlessness or behavior that is prohibited by God. Um, really, Rajesh? I seem to remember that dictionaries have definitions that would seem to include these concepts.
So yes, Rajesh, you were publishing notes from The Department of Redundancy Department, and your attempt to salvage your argument merely ignores the exegetical principle of context and falls into the trap of the hasty generalization. Plus, you’re savaging the definition of a critical theological word.
No, a grain offering (Leviticus 2) was not seen as the same thing as a fellowship offering in Leviticus 7, and the context of scripture makes very clear that nobody ever tried to generalize either passage into daily life beyond the offerings. In the same way, the Torah prohibition of dressed stone being used for the altar was for that alone. It had no broader application. To argue that it does is, again, a hasty generalization fallacy.
Rajesh, this is bad. The errors that you are making are really, really basic.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[RajeshG]Rajesh, you really don’t need to give me a few paragraphs telling me that you refuse to answer the question. Just don’t bother answering. Let anyone else answer it it if you don’t feel like doing so. I don’t see as how asking this question is a misrepresentation of you either. YOU were the one pointing out that “expedient” is a characteristic that God needs to find music acceptable, so I was just wondering if someone could share their knowledge of the word with me. Greek resources often give a number of possible meanings for a word and there is absolutely no reason I should refrain from asking a question like this on this forum.You have taken Greek and know how to use at least some Greek resources. Do your own work and find out for yourself what that word means in biblical usage.
I am not going to allow you again to misrepresent something that I have said and then turn around and suggest that I am the one who is trying to misdirect people.
My point stands regardless of any discussion about the specifics of what “expedient” means in that context. Scripture itself completely refutes the false notion that all kinds of instrumental music can be used acceptably to God in corporate worship.
[Kevin Miller]I never said that you should refrain from asking the question in this forum, etc. What I said is that I am not going to give you another opportunity to do what you did previously to me in this thread.Rajesh, you really don’t need to give me a few paragraphs telling me that you refuse to answer the question. Just don’t bother answering. Let anyone else answer it it if you don’t feel like doing so. I don’t see as how asking this question is a misrepresentation of you either. YOU were the one pointing out that “expedient” is a characteristic that God needs to find music acceptable, so I was just wondering if someone could share their knowledge of the word with me. Greek resources often give a number of possible meanings for a word and there is absolutely no reason I should refrain from asking a question like this on this forum.
You directed your first response to me. You could have just made your comments, but not have directed them to me.
In any case, I do not care whether you direct them to me or not. I am not going to give you any more opportunities to misrepresent me.
[RajeshG]You directed your first response to me. You could have just made your comments, but not have directed them to me.
I quoted your post so that people would know why I was asking about “expedient.” You, of course, would have the first option to reply, but since anyone can respond to anyone, the question was open to anyone responding.
In any case, I do not care whether you direct them to me or not. I am not going to give you any more opportunities to misrepresent me.
The best way to prevent misrepresentation is to eliminate misunderstanding. One can do this by explaining terms and answering questions. If I’m assuming you mean something that you don’t actually mean, that’s a misunderstanding, not a misrepresentation, and it’s something you can easily clear up if you answer questions.
God created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Indisputably, therefore, neither the tree nor its fruit was sinful. The fruit itself was not a sinful thing.
When God prohibited the first two humans from eating the fruit of that tree, He was not prohibiting them from doing so because the fruit itself was sinful. His prohibition of their eating that fruit made their eating of it sinful, but their eating that fruit was not sinful because the fruit itself was sinful.
In His sovereignty, God has the full authority to prohibit humans from using certain things in certain ways even though those things themselves are not sinful.
[RajeshG]In His sovereignty, God has the full authority to prohibit humans from using certain things in certain ways even though those things themselves are not sinful.
No one is arguing with you on this point. God can prohibit whatever he likes, sinful or not. What we are arguing is that you have yet to show that there is any music (similar to the fruit you mention, or hewn altar stones) that God has said cannot be used. We’re not arguing (at least I’m not) that such music can’t exist, just that your argument that such music must exist hasn’t demonstrated that such music, does, in fact, exist.
Dave Barnhart
[dcbii]Someone is claiming that distinguishing between “sinful” and “prohibited” is redundant. I am again presenting the evidence that refutes that false view.No one is arguing with you on this point. God can prohibit whatever he likes, sinful or not. What we are arguing is that you have yet to show that there is any music (similar to the fruit you mention, or hewn altar stones) that God has said cannot be used. We’re not arguing (at least I’m not) that such music can’t exist, just that your argument that such music must exist hasn’t demonstrated that such music, does, in fact, exist.
Concerning the existence of music that cannot be used in worship, applying 1 Cor. 10:23 to the realm of instrumental music does prove that such music exists. Many claim that all kinds of music are lawful. First Corinthians 10:23 states that even concerning whatever things are lawful, not all things are expedient and edifying. Whatever kinds of music are lawful but not expedient and edifying are not acceptable to God for use in worship.
Anyone who claims that all kinds of instrumental music are not only lawful, but also expedient and edifying and therefore fit for use in worship has to prove biblically where God teaches that what He says in 1 Cor. 10:23 does not apply to instrumental music.
Discussion