Musical Sounds: Moral or Amoral?

[Winman]

I have always gotten the impression that David's nakedness could be seen. If so, was that sinful? Not necessarily. Look at Isaiah, God commanded him to walk around naked for three years.

Isa 20:2 At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.
3 And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;
4 So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.

I like to think if God spoke to me like he did to Isaiah that I would obey his commands, but boy, this would be a tough order to follow for me.

So, nakedness was very different culturally back in David's day. It was not uncommon. It did not necessarily represent immoral behavior.

What does this have to do with music? Not much, but you cannot use David's dance to condone what is today considered immoral behavior.

I am a musician, which doesn't mean a whole lot, but anybody who says music cannot be sensual and sexual does not know much about music. I have been to concerts where folks got so worked up they were slamming into me. I had a fellow do this about three times to me once, the fourth time I was waiting and gave him an elbow in the face. Amazingly, he moved off quite a distance and never slammed into me again.

 

[Don]

I have always gotten the impression that David's nakedness could be seen. If so, was that sinful? Not necessarily. Look at Isaiah, God commanded him to walk around naked for three years.

Isa 20:2 At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.
3 And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;
4 So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.

I like to think if God spoke to me like he did to Isaiah that I would obey his commands, but boy, this would be a tough order to follow for me.

So, nakedness was very different culturally back in David's day. It was not uncommon. It did not necessarily represent immoral behavior.

If you're implying that it also meant "submissive behavior," such as being in slavery, then I'd agree with you. Otherwise, we'll have to branch off into an entirely different discussion about what constitutes nakedness.

What does this have to do with music? Not much, but you cannot use David's dance to condone what is today considered immoral behavior.

Not using that biblical example as a means to "condone"; using it as an example of, be careful what you condemn or condone.

Do you drink? Some believe that even sipping low-alcoholic wine is sinful, while others say that drinking in moderation isn't sinful. So where is the no-kidding-no-questions-about-it-it's-totally-black-and-white line drawn?

I am a musician, which doesn't mean a whole lot, but anybody who says music cannot be sensual and sexual does not know much about music. I have been to concerts where folks got so worked up they were slamming into me. I had a fellow do this about three times to me once, the fourth time I was waiting and gave him an elbow in the face. Amazingly, he moved off quite a distance and never slammed into me again.

Not sure how body-slamming translates as "sensual and sexual"....

If you meant it as a current example of David's dancing, well, I have to ask: Was the guy dancing unto the Lord?

 

[Luke2427]

They also lit candles, burned incense, offered grain, butchered animals and flung blood around.

The OT was a carnal, temporary parenthesis in God's work of Redemption, full of types and shadows, and not the reality. So when citing the accounts, make certain it's the spiritual application that you're illuminating.

But just for kicks and grins, let's say that the outward appearance of this event applies to NT worship. Are you reading it correctly? Was what David did really immoderate, or are you accepting as true the bitter accusation of an unhappy, unloved wife?

This is utterly ridiculous. It sounds a great deal like Plato's dualism which when it infected the Church created the gnostic idea that the God of the Old Testament was the devil. I know that's not what you believe, but you open the door for it when you treat the Old Testament as less authoritative than the New. It is all the Word of God. Those types Christ fulfilled are no longer in play but we don't say things like this about the Word of God.

The OT was not carnal. There were loads of PEOPLE in the OT period who were carnal (there are loads in the NT too for that matter), but the OT is the Word of God.

Your problem Aaron is that you do not have Bible for your position.

I don't have to define music with bible verses. Nor do I have to define color schemes God approves of with bible verses. Nor do I have to define tastes and smells God approves of.

But before I condemn ANY OF IT- I'd better DARN sure have Bible.

So had you.

 

[Aaron]

This is utterly ridiculous. It sounds a great deal like Plato's dualism which when it infected the Church created the gnostic idea that the God of the Old Testament was the devil. I know that's not what you believe, but you open the door for it when you treat the Old Testament as less authoritative than the New. It is all the Word of God. Those types Christ fulfilled are no longer in play but we don't say things like this about the Word of God.

