Does God love all kinds of music because He invented it all?

There is no evidence in the Bible that supports holding that God loves all kinds of music, and there is explicit evidence of His rejecting certain music (Isa. 14:11). Moreover, there is no evidence that supports holding that God “invented” all kinds of music.

[LGCarpenter]

The answer may differ on how narrow you define music when answering the poll. Obviously, God did not “invent” sin, and some music, broadly defined, is sinful (promoting sinful actions, lurid, etc.). However, if you narrow the subject down to certain tones, or beat, it is a much more complex discussion.

[Kevin Miller]

RajeshG wrote:

LGCarpenter wrote:

The answer may differ on how narrow you define music when answering the poll. Obviously, God did not “invent” sin, and some music, broadly defined, is sinful (promoting sinful actions, lurid, etc.). However, if you narrow the subject down to certain tones, or beat, it is a much more complex discussion.

How is it “a much more complex discussion” when “the subject” is narrowed “down to certain tones, or beat”?

It gets more complex because then you have to start making distinctions regarding when “sinfulness” or “evil” can even be applied to the music. You yourself don’t believe that individual tones can be evil, unless you’ve changed your position since last June. On June 27, 2020, you wrote ” In any case, I do not believe that a musical instrument can be inherently evil, as long as it can produce individual tones played by themselves because such individual tones by themselves cannot be evil. https://sharperiron.org/comment/117473#comment-117473

[LGCarpenter]

To apply sinfulness to tone, beat, and other elements of music, we need to find scripture that addresses them specifically in such a way that the morality of those elements is clear.

My taste in music is probably very close to your own, Rajesh. Some of the reasons I do not like much of CCM is:

• There is a prominent, loud beat, that quite literally may give me a headache.
• The lyrics are often shallow and repeated over and over again.
• The singing is often either really breathy or more yelling than singing.
• The music often covers up the lyrics so much that I can’t understand them.

However, these things have much more to do with how edifying and helpful the music is than whether it is sinful.

Any claims about necessary divine acceptance of all combinations of musical elements begs crucial questions unless those claims can be proven with Scripture. Warren and many others beg those questions and do not provide any valid biblical support for their claims.
I have engaged with numerous supporters of CCM, and none of them has ever validly defended their claims biblically. They make many assertions, just as Warren does in his book …

Galatians 5 does not in any way make “abundantly clear” that believers have “liberty” or “freedom” to make use of any kinds of music that are sourced in any of the works of the flesh delineated in Galatians 5:19-21:

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Anyone who wants to claim that the kinds of instrumental music that are sourced in idolatry or the occult or in any of the other works of the flesh condemned here are still nonetheless acceptable to God for use in worship must prove that position biblically.
More importantly, Galatians 5 provides zero support for holding that any of Warren’s positions quoted in the OP are true. The Bible never teaches any of the following to be true.
1. God “invented” all kinds of music

2. God loves and likes all kinds of music.
3. God accepts the use of all kinds of music in worship.
Those who claim that any of these statements are true have the burden of proving their claims from Scripture.

[Bert Perry]

….Galatians 5:1.

Yes, Rajesh, it does demonstrate that the default position of the church is liberty, and Paul is so passionate about this, that he rhetorically “recommends” that the Judiazers castrate themselves (Galatians 5:12) if they’re so big on circumcision. So again, if you would claim (as you do) that the Church is greatly limited in the music she can choose for praise, then the onus is on you to provide some actual evidence.

Not having seen any such evidence from you in the past few years you’ve been posting and commenting here, I’m not going to hold my breath, but the door is open if you should someday find some evidence for your position.

[Bert Perry]

Rajesh, just because someone says something stupid does not make any point you really want to make, unless your goal is simply to do catcalls on people who say stupid things.. Let’s be real here; you have an agenda here, and that’s fine, but you’ve got to back it up with real evidence. If you say “someone said something stupid, that makes my point”, you can expect those with whom you’re debating to say “look in the mirror, buddy, ‘cause by your own logic, you just disproved your own hypothesis.”

For my part, I think it’s significant that Psalms 149 and 150 command the use of all the major families of instruments available at the time (wind, percussive, string), that Paul instructs God’s people to sing in what appears to be three genre (Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs), that the Psalms contain a variety of poetic devices that would lend themselves to a variety of musical settings, and finally that Scripture does not give a list of acceptable and unacceptable music devices for His people to use.

