By RajeshG on
Forum category
Society & Culture

On a social media site, I recently asked a question that elicited an interesting variety of responses:

Who do you think is the most important musician in human history?

What do you think?

Poll Results

Who do you think is the most important musician in human history?

Satan Votes: 4
Jubal Votes: 0
King David Votes: 2
Johann Sebastian Bach Votes: 2
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Votes: 0
Ludwig van Beethoven Votes: 0
Other: please specify below in a comment Votes: 2
Unsure Votes: 0

(Migrated poll)

N/A
0% (0 votes)
Total votes: 0

Discussion

Fri, 09/06/19

To select more than one choice, please choose “other” in the poll and name your choices in a comment.

Fri, 09/06/19
I picked David just because God inscripturated so many of his songs. Other than that I would probably pick Bach. Louis Armstrong or Bach are of course the best musicians of all time but that wasn’t the question.

Sat, 09/07/19

I marked “other” since my choice is God. Psalm 40:3 tells us “he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD.” Also, Psalm 32:7 tells us that God surrounds us with songs of deliverance.

Sat, 09/07/19

Consider that “music” is the sound (not lyrics) created by musicians and consider that no one has any idea what the music produced by three of the choices sounded like.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Sat, 09/07/19

[Ron Bean]

Consider that “music” is the sound (not lyrics) created by musicians and consider that no one has any idea what the music produced by three of the choices sounded like.

Many musicians write both the instrumental aspects of their music and the lyrics. Some or even perhaps many sing the lyrics as they are writing some or all of the words to their songs. Do you believe that they are only musicians when they are writing/playing the instrumental aspects of their music, but they are not musicians when they write/sing their lyrics?

Sat, 09/07/19

[RajeshG]
Ron Bean wrote:

Consider that “music” is the sound (not lyrics) created by musicians and consider that no one has any idea what the music produced by three of the choices sounded like.

Many musicians write both the instrumental aspects of their music and the lyrics. Some or even perhaps many sing the lyrics as they are writing some or all of the words to their songs. Do you believe that they are only musicians when they are writing/playing the instrumental aspects of their music, but they are not musicians when they write/sing their lyrics?

I’m not going to answer your questions lest they get us off topic. The fact is that we do not have any idea what the music produced by the parties in question sounded like.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Sat, 09/07/19

Lyrics without any knowledge of the music they are set to is called poetry. Plain and simple.

The fact of the matter is we have no idea of the tunes David played, or Jubal, let alone Satan. God’s “new song” is a metaphor for his new covenant and his work to bring salvation to his elect. God singing over you is metaphor, not actual music.

Sat, 09/07/19

[Mark_Smith]

Lyrics without any knowledge of the music they are set to is called poetry. Plain and simple.

The fact of the matter is we have no idea of the tunes David played, or Jubal, let alone Satan. God’s “new song” is a metaphor for his new covenant and his work to bring salvation to his elect. God singing over you is metaphor, not actual music.

Wrong. Singing a song without knowing anything musically about what the notes are is still music.
No, neither God’s “new song” nor God’s singing over us are metaphors just because you say they are. You are welcome to show that they are, but merely asserting that they are does not establish anything.

Sat, 09/07/19

[Mark_Smith]

Lyrics without any knowledge of the music they are set to is called poetry. Plain and simple.

The fact of the matter is we have no idea of the tunes David played, or Jubal, let alone Satan. God’s “new song” is a metaphor for his new covenant and his work to bring salvation to his elect. God singing over you is metaphor, not actual music.

Well, I’ll still put God as my choice, since without God’s creative activities, the morning stars would not have been singing together in Job 38:7. God surrounds himself with angelic choirs in Rev. 14:2-3. Those angels are singing a “new song,” and while there certainly can be a metaphorical meaning of salvation to the new song, I do believe there is also an actual musical element to the sound produced by the angels that God surrounds Himself with. I don’t think we have to have actual knowledge of what the music is sounding like to know that God is an important musician (the most important, I say).

Sat, 09/07/19

[Kevin Miller]
Mark_Smith wrote:

Lyrics without any knowledge of the music they are set to is called poetry. Plain and simple.