The OT was not carnal. There were loads of PEOPLE in the OT period who were carnal (there are loads in the NT too for that matter), but the OT is the Word of God.

Word of God, certainly, but a lesser light than the NT, with a lesser prophet, lesser mediator and lesser power. And most of all, it is an administration judgment and death.

Word of God or not, it was given for only a short time, and now it is ended. It has expired. It's been folded up and put away.

The application of OT exhortations are to understood in their spiritual applications, not in their carnal observations.

Your problem Aaron is that you do not have Bible for your position.

Just wondering if you've ever heard of the book of Hebrews?

I don't have to define music with bible verses.

Then neither do I. But the point is that you can't, because the Bible doesn't define music. It assumes you already know what it is. The things I've said about the nature of music are self-evident and easily recognized. The primary flaw in your thinking is that you think of music as an object instead of what it really is—human behavior.

Nor do I have to define color schemes God approves of with bible verses. Nor do I have to define tastes and smells God approves of.

Sez who? Where do you get the idea that you can call anything good without proof? Are you the arbiter of the rules of evidence? To think you don't have to "have Bible" to deem something hallowed and spiritual is arrogant presumption at its best.

 

[Don]

Word of God, certainly, but a lesser light than the NT, with a lesser prophet, lesser mediator and lesser power. And most of all, it is an administration judgment and death.

Word of God or not, it was given for only a short time, and now it is ended. It has expired. It's been folded up and put away.

1) The law, yes, has been put away and is no longer applicable to salvation. The New Testament does reiterate that the ten commandments are still profitable, however.
2) I believe in the context of what we're discussing, you're applying the law towards salvation; whereas, the examples of behavior are not "put aside" (i.e., Proverbs 6 talks about lying; I believe, whether the Old Testament is "carnal" and/or "put away" or not, we can all agree that lying is a sinful behavior).

The application of OT exhortations are to understood in their spiritual applications, not in their carnal observations.

Which is what I believe Luke is saying.

Then neither do I. But the point is that you can't, because the Bible doesn't define music. It assumes you already know what it is. The things I've said about the nature of music are self-evident and easily recognized. The primary flaw in your thinking is that you think of music as an object instead of what it really is—human behavior.

And thus, Luke's argument is valid. What behavior is sinful? If that can be defined, then what musical behavior is sinful should be definable as well.

I may be speaking out of turn, but I think this is what Luke has been getting at all along.

 

[Pastor Larry]

And then, as I have done with Larry, I would point you to the story of when David danced, and his wife rebuked him for it because it was "immoderate behavior," to which he basically told her that she was wrong because he was doing it unto God.

I still intend to respond fully but life is really full right now. But I checked in today to see what I have missed and saw Don repeat this. It was intended to be a part of my response, but I will say it now (and perhaps then as well).

I think those committed to the sufficiency and authority of Scripture should be cautious with the David example because of what the Bible says, or does not say. David is the one who says he is doing it to the Lord. The Bible does not record any agreement from God that God was pleased by it. So we cannot say, on the basis of Scripture, that God was pleased or honored.

We can say, at the very least, that David's actions did damage to the relationship that should have been most important in his life--his wife. She may have been bitter; or perhaps not. She may have misinterpreted; or perhaps not.

But the text (which is what Luke and Don and others keep wanting to focus on) does not say anything about God's approval of this. It is entirely possible that David meant well, but was in fact wrong in his actions.

 

[Aaron]

1) The law, yes, has been put away and is no longer applicable to salvation. The New Testament does reiterate that the ten commandments are still profitable, however.
2) I believe in the context of what we're discussing, you're applying the law towards salvation; whereas, the examples of behavior are not "put aside" (i.e., Proverbs 6 talks about lying; I believe, whether the Old Testament is "carnal" and/or "put away" or not, we can all agree that lying is a sinful behavior).


Which is what I believe Luke is saying.