I therefore infer that God’s given us a tremendous amount of freedom to use and invent musical settings to praise Him in ways that are appropriate to one’s culture, one’s language, and the like.

When He commands that certain realms of human endeavor are categorically off-limits to His people, such as the occult, you have zero freedom to use anything from those realms.
If you disagree, you have to prove from Scripture where God says that He approves as an exception the taking of music from that forbidden realm and using it to worship Him.
Your repeated claims about the commands in Psalm 149-150 about the use of all major families of instruments do not in any way prove that every possible kind of music that can be produced using those instruments is acceptable to God. If that is your view, you have to prove it from Scripture that says exactly that view is correct.

[Craig Toliver]

Bert Perry wrote:

OK, so we have zero freedom to use anything connected, however tenuously, with the occult. Now I’ll ignore your obvious guilt by association fallacy, and let’s engage a reductio ad absurdum.

The hymn “Ode To Joy” is originally from Beethoven, and the original lyrics are Schiller’s “An die Freude,” a pantheistic hymn to the pagan gods of Europe. Have you ripped this evil hymn out of every hymnal at the church you attend?

Likewise, “Be Still My Soul” derives from Jan Sibelius’ Finlandia, a tone poem putting Finland’s national epic, the Kalavala, including stories of the “demigod” Vianamoinen. Have you ripped this one out, too? Let’s be consistent, Rajesh. You know, by your own logic, that it’s off limits!

In similar ways, many hymns—the Gloria Patri, the doxologies, and others—have connections to the errors and idolatry of the Roman Catholic Church, and others, like the Christmas song O Holy Night, not only have objectionable lyrics, but (this might be the cause) were written or translated by Unitarians. Rip, rip, rip….Mark Minnick is going to be ticked when you get done.

Going further, the pipe organ was invented by the pagan Greeks in the 3rd century BC—and is (e.g. the Moog) also a staple instrument, in its electronic form, in rock & roll music. You don’t allow one of those evil instruments in your church, I hope! Visited the website, and I think I see the screens hiding those pipes! Don’t worry about what Pastor Minnick says, you’d better get in there with a sledgehammer and get rid of that pagan element.

In the same way, the pianoforte is connected (shudders) with such evil people as Billy Joel (who mocks Christians in some of his songs) and Elton John. And don’t even get me started with guitars or drums—we’ll ignore the obvious fact that the Psalms command their use, of course, in Temple music.

Or we could just concede that guilt by association is a basic logical fallacy that can be applied against anything and everything, and ought to have as little place in our discourse as napalm bombs. How about it, Rajesh?

Destroyed!!!

Give up Rajesh!

Lol.

[Bert Perry]

OK, so we have zero freedom to use anything connected, however tenuously, with the occult. Now I’ll ignore your obvious guilt by association fallacy, and let’s engage a reductio ad absurdum.

The hymn “Ode To Joy” is originally from Beethoven, and the original lyrics are Schiller’s “An die Freude,” a pantheistic hymn to the pagan gods of Europe. Have you ripped this evil hymn out of every hymnal at the church you attend?

Likewise, “Be Still My Soul” derives from Jan Sibelius’ Finlandia, a tone poem putting Finland’s national epic, the Kalavala, including stories of the “demigod” Vianamoinen. Have you ripped this one out, too? Let’s be consistent, Rajesh. You know, by your own logic, that it’s off limits!

In similar ways, many hymns—the Gloria Patri, the doxologies, and others—have connections to the errors and idolatry of the Roman Catholic Church, and others, like the Christmas song O Holy Night, not only have objectionable lyrics, but (this might be the cause) were written or translated by Unitarians. Rip, rip, rip….Mark Minnick is going to be ticked when you get done.

Going further, the pipe organ was invented by the pagan Greeks in the 3rd century BC—and is (e.g. the Moog) also a staple instrument, in its electronic form, in rock & roll music. You don’t allow one of those evil instruments in your church, I hope! Visited the website, and I think I see the screens hiding those pipes! Don’t worry about what Pastor Minnick says, you’d better get in there with a sledgehammer and get rid of that pagan element.