The fact of the matter is we have no idea of the tunes David played, or Jubal, let alone Satan. God’s “new song” is a metaphor for his new covenant and his work to bring salvation to his elect. God singing over you is metaphor, not actual music.

Well, I’ll still put God as my choice, since without God’s creative activities, the morning stars would not have been singing together in Job 38:7. God surrounds himself with angelic choirs in Rev. 14:2-3. Those angels are singing a “new song,” and while there certainly can be a metaphorical meaning of salvation to the new song, I do believe there is also an actual musical element to the sound produced by the angels that God surrounds Himself with. I don’t think we have to have actual knowledge of what the music is sounding like to know that God is an important musician (the most important, I say).

Where do you get the notion that “there certainly can be a metaphorical meaning of salvation to the new song”?

Sat, 09/07/19

It is metaphor. Have you heard God singing? The point is, God may be singing in heaven, but you aren’t hearing it. So you cannot evaluate what it sounds like in any way, nor compare it to any earthly song.

Sat, 09/07/19

[RajeshG]

Wrong. Singing a song without knowing anything musically about what the notes are is still music.

Uhhh… ok. If you sang someone else’s lyrics (as in words that did not have music set to them originally) it is music, but you made the music. Your music does not reflect anything the writer may or may not have meant.

Consider this. Francis Scott Key wrote the Star Spangled Banner as a poem. Later it was set to music. Does the music mean Key was a musician?

Or, My Country Tis of Thee is the same notes as God Save the King/Queen. When an American sings My Country Tis of Thee is he really honoring the Queen of England?

Sat, 09/07/19

[Mark_Smith]

It is metaphor. Have you heard God singing? The point is, God may be singing in heaven, but you aren’t hearing it. So you cannot evaluate what it sounds like in any way, nor compare it to any earthly song.

Whether I have heard God singing or not is irrelevant to the question of this post. I do not have to evaluate what it sounds like in any way to believe that it is a song. There also is no necessity of comparing it to any earthly song to believe that it is a song.

Sat, 09/07/19

[Mark_Smith]
RajeshG wrote:

Wrong. Singing a song without knowing anything musically about what the notes are is still music.

Uhhh… ok. If you sang someone else’s lyrics (as in words that did not have music set to them originally) it is music, but you made the music. Your music does not reflect anything the writer may or may not have meant.

Consider this. Francis Scott Key wrote the Star Spangled Banner as a poem. Later it was set to music. Does the music mean Key was a musician?

Or, My Country Tis of Thee is the same notes as God Save the King/Queen. When an American sings My Country Tis of Thee is he really honoring the Queen of England?

When a person composes his own song by singing various combinations of words with various pitches to see what sounds good to him but does not know anything about what the notes are musically, he is still producing music when he does so.

Sat, 09/07/19

[RajeshG]

Where do you get the notion that “there certainly can be a metaphorical meaning of salvation to the new song”?

Because the Bible uses a lot of metaphors for salvation and there is often a fuzzy line between what is metaphor and what is reality. For example, Ezekiel 36:26 says “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you;” Now, the new spirit is definitely reality, since God puts the Holy Spirit into believers of the New Covenant, but we don’t get a new physical heart. The “new heart” is more of a metaphor describing salvation. The “new birth” is also a metaphor that describes the reality of our entering into God’s family, but it is not a new physical birth. It’s either a metaphor with a realistic sense or a reality in a metaphorical sense.

Sat, 09/07/19

To help us respond intelligently to your original post, perhaps you could answer this question: What did the music produced by Satan, Jubal, and/or David sound like? Words like Godly, evil, demonic, or heavenly aren’t helpful without concrete examples. Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart I know…..the others I don’t.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Sat, 09/07/19

[Ron Bean]

To help us respond intelligently to your original post, perhaps you could answer this question: What did the music produced by Satan, Jubal, and/or David sound like? Words like Godly, evil, demonic, or heavenly aren’t helpful without concrete examples. Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart I know…..the others I don’t.