And thus, Luke's argument is valid. What behavior is sinful? If that can be defined, then what musical behavior is sinful should be definable as well.

I may be speaking out of turn, but I think this is what Luke has been getting at all along.

The OT modes of worship have been put away. They were carnal, Heb. 7:16. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Jhn 4:23-24

So, when one is alluding to the account of David and the return of the ark, assuming that his act was hallowed under the OT, one is not afforded the presumption that his act was hallowed and spiritual and applies directly to NT worship.

The Decalogue is eternal. It was never right to have any other gods, to worship idols, to blaspheme, to forget the Sabbath,* to dishonor parents, murder, philander, steal, lie or covet. The Decalogue is part of creation, and will be valid and in force as long as the world stands.

*The observance of the Sabbath, proves my point. The commandment to observe it still stands, but the mode of its observance has changed.

 

[Luke2427]

]Word of God, certainly, but a lesser light than the NT, with a lesser prophet, lesser mediator and lesser power. And most of all, it is an administration judgment and death.

Most of this is true but it does not change the fact that you literally called the Old Testament CARNAL.

Word of God or not, it was given for only a short time, and now it is ended. It has expired. It's been folded up and put away.

The Old Testament has not been put away. Millions preach from it every Sunday as the WORD OF GOD. Jesus preached from it (see my name sake Luke 24:27) and all the Apostles preached from it.
Apparently in order to support this ludicrous position of yours that you made up willy nilly without any bible you have to undermine the entire Old Testament.
David "dancing before the Lord" is a New Testament concept as well for that matter. When Peter said "Whom seeing not ye rejoice with joy unspeakable..." the word for rejoice means literally to jump or dance for joy.

Just wondering if you've ever heard of the book of Hebrews?

This is not an argument. Be more specific to make a point.

Then neither do I. But the point is that you can't, because the Bible doesn't define music. It assumes you already know what it is. The things I've said about the nature of music are self-evident and easily recognized. The primary flaw in your thinking is that you think of music as an object instead of what it really is—human behavior.

Yes you do. The only alternative is to speak for God where God has not spoken. The problem with you and Larry is not that you are against rock music. Let you in on a little secret- I'm not for it either. The problem with you guys is you think you can condemn what God has not. The implications of this philosophical error are immense. It is this philosophical error above all that the Protestant Reformation rose to combat.

For you to ever say something is morally wrong- you have to have bible for it. What is the alternative? You have yet to answer that question.

Where do you get the idea that you can call anything good without proof?

I can only call things good which God calls good. I can only call things evil which God calls evil. All the calling God has done he did in His word. It is sufficient for men of every age.

Everything that cannot be called good or evil from the Word of God must be treated as amoral. The only alternative to this is "ex cathedra" or speaking for the Almighty where he has not spoken. The fear of God ought to drive you far from such a practice.

 

[Luke2427]

The OT modes of worship have been put away. They were carnal, Heb. 7:16. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Jhn 4:23-24

So, when one is alluding to the account of David and the return of the ark, assuming that his act was hallowed under the OT, one is not afforded the presumption that his act was hallowed and spiritual and applies directly to NT worship.

The Decalogue is eternal. It was never right to have any other gods, to worship idols, to blaspheme, to forget the Sabbath,* to dishonor parents, murder, philander, steal, lie or covet. The Decalogue is part of creation, and will be valid and in force as long as the world stands.

*The observance of the Sabbath, proves my point. The commandment to observe it still stands, but the mode of its observance has changed.

There goes the book of Psalms!

 

[Aaron]

Most of this is true but it does not change the fact that . . . blah blah blah . . .

Whatever.

Until you can define music and defend that definition, there's point in going any further with you.

 

[Don]

I still intend to respond fully but life is really full right now.

Completely understood. Take care of business; this internet stuff plays second or third fiddle to the real world.

But I checked in today to see what I have missed and saw Don repeat this. It was intended to be a part of my response, but I will say it now (and perhaps then as well).

