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

Discussion

Carefully considering what God has revealed about the worship of Abel in Gen. 4 shows that the offerings in view were offerings that were offered by fire on an altar. Using passages that are about other kinds or aspects of worship to assess Cain’s worship is a faulty handling of Scripture.
As I have presented previously, Scripture shows that hewn stones could not be used in a stone altar that was used for offering sacrifices in worship, but hewn stones were used in God’s Temple. Scripture also shows that leaven could not be used in any offering that was offered by fire on an altar, but God commanded its use in another aspect of worship.
Based on this Scriptural data, it is entirely possible that Cain offered something that was the fruit of the ground that he in some manner knew would not be accepted by God for offering on an altar but chose to do so anyway.

There is no biblical data that I am aware of that requires us to hold that everything that was the fruit of the ground was acceptable to God for use as an offering on an altar.

[RajeshG]

Carefully considering what God has revealed about the worship of Abel in Gen. 4 shows that the offerings in view were offerings that were offered by fire on an altar. Using passages that are about other kinds or aspects of worship to assess Cain’s worship is a faulty handling of Scripture.

I agree. I also think we should use this same carefulness when making applications from the account of Cain’s worship. Since Genesis 4 shows us that the offerings were “offered by fire on an altar,” then we can’t really make applications about worship music from the account of Cain. Doing so would be a faulty handling of Scripture.

[Kevin Miller]

I agree. I also think we should use this same carefulness when making applications from the account of Cain’s worship. Since Genesis 4 shows us that the offerings were “offered by fire on an altar,” then we can’t really make applications about worship music from the account of Cain. Doing so would be a faulty handling of Scripture.

I anticipated that you or someone else would raise this objection. I am not making applications from the account of Cain’s worship directly. What I am doing is presenting biblical data from various passages about worship and other relevant passages to show that there is no biblical basis for anyone to legitimately assert that God accepts all kinds of instrumental music in worship.
Given what Scripture reveals about God’s not accepting everything in many aspects of worship, those who would assert that the realm of instrumental music is different have the burden of proving where Scripture teaches that is true.

[RajeshG]
Kevin Miller wrote:

I agree. I also think we should use this same carefulness when making applications from the account of Cain’s worship. Since Genesis 4 shows us that the offerings were “offered by fire on an altar,” then we can’t really make applications about worship music from the account of Cain. Doing so would be a faulty handling of Scripture.

I anticipated that you or someone else would raise this objection. I am not making applications from the account of Cain’s worship directly. What I am doing is presenting biblical data from various passages about worship and other relevant passages to show that there is no biblical basis for anyone to legitimately assert that God accepts all kinds of instrumental music in worship.

Given what Scripture reveals about God’s not accepting everything in many aspects of worship, those who would assert that the realm of instrumental music is different have the burden of proving where Scripture teaches that is true.

Given what Scripture reveals about God rejecting some things in the Mosaic Law, but then accepting them during the New Testament time period, we have reason to believe that previously rejected things can now be acceptable. Verses about unacceptable burnt offerings or unacceptable hewn stones are NOT indications that instrumental music must, of necessity, have some aspect of it that is unacceptable. Would there have to be some colors that are unacceptable to God in worship? Would there have to be some building styles that are unacceptable to worship in? Would there have to be some technologies that are unacceptable to worship with. There might be. It’s completely possible that God rejects worship when done by people wearing yellow in log cabins using overhead projectors. We don’t know however, if God rejects those things. Demons may know, and they may influence people to do those things while worshiping, but if we have no way of knowing that God rejects them, then we are not responsible for staying away from them. If someone says that something in the realm of colors must be unacceptable to God, then that person has the burden of proving that Scripture teaches that is true. If someone says that something within the realm of instrumental music has to be unacceptable to God, then that person has the burden of proving where Scripture teaches that is true.

[Kevin Miller]

Given what Scripture reveals about God rejecting some things in the Mosaic Law, but then accepting them during the New Testament time period, we have reason to believe that previously rejected things can now be acceptable.

You are going to have to prove biblically that this reasoning applies specifically to the realm of worship.

[Kevin Miller]

Verses about unacceptable burnt offerings or unacceptable hewn stones are NOT indications that instrumental music must, of necessity, have some aspect of it that is unacceptable.

Scripture reveals that not even all things that are lawful are edifying (1 Cor. 10:23). Anything that is not edifying cannot be used in worship.
If you deny that the explicit teaching of 1 Cor. 10:23 applies to the realm of all kinds of instrumental music used in worship, you have to prove biblically that all kinds of instrumental music are not just lawful but also edifying.

[Kevin Miller]

Would there have to be some colors that are unacceptable to God in worship?