Answering your question is not necessary to make a response to my original post. I do not have the information that you want about what it sounded like. Knowing what it sounded like is not necessary to answer the question of my original post.
The question is who do you think is the most important musician in human history, but I am not specifying by what criteria such an assessment is to be made. Each person who chooses to respond will do so based on whatever considerations he thinks are valid.

Sat, 09/07/19

Rajesh said: Knowing what it sounded like is not necessary to answer the question of my original post.

We don’t even know for certain whether these three composed music. They may have borrowed music from others.Satan MAY HAVE used God’s tunes. Jubal MAY HAVE only invented musical instruments, And, according to the Wiki article you posted, David MAY HAVE borrowed tunes from the Canaanites . We don’t know for certain they were musicians unless we have examples of their music.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Sat, 09/07/19

[Ron Bean]

Rajesh said: Knowing what it sounded like is not necessary to answer the question of my original post.

We don’t even know for certain whether these three composed music. They may have borrowed music from others.Satan MAY HAVE used God’s tunes. Jubal MAY HAVE only invented musical instruments, And, according to the Wiki article you posted, David MAY HAVE borrowed tunes from the Canaanites . We don’t know for certain they were musicians unless we have examples of their music.

Ok, so I have a simple solution for you. Choose one of the other choices or do not participate in this poll and do not discuss it any further. Problem solved.

Those who do not think that it is necessary to know what it sounded like can choose from one of those three or from any of the other choices, however they wish to.

Sat, 09/07/19

[Ron Bean]

Rajesh said: Knowing what it sounded like is not necessary to answer the question of my original post.

We don’t even know for certain whether these three composed music. They may have borrowed music from others.Satan MAY HAVE used God’s tunes. Jubal MAY HAVE only invented musical instruments, And, according to the Wiki article you posted, David MAY HAVE borrowed tunes from the Canaanites . We don’t know for certain they were musicians unless we have examples of their music.

We know with absolute certainty that David was a musician. First Samuel 16 explicitly speaks 2x of his playing the harp (16:18, 23) and emphasizes his skill in doing so (16:18).

Sat, 09/07/19

Rajesh said: We know with absolute certainty that David was a musician. First Samuel 16 explicitly speaks 2x of his playing the harp (16:18, 23) and emphasizes his skill in doing so (16:18).

True. Now tell me what it sounded like or have the nerve to simply say that you don’t know.

Rajesh also responded:

“OK, so I have a simple solution for you. Choose one of the other choices or do not participate in this poll and do not discuss it any further. Problem solved.”

Those who do not think that it is necessary to know what it sounded like can choose from one of those three or from any of the other choices, however they wish to.

If the following hurts your feelings…….get a thicker skin! Nearly 50 years ago I asked honest and sincere questions of Frank Garlock and his followers regarding their claims about music. When they couldn’t or wouldn’t answer questions, they would either accuse me of being a rebel or tell me to go somewhere else. Something you do with great regularity. This tells me that you are either not confident enough in your position to defend it or you’re just a lousy teacher, which may explain why no institution of higher learning has seen fit to employ you and your PHD as a full-time faculty member. It may also explain why your blog has so few comments from the spectators. There was a time when I thought that the mission of Frank Garlock and company to make people fearful of imaginary enemies that they would never positively indentify (that demon influenced CCM whose existence you imply) would fade, but you have picked up the banner. I’ll see you in heaven. Look for me over in the place where they’re singing Getty and Kauflin hymns. SMILE

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Sat, 09/07/19

[Ron Bean]

Rajesh said: We know with absolute certainty that David was a musician. First Samuel 16 explicitly speaks 2x of his playing the harp (16:18, 23) and emphasizes his skill in doing so (16:18).

True. Now tell me what it sounded like or have the nerve to simply say that you don’t know.

Rajesh already wrote “I do not have the information that you want about what it sounded like.”

Ron, do you deny the fact that the Bible describes David as playing musical instruments? Do you really have to know what tunes he was playing to believe that the Bible says he played musical instruments? Are you insisting that he couldn’t have been a musician unless we know the specific sounds of his tunes? That doesn’t seem logical.