I think those committed to the sufficiency and authority of Scripture should be cautious with the David example because of what the Bible says, or does not say. David is the one who says he is doing it to the Lord. The Bible does not record any agreement from God that God was pleased by it. So we cannot say, on the basis of Scripture, that God was pleased or honored.

I disagree. When, in the life of David, did God not make it clear that something David did displeased him?

We can say, at the very least, that David's actions did damage to the relationship that should have been most important in his life--his wife. She may have been bitter; or perhaps not. She may have misinterpreted; or perhaps not.

But the text (which is what Luke and Don and others keep wanting to focus on) does not say anything about God's approval of this. It is entirely possible that David meant well, but was in fact wrong in his actions.

I may not be as learned as you or Aaron; but where can we point to in Scripture that David did something that displeased the Lord, and the Lord didn't point it out to him in some way? From the census to Bathsheba, and oh-so-many-others, is there one point where David displeased God, but God just let it slide?

You may look at the passage and say that it was possible David was wrong; I look at the passage, and the rest of the story of David, and say that you're reaching for straws.

 

[Don]

The OT modes of worship have been put away. They were carnal, Heb. 7:16. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Jhn 4:23-24

So, when one is alluding to the account of David and the return of the ark, assuming that his act was hallowed under the OT, one is not afforded the presumption that his act was hallowed and spiritual and applies directly to NT worship.

If that's a presumption that somewhere in the NT, we find that David was less than spiritual, I'll need you to point out where that is. Otherwise, I point out that he's counted among the others of faith.

The Decalogue is eternal. It was never right to have any other gods, to worship idols, to blaspheme, to forget the Sabbath,* to dishonor parents, murder, philander, steal, lie or covet. The Decalogue is part of creation, and will be valid and in force as long as the world stands.

*The observance of the Sabbath, proves my point. The commandment to observe it still stands, but the mode of its observance has changed.

If there is *any* scripture or scriptural principle in the New Testament that applies to what kind of music is right/proper/decent, then it should be readily apparent and available.

I offer to you:
2 Timothy 2:22 - Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

And

Philippians 4:8 - Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things.

And

1 Corinthians 14:40 - Let all things be done decently and in order.

Now, the Strong's defines the word that's used in the KJV as "decently," "in a seemly manner," or "honestly."

If a song is offered up out of pure heart (honestly), praising our Lord - what principle determines that it's the wrong "type" of music?

We could go back to Larry's argument about "genres"...but as has been pointed out, and was actually pointed out in a couple of Aaron's musical behavior citations, culture plays a factor in what's considered "pure" and "praise-worthy" music.

To which I return to my previous post regarding Romans 14: He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

So yeah, we might disagree on where to draw the line; but that disagreement is *exactly* what the author of Romans is talking about in that passage.

 

[Luke2427]

Whatever.

Until you can define music and defend that definition, there's point in going any further with you.

Aaron, you have posted yet another smart alec short post because your position is indefensible.

I do think you should probably stop posting since you are not debating and this is a debate site- you're just drive-by posting.

 

[DHK]

The OT modes of worship have been put away. They were carnal, Heb. 7:16.

Hebrews 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
--Two different modes of priesthood are being contrasted. The verse is being used out of context. It says nothing of music, or nothing of music used in worship. It isn't even speaking of worship, but of two different priesthoods: the Melchizedek and (vs. 17 and the Levitical vs. 11).

So, when one is alluding to the account of David and the return of the ark, assuming that his act was hallowed under the OT, one is not afforded the presumption that his act was hallowed and spiritual and applies directly to NT worship.

If you are speaking of David bringing back the ark and dancing before it, we have no comparable events today. This started with an act of war when the ark was lost. Now the ark is being returned. Dancing with joy was found in the OT in times of war.
Most of the Psalms however, are prayers to God, if not songs to God and cannot be discounted as music. In the country that I serve in (not Canada) the Book of Psalms are the major source of music or singing. They may spend a half hour or more singing and 90% or more of that is often from the Book of Psalms accompanied by some simple instruments.