Likening the use of colors in worship to instrumental music used in worship is faulty reasoning. God has never commanded that colors be offered to Him in worship. God has commanded that instrumental music be offered to Him in worship.

[RajeshG]
Kevin Miller wrote:

Given what Scripture reveals about God rejecting some things in the Mosaic Law, but then accepting them during the New Testament time period, we have reason to believe that previously rejected things can now be acceptable.

You are going to have to prove biblically that this reasoning applies specifically to the realm of worship.

Umm, I don’t see the logic of this question. Why wouldn’t my statement apply to worship?

The distinction between clean and unclean animals is a worship-related distinction. God tells us in Acts 10:15 that this distinction has been eliminated.

I suppose if one believed that that the worship practices of the OT, such as a human priest and animal sacrifices, were still in effect, then one might doubt that my statement applies to worship. A read through Hebrews will show that worship without a human priest and animal sacrifices is now acceptable to God.

So I think the New Testament clearly shows that my reasoning applies to worship.

[RajeshG]
Kevin Miller wrote:

Verses about unacceptable burnt offerings or unacceptable hewn stones are NOT indications that instrumental music must, of necessity, have some aspect of it that is unacceptable.

Scripture reveals that not even all things that are lawful are edifying (1 Cor. 10:23). Anything that is not edifying cannot be used in worship.

If you deny that the explicit teaching of 1 Cor. 10:23 applies to the realm of all kinds of instrumental music used in worship, you have to prove biblically that all kinds of instrumental music are not just lawful but also edifying.

So am I to interpret this verse as saying that if a particular kind of instrumental music is not edifying to ME or personally building ME up spiritually that no one anywhere should use it at all?

[RajeshG]
Kevin Miller wrote:

Would there have to be some colors that are unacceptable to God in worship?

Likening the use of colors in worship to instrumental music used in worship is faulty reasoning. God has never commanded that colors be offered to Him in worship. God has commanded that instrumental music be offered to Him in worship.

Why would the “command” make a difference? Do you have some Scripture to show that God only rejects items in areas in which he has given a command, but he doesn’t ever reject anything in other areas?

So I’ll ask the question in regards to a commanded area. 2 Kings 17:36 says, “But the Lord, who brought you up from the land of Egypt with great power and with an outstretched arm, Him you shall fear, and to Him you shall bow yourselves down, and to Him you shall sacrifice.” Bowing down was a commanded body posture.

Would there have to be some body postures that unacceptable to God in worship?

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

Kevin Miller wrote:

Given what Scripture reveals about God rejecting some things in the Mosaic Law, but then accepting them during the New Testament time period, we have reason to believe that previously rejected things can now be acceptable.

You are going to have to prove biblically that this reasoning applies specifically to the realm of worship.

Umm, I don’t see the logic of this question. Why wouldn’t my statement apply to worship?

The distinction between clean and unclean animals is a worship-related distinction. God tells us in Acts 10:15 that this distinction has been eliminated.

I suppose if one believed that that the worship practices of the OT, such as a human priest and animal sacrifices, were still in effect, then one might doubt that my statement applies to worship. A read through Hebrews will show that worship without a human priest and animal sacrifices is now acceptable to God.

So I think the New Testament clearly shows that my reasoning applies to worship.

No, this is a misreading and misapplication of what the NT reveals. The NT does not teach that God now accepts for use in worship on an altar unclean animals or unclean things that He previously did not accept for use in worship as a sacrifice on an altar. Rather, it teaches that Christ’s work has done away completely with any acceptable offering of any animals or other things as a sacrifice on an altar in any worship of God.
The NT teaching about the removal of the unclean vs. clean distinction among animals and other things pertains to what God’s people can now consume acceptably as food. It does not have any pertinence to any change in God’s acceptance of the use of animals or other things in worship.

[RajeshG]
Kevin Miller wrote:

RajeshG wrote:

Kevin Miller wrote:

Given what Scripture reveals about God rejecting some things in the Mosaic Law, but then accepting them during the New Testament time period, we have reason to believe that previously rejected things can now be acceptable.

You are going to have to prove biblically that this reasoning applies specifically to the realm of worship.

Umm, I don’t see the logic of this question. Why wouldn’t my statement apply to worship?

The distinction between clean and unclean animals is a worship-related distinction. God tells us in Acts 10:15 that this distinction has been eliminated.

I suppose if one believed that that the worship practices of the OT, such as a human priest and animal sacrifices, were still in effect, then one might doubt that my statement applies to worship. A read through Hebrews will show that worship without a human priest and animal sacrifices is now acceptable to God.

So I think the New Testament clearly shows that my reasoning applies to worship.