In the same way, the pianoforte is connected (shudders) with such evil people as Billy Joel (who mocks Christians in some of his songs) and Elton John. And don’t even get me started with guitars or drums—we’ll ignore the obvious fact that the Psalms command their use, of course, in Temple music.

Or we could just concede that guilt by association is a basic logical fallacy that can be applied against anything and everything, and ought to have as little place in our discourse as napalm bombs. How about it, Rajesh?

[Bert Perry]

Rajesh, regarding your last post,Scripture says nothing about the occult per se, but plenty about pagan religion. For a man who claims to honor the Bible in what he teaches, that’s a glaring error on your part. The category to be avoided is paganism, and yes, if I apply your illogic, the consequences I mentioned follow. Moreover, deriving an idea from a text is not called “insinuation”, but rather “inference.” May I suggest a dictionary and a primer on logic?

Regarding your claim that you’re starting from Scripture, spare me. You’re the guy who’s capable of trying to connect unknown music at the Golden Calf incident with rock & roll while ignoring the clear implications of the last two Psalms. What you’re doing is starting with your conclusion, and nary a bit of evidence that contradicts it will be allowed in. Again, I commend to you the purchase of a primer on informal logic and a dictionary.

[Kevin Miller]

Bert Perry wrote:

Rajesh, regarding your last post,Scripture says nothing about the occult per se, but plenty about pagan religion. For a man who claims to honor the Bible in what he teaches, that’s a glaring error on your part.

I think Rajesh might have a problem with your use of the word “nothing.” I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Scriptures say “nothing” about the occult, unless your addition of “per se” means some specific definition of the occult that you have in mind. I Cor. 10:28 says “the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God.” So the pagan religion was basically occultic in nature, since the sacrifices were made to demons. Rajesh wrote to you, “You also wrongly equate idolatry with the occult. Although closely related, the two are not the same.” They may not be exactly the same, but they are really, really close, depending upon how one defines the occult.

So I think I Cor 10 plays an important part in understanding how we should treat things like meat or music that may have occult ties. Most of the meat sold in the marketplaces had been offered to idols, yet Paul says in I Cor 10:25-26 “Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, ‘The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.’ ” Also, they could freely eat any meat that an unbeliever put in front of them, even if it may have been previously offered to an idol, as long as the unbeliever didn’t make a point of saying that is was offered to an idol. If a specific believer had a personal objection to eating any meat that maybe, perhaps, possibly had been offered to an idol, then that believer didn’t have to buy from the marketplace or eat at unbeliever’s homes, but any other believers could freely eat.

Scripture has at least 61 verses about the occult. This wealth of information that is found throughout both Testaments shows that the occult is truly an important topic in Scripture. Any believer who wants to understand what God wants him to know about the immense dangers of the occult must immerse himself in these passages.

[Kevin Miller]

RajeshG wrote:

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Anyone who wants to claim that the kinds of instrumental music that are sourced in idolatry or the occult or in any of the other works of the flesh condemned here are still nonetheless acceptable to God for use in worship must prove that position biblically.

I just want to mention something that I thought of when Galatians 5:19-21 was quoted earlier in the thread. These verses list particular sins that are condemned, but the passage doesn’t mention items that are “sourced in” these sins. The idea of being “sourced in” a sin, and thus being condemned, is leap of logic. Let’s look at the first one, which is adultery. Could there be some instrumental music that is “sourced in ” adultery? If a composer dedicated an instrumental piece to his adulterous partner, then I suppose that particular piece would be sourced in adultery. Would that particular piece be forever off limits for any use by believers? I think it would be problematic if it was common knowledge regarding the origin of the tune, but I don’t think the association problem with that one piece of music would make the style of that music to be forever unusable. Furthermore, it would be awfully hard to actually know the origin of all instrumental songs to know whether the composers were engaging in some sin that pertained to the writing of the instrumental music.

The same goes for any of the other sins. We are not to practice fornication. We are not to practice idolatry. We are not to practice witchcraft or hatred or wrath or envy. The idea of something being “sourced in” those sins is a subjective leap that isn’t mentioned in the passage. Is there some instrumental music that originated in hatred or envy? How would we know? Music may be used while people are practicing those sins, but I don’t believe that puts a permanent taint on that style of music, what ever it may be. Anyone who wishes to claim that such use puts a permanent taint on a style of music must prove that position biblically.