Sat, 09/07/19

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

Where do you get the notion that “there certainly can be a metaphorical meaning of salvation to the new song”?

Because the Bible uses a lot of metaphors for salvation and there is often a fuzzy line between what is metaphor and what is reality. For example, Ezekiel 36:26 says “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you;” Now, the new spirit is definitely reality, since God puts the Holy Spirit into believers of the New Covenant, but we don’t get a new physical heart. The “new heart” is more of a metaphor describing salvation. The “new birth” is also a metaphor that describes the reality of our entering into God’s family, but it is not a new physical birth. It’s either a metaphor with a realistic sense or a reality in a metaphorical sense.

The new spirit and the new heart that God creates in a human being at salvation are not metaphors; they speak of actual metaphysical/spiritual realities that God creates in the inner man. The Bible never teaches that the heart of man resides in his physical heart so saying that we do not get a new physical heart does not mean God does not create a new heart within a person at salvation.
As for the new birth, it is true that it is not a new physical birth, but that does not mean that it is not an actual birth (cf. 1 John 3:9 and many other passages).

Sat, 09/07/19

[Kevin Miller]
Ron Bean wrote:

Rajesh said: We know with absolute certainty that David was a musician. First Samuel 16 explicitly speaks 2x of his playing the harp (16:18, 23) and emphasizes his skill in doing so (16:18).

True. Now tell me what it sounded like or have the nerve to simply say that you don’t know.

Rajesh already wrote “I do not have the information that you want about what it sounded like.”

Ron, do you deny the fact that the Bible describes David as playing musical instruments? Do you really have to know what tunes he was playing to believe that the Bible says he played musical instruments? Are you insisting that he couldn’t have been a musician unless we know the specific sounds of his tunes? That doesn’t seem logical.

No, I’m not denying that David played musical instruments. I am insisting that to make any personal conclusions about the value of his musicianship we would need to know what it sounded like.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Sat, 09/07/19

[RajeshG]

The new spirit and the new heart that God creates in a human being at salvation are not metaphors; they speak of actual metaphysical/spiritual realities that God creates in the inner man.

But Rajesh, that is WHAT a metaphor is. It is a picture that speaks of something. When God speaks of turning the heart of stone into a heart of flesh, God is using the picture of stone to represent the hardness of heart that an individual starts out with spiritually. The old heart isn’t actually stone. That’s just a metaphor. The new heart of flesh is a metaphor for the new spiritual reality.

Sat, 09/07/19

[Ron Bean]

No, I’m not denying that David played musical instruments. I am insisting that to make any personal conclusions about the value of his musicianship we would need to know what it sounded like.

So your point is mainly about the word “important” in the original question. Correct? Do you believe that the only “important” musicians are the ones who have had valued musicianship? Couldn’t importance also be gauged by one’s leadership within a musical sphere even if we haven’t personally heard the music performed by that leader? The fact that Jubal is the “father’ of certain music players would seem to indicate a level of importance to Jubal within that sphere, though I wouldn’t consider him to be the most important musician in history.

Sun, 09/08/19

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

The new spirit and the new heart that God creates in a human being at salvation are not metaphors; they speak of actual metaphysical/spiritual realities that God creates in the inner man.

But Rajesh, that is WHAT a metaphor is. It is a picture that speaks of something. When God speaks of turning the heart of stone into a heart of flesh, God is using the picture of stone to represent the hardness of heart that an individual starts out with spiritually. The old heart isn’t actually stone. That’s just a metaphor. The new heart of flesh is a metaphor for the new spiritual reality.

There is no place in the Bible that I know of where “the new song” is a picture of salvation.

Tue, 09/10/19

[RajeshG]

There is no place in the Bible that I know of where “the new song” is a picture of salvation.

Well, I’m not going to argue the “picture” point too strongly since I was the one who brought up the “new song” in reference to God being the greatest musician. I can see the metaphorical aspect, though, in that God doesn’t give believers a specific set of song lyrics with a specific tune, The “new song” speaks of the new attitude of praise and joy that people are instilled with when they become believers. This new attitude can certainly result in actual singing, but a believer can have the new attitude (the new song) without doing any actual singing.