The Decalogue is eternal. It was never right to have any other gods, to worship idols, to blaspheme, to forget the Sabbath,* to dishonor parents, murder, philander, steal, lie or covet. The Decalogue is part of creation, and will be valid and in force as long as the world stands.

In a sense music is eternal also. It certainly is in heaven. And it was long before the Decalogue ever came into existence--only seven generations away from Adam.
Music was never wrong. Only the misuse of it was wrong. God allows music in heaven.

 

[Pastor Larry]

When, in the life of David, did God not make it clear that something David did displeased him?

Two quick things:

1. Think of the assumptions that go into this. You are assuming that every time David was wrong, that God says so explicitly. And if you say that David was wrong only when God explicitly said he was wrong, then you win by definition. But I would not say that. I don't think either the Scriptures or the genre of historical narrative would support that (see #2). Again, I think this is the crux of the whole thread. You are unwilling to pass judgment unless you have explicit statements from God. I don't think Scripture limits us to that. In historical narrative, Scripture does not often make explicit moral statements about the actions of people in historical narratives. It often leaves us guessing as to whether they were right or wrong or both.

Think of a couple of examples off the top of my head: David married many wives, something never directly condemned by God that I recall, and yet was clearly against the OT Law. It was wrong. (BTW, I think this was poo-pooed when I brought it up earlier and I haven't had a chance to respond to it yet.) David never punished his son Absalom as God commands fathers, but rather let his misbehavior go, with the result that much trouble resulted. I could probably point to a number of others cases where I think David's actions could be called into question. Nabal and Shemei come to mind, but I would have to review the stories.

2. Following up on that point, you are expecting something out of historical narrative that historical narrative doesn't offer. Very rarely does historical narrative comment on the rightness or wrongness of a person's actions.

You may look at the passage and say that it was possible David was wrong; I look at the passage, and the rest of the story of David, and say that you're reaching for straws.

Which is fine. My point is that the passage doesn't say that God was pleased by it. That's all. So if, as you and Luke insist, that we focus only on what Scripture says, this example gets thrown out of evidence.

 

[Luke2427]

Two quick things:

1. Think of the assumptions that go into this. You are assuming that every time David was wrong, that God says so explicitly. And if you say that David was wrong only when God explicitly said he was wrong, then you win by definition. But I would not say that. I don't think either the Scriptures or the genre of historical narrative would support that (see #2). Again, I think this is the crux of the whole thread. You are unwilling to pass judgment unless you have explicit statements from God. I don't think Scripture limits us to that. In historical narrative, Scripture does not often make explicit moral statements about the actions of people in historical narratives. It often leaves us guessing as to whether they were right or wrong or both.

Think of a couple of examples off the top of my head: David married many wives, something never directly condemned by God that I recall, and yet was clearly against the OT Law. It was wrong. (BTW, I think this was poo-pooed when I brought it up earlier and I haven't had a chance to respond to it yet.) David never punished his son Absalom as God commands fathers, but rather let his misbehavior go, with the result that much trouble resulted. I could probably point to a number of others cases where I think David's actions could be called into question. Nabal and Shemei come to mind, but I would have to review the stories.

2. Following up on that point, you are expecting something out of historical narrative that historical narrative doesn't offer. Very rarely does historical narrative comment on the rightness or wrongness of a person's actions.

Which is fine. My point is that the passage doesn't say that God was pleased by it. That's all. So if, as you and Luke insist, that we focus only on what Scripture says, this example gets thrown out of evidence.

I actually agree with you on this Larry. The Bible does not either condemn or condone David's dancing here. But since Peter did say that there were some persecuted Christians who were dancing for joy we can come to the conclusion that dancing in some instances is OK.

But what you guys have done, including Don, is get off topic.

The point is that you and Aaron do not have any Bible for your position. When you are so flippant about the sufficiency of Scripture you infect the body of Christ with a cancer that will kill it in time.