No, this is a misreading and misapplication of what the NT reveals. The NT does not teach that God now accepts for use in worship on an altar unclean animals or unclean things that He previously did not accept for use in worship as a sacrifice on an altar. Rather, it teaches that Christ’s work has done away completely with any acceptable offering of any animals or other things as a sacrifice on an altar in any worship of God.

The NT teaching about the removal of the unclean vs. clean distinction among animals and other things pertains to what God’s people can now consume acceptably as food. It does not have any pertinence to any change in God’s acceptance of the use of animals or other things in worship.

I see you didn’t object to the other part of my Biblical support. I said, “A read through Hebrews will show that worship without a human priest and animal sacrifices is now acceptable to God.” Since we don’t use animals at all in worship any more and we don’t use human priests, than those are distinct worship changes from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

The Judaizers in the book of Acts were teaching the Gentiles that God rejected their worship if it wasn’t in line with the Mosaic law. That’s the way it worked in the Old Testament. However in Acts 15:28-29 we see that God accepts their worship without those requirements, except for the 4 requirements that were still kept in place. So there is a distinct change in acceptable worship from the OT to the NT.

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

Kevin Miller wrote:

RajeshG wrote:

Kevin Miller wrote:

Given what Scripture reveals about God rejecting some things in the Mosaic Law, but then accepting them during the New Testament time period, we have reason to believe that previously rejected things can now be acceptable.

You are going to have to prove biblically that this reasoning applies specifically to the realm of worship.

Umm, I don’t see the logic of this question. Why wouldn’t my statement apply to worship?

The distinction between clean and unclean animals is a worship-related distinction. God tells us in Acts 10:15 that this distinction has been eliminated.

I suppose if one believed that that the worship practices of the OT, such as a human priest and animal sacrifices, were still in effect, then one might doubt that my statement applies to worship. A read through Hebrews will show that worship without a human priest and animal sacrifices is now acceptable to God.

So I think the New Testament clearly shows that my reasoning applies to worship.

No, this is a misreading and misapplication of what the NT reveals. The NT does not teach that God now accepts for use in worship on an altar unclean animals or unclean things that He previously did not accept for use in worship as a sacrifice on an altar. Rather, it teaches that Christ’s work has done away completely with any acceptable offering of any animals or other things as a sacrifice on an altar in any worship of God.

The NT teaching about the removal of the unclean vs. clean distinction among animals and other things pertains to what God’s people can now consume acceptably as food. It does not have any pertinence to any change in God’s acceptance of the use of animals or other things in worship.

I see you didn’t object to the other part of my Biblical support. I said, “A read through Hebrews will show that worship without a human priest and animal sacrifices is now acceptable to God.” Since we don’t use animals at all in worship any more and we don’t use human priests, than those are distinct worship changes from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

The Judaizers in the book of Acts were teaching the Gentiles that God rejected their worship if it wasn’t in line with the Mosaic law. That’s the way it worked in the Old Testament. However in Acts 15:28-29 we see that God accepts their worship without those requirements, except for the 4 requirements that were still kept in place. So there is a distinct change in acceptable worship from the OT to the NT.

You often throw multiple different things into one comment so that it is often very hard with one reply to answer properly everything that you say. You should not interpret my not commenting about something as necessarily my agreeing with what you have said concerning that matter. It takes time to carefully and prayerfully think through what is being said, assess it biblically, and answer it biblically, as needed.

[Kevin Miller]

So I’ll ask the question in regards to a commanded area. 2 Kings 17:36 says, “But the Lord, who brought you up from the land of Egypt with great power and with an outstretched arm, Him you shall fear, and to Him you shall bow yourselves down, and to Him you shall sacrifice.” Bowing down was a commanded body posture.

Would there have to be some body postures that unacceptable to God in worship?

Yes, there are body postures that are unacceptable to God for use in corporate worship.

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

Kevin Miller wrote:

Verses about unacceptable burnt offerings or unacceptable hewn stones are NOT indications that instrumental music must, of necessity, have some aspect of it that is unacceptable.

Scripture reveals that not even all things that are lawful are edifying (1 Cor. 10:23). Anything that is not edifying cannot be used in worship.

If you deny that the explicit teaching of 1 Cor. 10:23 applies to the realm of all kinds of instrumental music used in worship, you have to prove biblically that all kinds of instrumental music are not just lawful but also edifying.

So am I to interpret this verse as saying that if a particular kind of instrumental music is not edifying to ME or personally building ME up spiritually that no one anywhere should use it at all?

That might be true, or it might not be true. It would depend in part on what that kind of instrumental music is, etc.

The Bible teaches that all of our hearts are deceitful and have been misshapen by exposure to corruption from ungodly cultural influences.

In corporate worship, only that which is edifying to all is acceptable to God.