[Bert Perry]

As I have already cited more than once in previous threads, there are categorical divine prohibitions about even inquiring how evil people worship their gods.

If that is true, why does Scripture tell us about Asherah poles, Nebuchadnezzar’s shrine to himself, passing children through the fire to Molech, Artemis of the Ephesians, the Pharisees and Sadducees, legalists/judiazers (guilty enough that Paul tells them to castrate themselves!), gnostics, proto-Arians, and the like? And really, would we be able to understand Scripture without knowing a bit about these?

Besides, I can think of a certain commenter—the author of the statement in italics no less—who has learned quite a bit about the way one evil person worships his “god” and used that case as a way to attack all modern music. (Gene Simmons of KISS)

One of the key tests of a hypothesis is whether it stands the test of Scripture, and whether the proponent of the hypothesis actually holds to it. At this point, Rajesh’s hypothesis fails both, and badly.

I have never used what Simmons has said as “a way to attack all modern music” (bold added to original). My denunciations of various musics are based on far more than what Simmons has said.

[Kevin Miller]

RajeshG wrote:

As I have already cited more than once in previous threads, there are categorical divine prohibitions about even inquiring how evil people worship their gods.

Well, this is one of the reasons I brought up meat offered to idols. Meat sold in the market place had very often been used as part of worship of false gods. Yet people could eat it in good conscience as long as they didn’t inquire about it.

Quote:Anyone who claims that he is free to go to the idolaters and bring their instrumental worship music into the worship of the true God is making a false claim that violates explicitly stated divine prohibitions about having anything to do with such things. If you want to claim that the instrumental music of those idolaters is an exception, you have to prove that from Scripture.

So is this why you haven’t answered Bert’s questions about “Ode to Joy” and “Be Still My Soul” and Roman Catholic hymns? Is it because, based on your logic, you would then have to prove why such hymns are acceptable?

Quote:Moreover, Scripture clearly distinguishes between idolatry and the occult. When people engage in occult practices that they explicitly say are designed to put them into direct contact with demons and have the demons direct or control them and at times even possess them, any such instrumental music that they use in those demonic practices is categorically off-limits to all righteous people because it is demonic music.

So how does the use of a particular piece of music make that music demonic? Is the music causing demon control or possession? This is where I think you are making your leaps of logic. Contacting demons is sinful. The Bible doesn’t say that what you wear while contacting demons becomes sinful or demonic, The Bible doesn’t say that what you eat while contacting demons becomes sinful or demonic. The Bible doesn’t say that what you listen to while contacting demons becomes sinful or demonic.

Quote:Your claim that the activities “taint” that instrumental music begs the question that the music itself was originally good and only became evil through its being “tainted” by being used in those activities. You have to prove such claims from Scripture—you do not just get to assert that instrumental music was originally good. Prove from Scripture that it was originally good.

If someone thinks that instrumental music was originally evil, wouldn’t they have to prove from Scripture why it was originally evil? Earlier in this thread, you said “I have never applied sinfulness to individual musical tones.” You also said, ” I do not believe that musical instruments can be inherently evil.” So if someone believes that a combination of inherently good tones made by an inherently good instrument is inherently evil, wouldn’t that person have to Scripturally prove how the tones are evil?

Quote:More importantly, God categorically prohibits having any fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness (Eph. 5:11). You have the burden of proving from Scripture that the instrumental music of the occult is an exception to that categorical prohibition.

Define a “work of darkness,” please. Verses 19-21 is a pretty comprehensive list, and music isn’t included in it. If you claim that music is included in the list of “works of darkness,” then you would have to prove that claim from Scripture. Otherwise, it’s just a leap of logic. Are the garments and food of the occult also part of the “categorical prohibition?” Occult practitioners use tea leaves to read the future. Is drinking tea part of the prohibition, or is tea an exception?

[Bert Perry]

RajeshG wrote:

Bert Perry wrote:

As I have already cited more than once in previous threads, there are categorical divine prohibitions about even inquiring how evil people worship their gods.

If that is true, why does Scripture tell us about Asherah poles, Nebuchadnezzar’s shrine to himself, passing children through the fire to Molech, Artemis of the Ephesians, the Pharisees and Sadducees, legalists/judiazers (guilty enough that Paul tells them to castrate themselves!), gnostics, proto-Arians, and the like? And really, would we be able to understand Scripture without knowing a bit about these?