I do not like Rock music. I do not personally think it is very appropriate in most if not all worship atmospheres. But what I will not do is condemn it without Bible. You can- I don't understand how.

My honest feelings about this is that if you cannot make a better case for certain types of music being immoral and you preach it any way- I think you ought to take a break from the ministry; get some schooling and come back when you believe that you must have clear principles from the Bible to preach things.

 

[Don]

Two quick things:

1. Think of the assumptions that go into this. You are assuming that every time David was wrong, that God says so explicitly. And if you say that David was wrong only when God explicitly said he was wrong, then you win by definition. But I would not say that. I don't think either the Scriptures or the genre of historical narrative would support that (see #2). Again, I think this is the crux of the whole thread. You are unwilling to pass judgment unless you have explicit statements from God. I don't think Scripture limits us to that. In historical narrative, Scripture does not often make explicit moral statements about the actions of people in historical narratives. It often leaves us guessing as to whether they were right or wrong or both.

Think of a couple of examples off the top of my head: David married many wives, something never directly condemned by God that I recall, and yet was clearly against the OT Law. It was wrong. (BTW, I think this was poo-pooed when I brought it up earlier and I haven't had a chance to respond to it yet.) David never punished his son Absalom as God commands fathers, but rather let his misbehavior go, with the result that much trouble resulted. I could probably point to a number of others cases where I think David's actions could be called into question. Nabal and Shemei come to mind, but I would have to review the stories.

2. Following up on that point, you are expecting something out of historical narrative that historical narrative doesn't offer. Very rarely does historical narrative comment on the rightness or wrongness of a person's actions.

Which is fine. My point is that the passage doesn't say that God was pleased by it. That's all. So if, as you and Luke insist, that we focus only on what Scripture says, this example gets thrown out of evidence.

Doesn't scripture indicate to us that every time David went against the Lord, he suffered for it? You don't have to look for a laundry list to get an "explicit" message; you have only to look at how God used circumstances and people.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Doesn't scripture indicate to us that every time David went against the Lord, he suffered for it? You don't have to look for a laundry list to get an "explicit" message; you have only to look at how God used circumstances and people.

That's the assumption I don't think we should make because it isn't evident.

 

[Aaron]

Aaron, you have posted yet another smart alec short post because your position is indefensible.

I do think you should probably stop posting since you are not debating and this is a debate site- you're just drive-by posting.

Define music. That's a simple enough request.

 

[Aaron]

Hebrews 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
--Two different modes of priesthood are being contrasted.

What is worship without a priesthood? And what is a priesthood without its rites? If the priesthood is temporary, then so are the rites that formulate its mode of worship. If the commandment that created the priesthood was carnal, then so is the priesthood and the rites thereof.

The verse is being used out of context. It says nothing of music, or nothing of music used in worship.

I didn't say it did. I cited it to show that the OT is not the model of NT worship.

It isn't even speaking of worship, but of two different priesthoods: the Melchizedek and (vs. 17 and the Levitical vs. 11).

Again, there is no worship without a priesthood.

If you are speaking of David bringing back the ark and dancing before it, we have no comparable events today. This started with an act of war when the ark was lost. Now the ark is being returned. Dancing with joy was found in the OT in times of war.

To whom is this addressed? If it's to me . . . is this a model of NT worship?

Most of the Psalms however, are prayers to God, if not songs to God and cannot be discounted as music. In the country that I serve in (not Canada) the Book of Psalms are the major source of music or singing. They may spend a half hour or more singing and 90% or more of that is often from the Book of Psalms accompanied by some simple instruments.

And . . . ?

In a sense music is eternal also. It certainly is in heaven. And it was long before the Decalogue ever came into existence--only seven generations away from Adam.

The laws of the Decalogue were in effect from the moment of creation. Was it right for Cain to kill Abel?

Music was never wrong. Only the misuse of it was wrong. God allows music in heaven.

Again, who on God's green earth are you talking to? Did anyone say music was wrong?