Tue, 09/10/19

[Kevin Miller]

I can see the metaphorical aspect, though, in that God doesn’t give believers a specific set of song lyrics with a specific tune, The “new song” speaks of the new attitude of praise and joy that people are instilled with when they become believers. This new attitude can certainly result in actual singing, but a believer can have the new attitude (the new song) without doing any actual singing.

You are making a claim that the “new song” speaks of the new attitude, etc., but you are not showing where the Bible teaches what you are claiming here about this new attitude and what it is.

Tue, 09/10/19

[RajeshG]
Kevin Miller wrote:

I can see the metaphorical aspect, though, in that God doesn’t give believers a specific set of song lyrics with a specific tune, The “new song” speaks of the new attitude of praise and joy that people are instilled with when they become believers. This new attitude can certainly result in actual singing, but a believer can have the new attitude (the new song) without doing any actual singing.


You are making a claim that the “new song” speaks of the new attitude, etc., but you are not showing where the Bible teaches what you are claiming here about this new attitude and what it is.

Are you saying the Bible teaches that the “new song” is a specific set of lyrics with a specific tune that God gives to each believer?

I think the parallelism of Psalm 96:1-2 makes quite a clear connection between the new song and an attitude of praise to God. “Sing to the Lord a new song; sing to the Lord, all the earth. Sing to the Lord, praise his name; proclaim his salvation day after day.”

Tue, 09/10/19

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

Kevin Miller wrote:

I can see the metaphorical aspect, though, in that God doesn’t give believers a specific set of song lyrics with a specific tune, The “new song” speaks of the new attitude of praise and joy that people are instilled with when they become believers. This new attitude can certainly result in actual singing, but a believer can have the new attitude (the new song) without doing any actual singing.

You are making a claim that the “new song” speaks of the new attitude, etc., but you are not showing where the Bible teaches what you are claiming here about this new attitude and what it is.

Are you saying the Bible teaches that the “new song” is a specific set of lyrics with a specific tune that God gives to each believer?

I think the parallelism of Psalm 96:1-2 makes quite a clear connection between the new song and an attitude of praise to God. “Sing to the Lord a new song; sing to the Lord, all the earth. Sing to the Lord, praise his name; proclaim his salvation day after day.”

I do not believe that Ps. 96:1-2 teaches anything about an attitude of praise to God. It relates divine commands to all the earth to sing to God, praise His name, and proclaim His salvation continually.

Tue, 09/10/19

[RajeshG]

I do not believe that Ps. 96:1-2 teaches anything about an attitude of praise to God. It relates divine commands to all the earth to sing to God, praise His name, and proclaim His salvation continually.

So how exactly does one do that- sing to God and praise His name without an attitude of praise? Seriously, it sounds like you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

Tue, 09/10/19

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

I do not believe that Ps. 96:1-2 teaches anything about an attitude of praise to God. It relates divine commands to all the earth to sing to God, praise His name, and proclaim His salvation continually.

So how exactly does one do that- sing to God and praise His name without an attitude of praise? Seriously, it sounds like you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

To clarify, I would say the following: I do not believe that Ps. 96:1-2 teaches anything about merely having an attitude of praise to God. It relates divine commands to all the earth to sing to God, praise His name, and proclaim His salvation continually.
In other words, these are commands to actually engage in these actions.
These comments are especially in response to your earlier comment:
“This new attitude can certainly result in actual singing, but a believer can have the new attitude (the new song) without doing any actual singing.”
My position is that Ps. 96:1-2 does not teach that actual singing is merely something that “can certainly result” from a new attitude. God commands that actual singing be done.

Tue, 09/10/19

[RajeshG]
Kevin Miller wrote:

So how exactly does one do that- sing to God and praise His name without an attitude of praise? Seriously, it sounds like you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

To clarify, I would say the following: I do not believe that Ps. 96:1-2 teaches anything about merely having an attitude of praise to God. It relates divine commands to all the earth to sing to God, praise His name, and proclaim His salvation continually.

In other words, these are commands to actually engage in these actions.