Besides, I can think of a certain commenter—the author of the statement in italics no less—who has learned quite a bit about the way one evil person worships his “god” and used that case as a way to attack all modern music. (Gene Simmons of KISS)

One of the key tests of a hypothesis is whether it stands the test of Scripture, and whether the proponent of the hypothesis actually holds to it. At this point, Rajesh’s hypothesis fails both, and badly.

There is a vast difference between being given brief information that warns about the evil practices of evil people and intentionally exposing oneself at any length to their wickedness for the purpose of copying or borrowing from those practices. God does the former extensively throughout Scripture and categorically forbids the latter.

I have never used what Simmons has said as “a way to attack all modern music” (bold added to original). My denunciations of various musics are based on far more than what Simmons has said.

Alrighty then, Rajesh, your version of a “categorical divine prohibition” says that a little bit is OK, but you get to draw the line exactly where. Somehow I’m reminded of the analogy where someone asks their children whether they’d like “just a little bit” of dog waste in their brownies.

For my part, I think it’s important that we understand pagan customs simply because it’s a bit of how we can understand those of Israel and our own. It’s important to know that pagan altars were often the exact same dimensions as the altar to God in Jerusalem. It’s important to understand the significance of groves, Asherah poles, Oral Torah, gnosticism, Arianism, and the like. And if many of us don’t understand these false religions well, good luck showing people the error of their ways and why it’s significant.

And regarding Simmons, OK, not all, but most modern music, yes, you did. Seriously, quibbling over all vs. most? And again, of course you get to be the one to draw the line….

[Kevin Miller]

Quote:More importantly, God categorically prohibits having any fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness (Eph. 5:11). You have the burden of proving from Scripture that the instrumental music of the occult is an exception to that categorical prohibition.

Define a “work of darkness,” please. Verses 19-21 is a pretty comprehensive list, and music isn’t included in it. If you claim that music is included in the list of “works of darkness,” then you would have to prove that claim from Scripture. Otherwise, it’s just a leap of logic. Are the garments and food of the occult also part of the “categorical prohibition?” Occult practitioners use tea leaves to read the future. Is drinking tea part of the prohibition, or is tea an exception?

[Kevin Miller]

Quote:Your claim that the activities “taint” that instrumental music begs the question that the music itself was originally good and only became evil through its being “tainted” by being used in those activities. You have to prove such claims from Scripture—you do not just get to assert that instrumental music was originally good. Prove from Scripture that it was originally good.

If someone thinks that instrumental music was originally evil, wouldn’t they have to prove from Scripture why it was originally evil? Earlier in this thread, you said “I have never applied sinfulness to individual musical tones.” You also said, ” I do not believe that musical instruments can be inherently evil.” So if someone believes that a combination of inherently good tones made by an inherently good instrument is inherently evil, wouldn’t that person have to Scripturally prove how the tones are evil?

[Kevin Miller]

Quote:Moreover, Scripture clearly distinguishes between idolatry and the occult. When people engage in occult practices that they explicitly say are designed to put them into direct contact with demons and have the demons direct or control them and at times even possess them, any such instrumental music that they use in those demonic practices is categorically off-limits to all righteous people because it is demonic music.

So how does the use of a particular piece of music make that music demonic? Is the music causing demon control or possession? This is where I think you are making your leaps of logic. Contacting demons is sinful. The Bible doesn’t say that what you wear while contacting demons becomes sinful or demonic, The Bible doesn’t say that what you eat while contacting demons becomes sinful or demonic. The Bible doesn’t say that what you listen to while contacting demons becomes sinful or demonic.

Acts 19:19 Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.

When they were saved, these new believers in Ephesus instinctively knew that they must destroy the occult books that they used in their occult practices prior to their having been saved.
The physical materials of these books were incredibly valuable from a monetary standpoint and could have been sold for a vast amount of money (if the equivalent of those books would have been burned in 2011, they would have been worth almost $6,000,000). The new believers, however, destroyed those books.
God has provided this passage for our instruction and profit. We do not have to explain how the evil contents and prior uses of these books “tainted” the (supposedly intrinsically good) combinations of physical materials that they were written on—it is enough that God has revealed to us that such occult books were categorically rejected by His people, including the combinations of physical materials of those occult books.