I feel like this idea is not biblical though because (1) "everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving" (1 Tim 4:4). Based on this I would say there's nothing inherently sinful about any particular melody or beat or whatever.
Yesterday I read that the tabernacle and the ark had designs that had Egyptian origins/style. But does it matter? No, of course, for everything is the LORD’s.
This discussion is a good example of how these texts are so grossly misapplied. The creatures to which Paul is referring in 1 Timothy 4:4 are those which were created by God Himself (as we see from the preceding verses). The only music of which Scripture speaks approvingly is that which comprises God's worship: the singing of psalms and the playing of instruments in accompaniment. Instruments, however, as typological of, and therefore inferior to, the spiritual praise of the regenerated soul and contrite heart, were restricted to the place of typological worship, the temple. The music being discussed in this thread is not that which has been created by God but by man and therefore, while that does not automatically make it sinful, it cannot all simply be called good. There is a connection here with the regulative principle of worship: the only music permitted is that of a cappella singing of psalms; the only instrument permitted, the human voice. This music and this instrument being both created by God they are the only music and instrument permitted in His worship. Man-made instruments, man-made music and man-made songs are not permitted because they constitute
will-worship, substituting
man's creation for God's.
As for Psalm 24:1, indeed Paul uses this text to defend Christian liberty in the eating of meats. Again, though, we are talking about creatures created by God, not man. The text in question is referring to the Creation, not to that which man has formed. To apply this text in the way it is being applied in this discussion, in a consistent manner, would be to argue that
anything whatsoever found within the world is the Lord's and
therefore to be made use of by Christians. Well sin is within the world but we cannot use sin for our advantage. The Lord is indeed sovereign over all things- good and evil- and
He orders all things for His glory and the good of them that love Him. It is not for us to take that power to ourselves though: the wisdom of man is foolishness, even (often) the wisdom of Christians. The ruinous consequences of the folly of Christians, who thought they could innovate and make use of man's creations for God's glory, are all around us. Therefore when we are talking about the creations of men each must be judged individually whether it be good or bad. And even if it is lawful that does not mean it is expedient.
Dave Mustaine is a Christian too
I remember many persons on this forum arguing Kanye West was a born-again Christian because he released the album
Jesus is King and got very hot and bothered that some of us would dare question such a claim. I wonder how many of those persons still think that way...
"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Matthew 7:20
You're getting as quotable as the Puritans!
I think we know what the Puritans' judgment of rock would music would have been.
God designed our bodies to respond in different ways to different kinds of music. I just utilize the music to improve performance.
The fact our bodies react in certain ways to certain stimuli does not make those reactions lawful. We are fallen creatures and we react to sinful stimuli in sinful ways. "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other" Galatians 5:17. Therefore we certainly cannot judge the lawfulness of something by the way our body reacts to it. As has been said above: even lawful pleasures have been corrupted by the Fall.
Is there no slight correlation between both where there is a cognitive reception of words, although I grant obviously it’s easier to ignore lyrics in a song.
The difference between a novel describing the bad actions of a character, and the lyrics in a song, is that the novel allows for those actions to be condemned, either directly or by the consequences of those actions, and for extensive examination of the behaviour of the characters. Songs, generally, do not have the scope to contain multiple narratives and points of view which would allow the bad actions of a character to be so examined. And it is naïve in the extreme to think that songs which describe bad actions are meant as warnings. One need only listen to any random rock or rap song to realise that these songs
glory in the immorality and depravity of the lyrics and the lifestyles described thereby. And even when one comes across the rare song which describes bad actions with regret or as a warning, this is often undermined by the music accompanying these songs. The music makes these songs
enjoyable to listen to again and again, to learn the lyrics and sing along. And so the warning element is forgotten and the song is listened to purely for its musical and aesthetic qualities, not its moral. At least with a novel there is not the manipulation of music to counter the message the author wishes to convey. (Of course moral teaching in novels can be undermined in other ways, such as giving moral qualities to unlikeable characters and vice versa.)
Furthermore pop, rock, rap songs are not intended to be didactic but are primarily concerned with engaging the emotions; with manipulating emotional and physical responses in the listener. A song is intended to make the listener happy, sad, excited, relaxed, aggressive. This applies to both the music and the lyrics. Literature, on the other hand, is primarily interested in engaging the intellect. It of course does produce emotion in the reader as he digests what he is reading but the emotional response is a rational one whereas with music the emotional response is instinctive, unthinking and even irrational. Often lyrics make no sense but if accompanied with the right music in the right key (making the right sound at the right time) and sung in the right way, can produce a very strong emotional response in the listener that is nothing more than a physiological reaction to stimulus. Therefore even if the lyrics of a song are immoral it can still be aesthetically pleasing to the listener and produce the singer's desired response. And so the listener is inured to the sinfulness of the lyrics and their subject matter and is, instead, taken up with the sensations produced. That is one of the great dangers with music, especially music accompanied by lyrics.
I think it's important to separate the two issues at this point.
(1) The musical style. Paul loves using athletic analogies, and he seems to portray athletic performance in a positive light by the way he makes in an example of our spiritual walks. He does not disparage it as he disparages drunkenness in another analogy. So I think it's fair to take for granted that any musical style that improves athletic performance is good, and the burden of proof is on the one who wants to disparage a particular musical style.
The fact Paul makes use of athletic imagery doesn't mean he is recommending Christians exert a lot of their time and effort in
physical athletics. It's an analogy making use of what was very familiar to the people of those places at that time. There is so much vanity and time-wasting in modern "working out" before we even get to the music. And granting that
limited,
chaste and
circumspect "working out" (if there is such a thing) is lawful that doesn't mean that music must be lawful if it "helps" one perform this task. Ends do not justify means.