I never denied that they are commands. I’m simply saying that God’s expectation is that we do not merely keep God’s commands to praise Him, but we do so with a proper attitude of praise.

Tue, 09/10/19

[RajeshG]

These comments are especially in response to your earlier comment:

“This new attitude can certainly result in actual singing, but a believer can have the new attitude (the new song) without doing any actual singing.”

My position is that Ps. 96:1-2 does not teach that actual singing is merely something that “can certainly result” from a new attitude. God commands that actual singing be done.

But this is where sanctification comes in. A new believer doesn’t always know all of the things that God commands him to do, but with the “new song” foundation of praiseful attitude that comes with being a believer, a person can keep learn God’s commands step by step through life and joyfully obey them with praise.

Tue, 09/10/19

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

Kevin Miller wrote:

So how exactly does one do that- sing to God and praise His name without an attitude of praise? Seriously, it sounds like you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

To clarify, I would say the following: I do not believe that Ps. 96:1-2 teaches anything about merely having an attitude of praise to God. It relates divine commands to all the earth to sing to God, praise His name, and proclaim His salvation continually.

In other words, these are commands to actually engage in these actions.

I never denied that they are commands. I’m simply saying that God’s expectation is that we do not merely keep God’s commands to praise Him, but we do so with a proper attitude of praise.

I do not believe that in Ps. 96:1-2, “new song” equals or means a “new attitude” of praise. Although we are to worship God with a proper attitude, I do not believe that truth is what “new song” denotes.

Tue, 09/10/19

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

These comments are especially in response to your earlier comment:

“This new attitude can certainly result in actual singing, but a believer can have the new attitude (the new song) without doing any actual singing.”

My position is that Ps. 96:1-2 does not teach that actual singing is merely something that “can certainly result” from a new attitude. God commands that actual singing be done.

But this is where sanctification comes in. A new believer doesn’t always know all of the things that God commands him to do, but with the “new song” foundation of praiseful attitude that comes with being a believer, a person can keep learn God’s commands step by step through life and joyfully obey them with praise.

Where does the Bible teach this idea of “the new song foundation of praiseful attitude that comes with being a believer”?

Tue, 09/10/19

[RajeshG]

I do not believe that in Ps. 96:1-2, “new song” equals or means a “new attitude” of praise. Although we are to worship God with a proper attitude, I do not believe that truth is what “new song” denotes.

I said that Ps 96 shows a “clear connection,” not an absolute equality of terms. That’s why I spoke of it as a metaphor. A metaphor is more of an analogy rather than an absolute equality.

Tue, 09/10/19

[RajeshG]

Where does the Bible teach this idea of “the new song foundation of praiseful attitude that comes with being a believer”?

Wow. Have you not looked at any of the verses in Psalms that mention the “new song”? The specific connection to praise is striking.

Psalm 40:3 He put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God;

Psalm 144:9 I will sing a new song to You, O God; Upon a harp of ten strings I will sing praises to You,

Psalm 149:1 Praise the LORD! Sing to the LORD a new song, And His praise in the congregation of the godly ones.

Then there’s Isaiah 42:10 Sing to the LORD a new song, Sing His praise from the end of the earth!

Tue, 09/10/19

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

Where does the Bible teach this idea of “the new song foundation of praiseful attitude that comes with being a believer”?

Wow. Have you not looked at any of the verses in Psalms that mention the “new song”? The specific connection to praise is striking.

Psalm 40:3 He put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God;

Psalm 144:9 I will sing a new song to You, O God; Upon a harp of ten strings I will sing praises to You,

Psalm 149:1 Praise the LORD! Sing to the LORD a new song, And His praise in the congregation of the godly ones.

Then there’s Isaiah 42:10 Sing to the LORD a new song, Sing His praise from the end of the earth!

Of course, I have looked at all of these passages many times. I have been probing to determine exactly how you were coming up with your views. Many people mistakenly believe that Psalm 40:1-3 is a salvation testimony. The “new song” in Ps. 40 is not a record of how God put a “new attitude” of praise into the heart of someone who went from being an unbeliever to being a believer.